- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and help to keep the site free for all
Right to buy in Scotland Abolished
- Thread starter SFTPhotography
- Start date
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
So do I . It levels the playing field.
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why? It gives people the chance to attain home ownership and regards hard work and self improvement
- Messages
- 17,208
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm torn, I live in an ex council house that was bought by my parents. They worked all their lives but could never have afforded to buy a house of their own if not for the right to buy and I have benefited from that purchase enormously. On the other hand I realise that lack of housing stock is now causing real problems for councils and lack of revenue from rents means less to spend on other things.
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
...and reduces the amount of social housing available to those that actually need it. This wouldn't be a problem if the money from the sale of council homes had gone into providing more and perhaps there is an argument to say that in Scotland, the space is available to do that, lower population levels [unlike London, where space is at a premium and social housing stock has been slashed by right to buy] but I am guessing that in the main it probably wasn't [not just in Scotland, but everywhere] so now the price has to be paid by stopping the Right to Buy. in principal it was great idea and I know plenty of people that got on the housing ladder thanks to Right to Buy, but unless that housing stock is replaced, as population numbers increase, it was always going to cause a problem eventually.
Brendan Mulachy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,139
- Name
- dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i think its a great idea,council houses should be there to provide affordable housing for normal working class people not to allow some to make a fast buck
god knows how people in lower paid jobs can afford somewhere to live in places like London
god knows how people in lower paid jobs can afford somewhere to live in places like London
Cartus
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,874
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
One of the worst things to happen in this country in recent times IMO.
I don't think any other factor has accelerated the gap in wealth distribution more than 'right to buy'.
If I were Scottish I would see this as a positive move.
Thanks Maggie
I don't think any other factor has accelerated the gap in wealth distribution more than 'right to buy'.
If I were Scottish I would see this as a positive move.
Thanks Maggie
- Messages
- 12,939
- Edit My Images
- No
Because the right to buy was conceived by Thatcher (that on it's own is reason enough to hate it). I was brought up on a 'Council Scheme' and only moved our from my parents when I could afford a flat on my own by working my @rse off. Council housing should be for those who genuinely can't afford to buy their own and not as a cheap alternative to getting onto the housing ladder.
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A blinkered view. I am a Tory/UKIP sort, so I would say I loved it without question.
The right to buy empowered a lot of people who wouldn't often get the chance to buy their home to have that chance, and leave a meanigful legacy to their children. It encouraged, in my view, real social empowerment to the hard working classes to become asset holders rather than mere tennents.
munch
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,879
- Edit My Images
- No
That's one view, others felt/feel that council housing should be for those who "couldn't afford" to buy there own homes, so at least they had a roof over their heads.
The fact that they were sold well under the market value also annoyed a lot of people who had scrimped & saved (and still were) to buy their homes the "conventional way"
The fact that they were sold well under the market value also annoyed a lot of people who had scrimped & saved (and still were) to buy their homes the "conventional way"
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Doesn't the council make money off right to buy, which could be used to build new homes and give people something to aspire to.
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Everything has a price.
Thats the fault, market value should apply, but given the tennents may buy the house several times over during its life, is it not fairer on them to be able to buy it and leave it to their children.
I feel, with all the land reform empowering rural farmers to get land off the land owners, this goes in the face of this.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They're pulling down a lot of old housing here but there's quite a bit of development.
It's the inconsistency. A working person can't buy the home off the council but a landlord of a private estate may be forced to sell to the working person on their estate under potential land reform rules
Cartus
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,874
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the problem is a long term one and is a bit like the privatisation of Royal Mail or any state owned company. They are assets which belong to the country and whose function is to provide benefit to the countries citizens not to yield a profit to shareholders.
I think you have a point Steve in that the (1.5 million to date) tenants have been empowered with home ownership and have cash to spend and to inject into the economy. Back in the early 80's the beneficiaries of the policy thought it was great and we saw the birth of 'loadsamoney' and all his newly rich mates. It seemed great (to some) at the time as we had endured a long period of material austerity through the seventies and suddenly there was lots of cash about.
We are now beginning to feel the effect of 'right to buy' now, thirty five years on, i.e one generation really: unaffordable housing, the market is only kept functioning because of artificially low interest rates. I have two young adult children still in education. Despite their attending university and working hard what chance do they have of living in a reasonable house that they can call their own? I feel it's a much smaller chance than I have had and for that I would blame 'rtb' for that as well as many other problems we have in the UK today.
Once we've sold the 'family silver' what do we do then? Look to China to buy our houses or build them for us?
I think you have a point Steve in that the (1.5 million to date) tenants have been empowered with home ownership and have cash to spend and to inject into the economy. Back in the early 80's the beneficiaries of the policy thought it was great and we saw the birth of 'loadsamoney' and all his newly rich mates. It seemed great (to some) at the time as we had endured a long period of material austerity through the seventies and suddenly there was lots of cash about.
