Carryfast:
Great.So you’ll have no problems with an answer to the question would you still buy into the scam ‘if’ it was subject to a ‘permanent’ re sale only at original purchase price condition ?
That’s a pointless question coz that was never going to happen. And even if it did, this would be even worse as it would pass the discount on to someone who the scheme was designed to exclude. I bet if a £100k house was on the market for £80k the buy to let sharks would be all over it.
As it stand buys to let is banned for this scheme. Resale at full market value is also banned for a 5 year period. Sell the house and you pay back the discount.
Terry T:
Carryfast:
Great.So you’ll have no problems with an answer to the question would you still buy into the scam ‘if’ it was subject to a ‘permanent’ re sale only at original purchase price condition ?
That’s a pointless question coz that was never going to happen. And even if it did, this would be even worse as it would pass the discount on to someone who the scheme was designed to exclude. I bet if a £100k house was on the market for £80k the buy to let sharks would be all over it.
As it stand buys to let is banned for this scheme. Resale at full market value is also banned for a 5 year period. Sell the house and you pay back the discount.
In which case what suddenly and conveniently changes at the 5 year mark ?.While there’s no need to change the conditions under which the place was first bought.IE no resale at a profit and can only be re sold to first time buyers under 40.That would obviously remove your objection to such a condition. 
In which case would you still be in or out.
im subsisdising this as well as but hey ho that ok you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ … -the-lords?
Carryfast:
In which case would you still be in or out.
Of course I would be in. Let’s say I bought a £100k house for £80k and sold it 10 years later to a first time buyer for £80k (not adjusting for inflation). OK, so I’ve made no profit on the sale of the house but for 10 years I’ve lived in a house which, under normal circumstances, I couldn’t afford. It’s a bit like buying a Ford but getting a BMW. Even if you sell it for Ford prices you still had the BMW for all those years.
Nothing conveniently changes after 5 years. But that’s just another barrier put in place to stop the wrong kind of buyer snapping them up for a quick profit.
Terry T:
Carryfast:
In which case would you still be in or out.
Of course I would be in. Let’s say I bought a £100k house for £80k and sold it 10 years later to a first time buyer for £80k (not adjusting for inflation). OK, so I’ve made no profit on the sale of the house but for 10 years I’ve lived in a house which, under normal circumstances, I couldn’t afford. It’s a bit like buying a Ford but getting a BMW. Even if you sell it for Ford prices you still had the BMW for all those years.
Nothing conveniently changes after 5 years. But that’s just another barrier put in place to stop the wrong kind of buyer snapping them up for a quick profit.
Something certainly does ‘change’ after 5 years as it stands because the condition is removed then the place can obviously be flogged off at a profit to anyone.Which isn’t surprising being that is generally the definition of the housing ‘ladder’.IE a cheap first time buy that is flogged off later at a big profit with the intention of what is effectively a subsidised upgrade at the new buyer’s expense.
While not withstanding your at least more credible idea that you’d still be in even if that potential profit motive was removed in the form of a permanent no resale at a profit condition.The analogy as it stands is actually more like a 20% state funded subsidy for a chosen few car buyers on a conditional car buy scheme/scam dependent on age and fixed choice of small car.
The difference in this case being that the car market isn’t like the housing market in that there is no such thing as a so called car buying ‘ladder’ ( unless ) you’re talking about the high end classic car market.The irony being the use of the excuse of ‘affordability’. By those who are really just wanting to get on the speculation gravy train and looking for a state funded built in profit margin.Just as Thatcher’s sell off of social housing stock was. 
On that note making the no profit re sale condition permanent and keeping the same terms of sale would obviously at least make the idea a bit more credible from the point of view of it supposedly being all about affordability for first time buyers.While at the same time breaking the link between housing being seen as a licence to print money on resale which is in large part one of the reasons for that ‘affordability’ issue.
I’m not really seeing any profit with my situation.
Say I buy a £100k house for £80k. Then in 5 years sell it for £100k. I still then have to buy another house at full market value. I could buy an £80k house and trouser £20k but it wouldn’t be as good as my £100k house that I just sold.
Now if it was a second home I could make a profit. I could buy at 80, sell at 100 and make 20 large. This is why it’s first time buyers only.
The only profit I’ll really see is getting a better house than what I paid for.
Terry T:
I’m not really seeing any profit with my situation.
The only profit I’ll really see is getting a better house than what I paid for.
That was my point concerning the definition of the housing ‘ladder’ and in this case the reality of a state subsidised housing upgrade of one form or another at both the taxpayers’ and/or the new buyer’s expense.
Now transfer that idea into the real world of the south east.A £200-300k possibly even more house at a 20% state subsidised discount that is just there to benefit a select few who meet the ‘right’ age and ‘first time buyer’ conditions.
Which is inevitably also likely to be built at the expense of further urbanisation of a previously decent area thereby causing an exodus and further increase in the prices of the housing in whatever semi rural areas are left.
No doubt that demand also added to a few years later by those looking to flog off their state subsidised discount house deal in the now zb over developed area for enough to allow them to do the same at the new buyer’s expense.
