The UK government has suggested introducing a discount of £50,000 for people living in a home rented from social housing organisations, should they decide that they want to buy their home. This would mean the average price of a flat falling from £90,000 to £40,000. This should be of benefit to working people, giving them the chance of owning their own homes.
Did they suggest where the money would come from? Perhaps from the people already struggling to buy their own home at 90,000 and having a tough go of it?
Or will they join the rest of the Europeans living off the largess of other countries bailing them out after supplying their citizens more than they can afford?
Even if this were intoduced, the majority of people would not qualify for a mortgage, as only 16% of those in council housing are in full-time employment, so it would only be available to a few working people. And they will have needed to have lived in their current home for at least five years, meaning they will have already paid thousands in rent.
If that is the typical answer from the government, it is no wonder that Europe has given away their economies to the poor.
Because there are only thousands instead of millions that would receive the gift of 1/2 a home doesn't mean it's free. Already having paid thousands in rent (while requiring maintenance from the landlord) doesn't mean the gift is free. It still costs, and apparently I was correct, those monies will be taken from those already struggling to purchase their home at full price, without handouts.
A great deal of America's economic woes come from just this attitude - the government can and should provide everything the poor want but can't earn - all while putting more and more burden on the backs of the workers and earners in the country.
Well, perhaps enough people prefer their tax dollars be spent to directly help lower class working people than for funding wars or propping up corporations. If they don't, then they can vote out those who proposed this horrible (apparently, to you) program.
Yes, the people who benefit from this idea will be the working poor, as the unemployed would not be able to get a mortgage. These are people who work full-time, but whose salary isn't enough to be able to afford a home of their own. In addition, the government has said that for every home sold, a new one would have to be built for rent, thus re-starting the building industry. Very often whole generations have lived in social housing, without a chance of getting onto the property ladder. Anything which offers them the chance, I think is a good thing.
Oh, it sounds wonderful. People DO need help sometimes, and it always nice to help them out.
On the other hand, more than a few governments have gone so far down that road that they are virtually bankrupt. As the give-away programs continue to increase (and they always do) the funding comes more and more from the taxpayers of those countries.
Regardless of what we would like to see (everyone in a 3000 sq ft home, driving a beautiful SUV and with a 60" flat screen in the spacious living room) the country can't support it. There isn't enough money to do it.
Socialism like this sounds great, but it never works. The longer it continues to grow the fewer people there are to do the actual work - the rest sit at home in comfort, gathering the fruits of others work. It will always fall apart in the long run.
Muldania comments that whole generations have lived in housing subsidized by someone else with no chance at the property ladder. I agree, but ONLY because they won't try, won't work at it, expect and demand great housing from the beginning. My parents, I and now my son have started life in miserable shacks. We fix them up, sell them for a profit and buy something better to repeat the process. People today won't do that - they want a mansion from the start that they don't have to fix up. It takes work - all of us have worked our 40 hours, then 4 or 5 more at night for years, just to get a nice home. Others can do this, but they won't - the government then takes the cost of their home from someone else and supplies the home without the effort.
Ah, the "I worked hard to get what I have so obviously those who don't have what I have either don't try or don't work hard" argument.
So tiresome. Heard it a few hundred times. Not going there. I merely stated a fact, that if you prefer to vote for those who promote different ways to spend your tax dollars, then do it. I suspect this program devours a tiny sliver of the government pie compared to corporate subsidies and invading and occupying other countries, but hey, let's waste our energy complaining about helping our working friends and neighbors.
Wow! More incentives to live on your neighbors pay check!
It's almost like Europe is TRYING to go broke!
Hmmm, don't teachers live off their neighbor's paycheck, or am I missing something?
The right to buy council homes (properties owned by local authority councils) was introduced during Thatcher's government so it's really nothing new. The amount of the discount depends on a lot of factors - £50K is the maximum, not the norm.
It actually saves the government money to sell their properties off as then they don't have the responsibility of paying for the upkeep of the properties as they do when they are rented.
But the property isn't owned by the government!
These days it's hardly owned by the local authorities either being mostly owned by profit making housing associations.
The people who pay the most are those in need of social housing but can't get it because the stock has been sold off at a discount.
It's a tawdry vote buying exercise that should not be allowed.
If occupants of social housing find themselves in the position where they can afford to buy,let them buy in the private sector where they will already get lots of financial help in the form of tax allowances.
This would also give the economy a real leg up rather than just a rearrangement of public sector money to the private sector.
The difference with the government's proposals, is that they will make it law, that for every home sold, one will have to be built for rent to replace it. Thus, the number of social housing homes will not fall, like they did under the previous scheme brought in by Margaret Thatcher. This will also create jobs in the building industry.
As for those who live in social housing who can afford to buy their homes. The point is that they would not be able to afford to do so, until the £50,000 discount is brought in, so opting to buy in the private sector is not possible. Personally I believe everyone should be entitled to own their own home, not just the rich.
Then why not apply the discount to every home buyer, not just those lucky enough to qualify for social housing?
Would that be fair? If a millionaire footballer, just for instance were to be looking to buy a two million pound house, should he be entitled to the discount? And in the private sector, it is worth remembering that you are buying your home from another home owner, who would have paid the full asking price for their home. To short-change them would not be fair either.
Council houses on-the-other-hand have been more than paid for over the years. My great grandmother had lived in the same council house since the 1920s, paying rent all that time, even after she retired at the age of 89. The money she paid would have bought that house many times over. Should she then have been expected to pay the full asking price, should she have wanted to buy it?
If it had been a privately owned house then yes she would have been expected to pay the full price.
If a footballer were to get a £50,000 discount off a £2 million house, then he would hardly notice would he?
That is exactly my point, so I would have to disagree with your suggestion that the 50,000 discount should be given to everyone. And in answer to your question, yes, I believe the discount should only be given to those who are lucky enough to be poor. I know this is a hard concept for many people to grasp, because we are used to the breaks being given to the rich. Whilst this may be the accepted way things are done, I think it lacks a sense of fairness and social justice. It is time for those at the bottom of the pile to be given a helping hand. After all the present government has spent its time in power taking from the poor. This 50,000 discount is the first thing that might actually help the poor.
To claim that "living in your own home" is some how beneficial to people is to not understand that home ownership is not necessarily a good thing. It is an investment, and any investment can lose value very quickly.
by karl2 years ago
It seems the rise of the political right in the European elections has started the lefty leaners to question their ability to continue to fool most of the people most of the...
by logic,commonsense6 years ago
Running off to Illinois, the Dems in the Wisconsin state legislature were too cowardly to face a vote that they knew they would lose. Tremendous statesmen these cowards are! If they had a better idea why...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
Over a decade ago we decided that the poor should be able to have a house whether they could afford it or not. The end result of that decision was the recession that spread world wide and caused immense damage to...
by Barefootfae3 years ago
Good old Barney. Don't miss him.....
by Thomas Byers4 years ago
How Important Is Made In America To You?Years ago before NAFTA and all the American textile jobs being sent over seas there were ongoing campaigns about, " Made In The USA". Now whole cities in the American...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.