We are now beginning to feel the effect of 'right to buy' now, thirty five years on, i.e one generation really: unaffordable housing, the market is only kept functioning because of artificially low interest rates. I have two young adult children still in education. Despite their attending university and working hard what chance do they have of living in a reasonable house that they can call their own? I feel it's a much smaller chance than I have had and for that I would blame 'rtb' for that as well as many other problems we have in the UK today.
Once we've sold the 'family silver' what do we do then? Look to China to buy our houses or build them for us?
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The only area where right to buy fell down on though was that they didn't build more houses for new occupants given the rise in population but it's the one true social empowerment of the poorer classes-a chance to own your home, land and pass that to your children
House prices have soared, I agree bit tyTs because people simply expect more for their older house than when it was newer - a flawed idea IMHO
House prices have soared, I agree bit tyTs because people simply expect more for their older house than when it was newer - a flawed idea IMHO
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep. Our economy is based on peoples arrogant and selfish assumption that the value of their property will always rise. Why should it. Afterall houses get older and need more work done as they get on or just get tired. They should depreciate if anything, like cars, camera's.Did you really just write that, seriously?
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
you know, if anyone else stated that, I would swear blind they were trolling, but with you Steve..... I think some discussions are easier left to someone else.
Why should property prices go up? It's like anything that's an asset, stocks/shares cars etc. why should they go up in value when it's still the same asset or in worse condition as it gets older ?
Unless improvements are made to the property I don't see why it should and people base their finances, hopes and dreams their house will be worth a lot more than when they bought it?
I'm not being rude, and not trolling but neither you or anyone else here has addressed the points I made?
The housing market for the bulk of people's quality of life needs to take a big drop if housing vas accommodation is to ever become affordable and people on modest incomes own their house comfortably with an ok quality of life-if rates go up, people will be priced out of their homes due to the inflated price they've had to pay for it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Supply and demand Steve
They don't build houses at the same rate as cars or camera's.
But I do kinda see where you are coming from,
I've lived in / owned the same house for many years.
The value is now back up to pre recession price,
and I certainly couldn't afford to buy it
There is masses of new housing being built. A lot unsold too- due to stupid high prices for some hardboard and render
Where are all the people living in just now that need these new houses , presumably they are not homeless so have a roof on their head so I'm not sure re supply demand to be fair.
munch
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,879
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not an arrogant and selfish assumption, it what has happened. Too a point I actually agree property shouldn't rise like it has, but it is what the banks and us (the collective us) allowed too happen. The fact I have benefited from this, doesn't make me or millions of others like me either arrogant or selfish. I would actually prefer to have my parents alive, than have the money we got for selling their house.
The other thing that makes that statement silly is that How is my daughter and thousands like her going to be able to afford to buy their own house? (even with money from my parents estate, it will be a struggle)
The other thing that makes that statement silly is that How is my daughter and thousands like her going to be able to afford to buy their own house? (even with money from my parents estate, it will be a struggle)
Cartus
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,874
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Houses are no different than any other commodity or service in that they are subject to supply and demand. Houses where I live are still worth less now than they were six years ago.
Surely by inflating demand by rtb has contributed to the problem? You have 1.5 million more families buying and selling houses and population and subsequently demand has increased whilst the supply of houses has remained less mobile.
It's always supply and demand and there are too many people with a vested interest ie Cameron and his mates, to have it any other way.
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
There is a lot being built around here too, (Milton Keynes that's way down souff to you
) ) and its still rapidly expanding.I agree the build quality has deteriorated, from good old bricks and mortar (somewhat)
to fibre board and wood, all in the name of "greener housing"
but they always sell.
In fact, apparently, they have people queueing up, to buy "off plan"
as as soon as the estates are completed, the house prices rise dramatically.
Right or wrong, that's the way to cookie crumbles as they say.
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Steve - you do realise the property prices DO go down, there have been periods of recession in the last 30 years when many, many people lost their homes due to increasing interest rates that left them unable to pay mortgages, whilst others were stuck unable to even downsize or move anywhere because of the negative equity of their home which had devalued significantly over its original purchase price. I totally agree, the current rapid rise of house prices IS ridiculous, and I even say that as someone that is probably about to benefit hugely from that - put it this way, we sure as hell couldn't afford to buy the house we live in if we didn't already own it. However, this house was bought in the early 60's my late in-laws and even by the early 80's, pa-in-law was already saying pretty much the same thing about it. Which is kind of the point I am coming to and to address your initial statement - unlike cars and cameras, which are ultimately disposable goods - houses are not, houses can and do last tens and hundreds of years. To take your statement literally, those pretty little thatched cottages I find so appealing, build circa 1750, should probably cost me about £10 to buy.
Sadly that isn't quite how the economy works and if it did, my salary would probably be 2 shillings a week so whilst it is hugely frustrating that there is an ever widening gap between property ownership and the have-nots that like you, I feel needs to be addressed, I do also appreciate that it is all tied into a whole plethora of other factors and very little to do with the individual man that owns his own house and needs to be addressed on a political and economic level.
Sadly that isn't quite how the economy works and if it did, my salary would probably be 2 shillings a week so whilst it is hugely frustrating that there is an ever widening gap between property ownership and the have-nots that like you, I feel needs to be addressed, I do also appreciate that it is all tied into a whole plethora of other factors and very little to do with the individual man that owns his own house and needs to be addressed on a political and economic level.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
People were priced out of their homes, not due to rising prices, but rising rates meaning the repayment was too much for them.
I'd argue if the prices were lower when people bought these houses, the rising rates wouldn't have had that effect.
Houses can last, but older ones need repairs (much like old cars) and older houses (I have one) need upkeep that makes your eyes water. You'd have to be mad to get one, or really like older houses and appreciate the architecture. Just because the house lasts, means just that, its the same house as it was then as it is now. Why, other than RPI, accounting for inlfation should it be worth so much more?
munch
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,879
- Edit My Images
- No
Whilst I do agree with you ST4 house shouldn't rise by the rate they do. That horse has now, well a truly bolted, Not even in the next field and several miles from the stable. We are where we are. But I still think your comment about people being arrogant & selfish was well off the mark.
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lots of reasons, not all of them palatable, but as Chris has said, supply and demand is a huge part of it and in areas where the work is - I imagine your house in Scotland would cost significantly less than exactly the same house in a London suburb simply because of the demand for housing being far higher. Not saying I agree that should be the case, but it is as Munch says, where we are. Yes, an older house may require more maintenance but in percentage terms, unless its had previous very poor maintenance, I doubt that factors against cost of buying/selling in any significant way unless you really do own a 600 year year old castle or similarly large country pile [and even then, the percentages against value are probably only a little higher]
Moadib
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,062
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I smiled at this, and the reactions. As you allude to, in the UK it's heresy to suggest house prices shouldn't always go up. In Japan they don't - you build a house, it depreciates and loses value for 25 years or so, then it gets knocked down and a new one built based upon the most updated technology (energy efficiency etc). The LAND goes up in value, but the construction is just (rightly) a depreciating asset. Our houses are indeed very poor quality when you compare to Germany for example - simply because we accept it. If it's going to go up in value, why worry - we just assume we can punt it on.
It's in fact quite a bizarre notion that we should hope that the biggest things we buy will go up in value - imagine if we hoped cameras always went up in price? My D-700 is now worth £5,000, great! Trouble is the D3s I had my heart set on is now £10,000. Strange notion.
On the right to buy, I agree with the assertion that the purpose of council housing is to help house society and give people a start - not allow people to profit. So by all means have a right to buy, but (1) the sale should be at the appropriate market value, (2) the money to go into new housing, (3) monetary policy to stop housing bubbles (as opposed to encouraging it, like now), and (4) accumulation of assets to be discouraged - by that I mean the more homes you own, the higher tax (income, council, rates, whatever) you pay on each subsequent home. The right level would need to be found, but you want to encourage ownership, not landlordism.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fair enough, greedy private land lords using DHSS money as a guaranteed rental income and betting on the sure fire property price wise created a huge surge in the buy to let market, making many (almost) affordable homes, completely unaffordable. It's a thing that annoys me and I am not a lefty. The poor need houses to buy too, not just wealthy pensioners who already have a decent house.
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What other things do we buy that generally increase in value? You could perhaps think about gold or precious stones, but they can fluctuate much more than houses. Cars - rarely unless you are buying something very unusual and already hugely expensive and beyond 'average' affordability. Antiques... maybe, again, can be subject to massive fluctuations depending on both the economy and fashion. Yes, we live in a society where buying property is considered an investment, and whilst I totally agree that modern building standards could be considerably better for something we expect to be standing for somewhat longer than the Japanese 25 year model, it's a model you would struggle to apply here with our architectural heritage [although frankly, there are plenty of eyesore buildings around that should be put out of their misery as far as I am concerned
]. I am also old enough to think that unless you are buying property as a long term investment, then 'expecting' it to increase can be a very risky road to walk along but does explain why it is one of the very few things we buy that we can hope will increase in value - the problem is keeping those increases to a reasonable level, not as we are seeing at the moment. I first started looking at properties in the area we hope to move to about 6 mths ago, some of the properties that were for sale then are appearing again in searches, with a new agent and often with a price increase of about 15% - this is in a rural area with fairly low population numbers and limited employment opportunities [compared to where we are now] which tells you all you need to know about housing bubbles. I do pretty much agree with your points about right to buy, they make huge sense. I don't so much mind a small discount from market value, or some sort of financial help as a first time buyer, but no where near enough money from RtB has been sunk into replacing those properties and housing bubbles happen too often.