Feel free to explain how any of that is supposedly a good thing.Other than for those looking to make a short term gain,in the form of a state subsidised house upgrade,at the further expense of house prices in general.
While ironically at the same time actually reducing the supply of and increasing the demand for the decent housing left,in those reduced areas that remain untouched by Cameron’s house building spree and the over development of previously decent areas to live that inevitably goes with it.
It’s simple. There’s a housing shortage. There’s also acre upon acre of derelict brownfield sites (where most of these houses will be built) sitting vacant and generally looking like a dump. To top it off, home ownership is becoming harder and harder for young first time buyers.
So to encourage house building, make home ownership easier and to get rid of all these ugly brownfield sites the government are waiving various taxes usually levied on house builders so the house builder can provide the homes at a cheaper rate.
I’m sorry you missed the boat for a cheap house but that’s the way the cookie crumbles 
Terry T:
It’s simple. There’s a housing shortage. There’s also acre upon acre of derelict brownfield sites (where most of these houses will be built) sitting vacant and generally looking like a dump. To top it off, home ownership is becoming harder and harder for young first time buyers.
So to encourage house building, make home ownership easier and to get rid of all these ugly brownfield sites the government are waiving various taxes usually levied on house builders so the house builder can provide the homes at a cheaper rate.
I’m sorry you missed the boat for a cheap house but that’s the way the cookie crumbles
The fact is there isn’t a ‘housing shortage’ there is an incomes crisis.
While I think you missed the point that no one with any sense wants to live on an ex industrial brownfield site.
However the government already know all that which is why the new planning ‘reforms’ also include the powers to over rule local council objections to building on the green belt.Which then just causes that exodus which I described of people in those areas deciding to move out.
While if we don’t replace our lost industry and keep building houses instead we’ll just end up with loads of houses where no one wants to live and which no one can afford to buy anyway.Bearing in mind that the Socialist solution of throwing state funding at the issue to add to the profit motive will just make all that worse.
As for missing the boat for a house with an inbuilt profit margin so I can get a free upgrade at someone else’s expense that was never my scene.What bothers me know is having to be one of those who has to leave what I regard as ‘home’ if’/when Cameron decides to turn yet more of Surrey into yet more of Greater London. 
Nothing wrong with ex brownfield sites if they’re done properly.
Terry T:
Nothing wrong with ex brownfield sites if they’re done properly.
You are wasting your time mate, it was a nail on head situation the point you made about whiter than white Mr Carryfast missing the boat.
It is very much evident that it is a bad case of sour grapes on his part, which is manifesting itself in his display of disdain towards those that partook in any government scheme involving council house sales, and worse still the pontificating to, and the blatant general contempt towards those that rent from the Council for whatever reason.
Perhaps it’s an aspiration towards Middle Class status on his part, after all he is from …Surrey
dozy:
Don’t really know the answer top mixer ,but £70 p.w hike in weekly rent does seem excessive ,is there not away you can appeal the decision 
housing association rents are a lot cheaper than standard rent anyway I know this cos my sister is in one as a secure tenant,she was/is paying a lot less than your average rent payer
truckman020:
housing association rents are a lot cheaper than standard rent anyway I know this cos my sister is in one as a secure tenant,she was/is paying a lot less than your average rent payer
Don’t tell Carryfast about her for Christ’s sake, he’ll have her down as the biggest freeloader since Prince Edward
robroy:
Terry T:
Nothing wrong with ex brownfield sites if they’re done properly.
You are wasting your time mate, it was a nail on head situation the point you made about whiter than white Mr Carryfast missing the boat.
It is very much evident that it is a bad case of sour grapes on his part, which is manifesting itself in his display of disdain towards those that partook in any government scheme involving council house sales, and worse still the pontificating to, and the blatant general contempt towards those that rent from the Council for whatever reason.
Perhaps it’s an aspiration towards Middle Class status on his part, after all he is from …Surrey
No it’s a disdain of Socialism and everything it stands for.The selective state subsidising of housing costs being a prime example of that system.Which is even worse when the so called ‘capitalist’ Cons take advantage of the dependency culture it creates to keep the so called ‘working class’ exactly where it wants it to stay.
As for sour grapes it isn’t me who’s moaning about housing benefits,or housing affordability.Or who thinks that more state handouts and/or covering the south east in yet more housing estates is the answer to the working class struggle for better living standards.
Carryfast:
robroy:
Terry T:
Nothing wrong with ex brownfield sites if they’re done properly.
You are wasting your time mate, it was a nail on head situation the point you made about whiter than white Mr Carryfast missing the boat.
It is very much evident that it is a bad case of sour grapes on his part, which is manifesting itself in his display of disdain towards those that partook in any government scheme involving council house sales, and worse still the pontificating to, and the blatant general contempt towards those that rent from the Council for whatever reason.
Perhaps it’s an aspiration towards Middle Class status on his part, after all he is from …Surrey
No it’s a disdain of Socialism and everything it stands for.The selective state subsidising of housing costs being a prime example of that system.Which is even worse when the so called ‘capitalist’ Cons take advantage of the dependency culture it creates to keep the so called ‘working class’ exactly where it wants it to stay.
As for sour grapes it isn’t me who’s moaning about housing benefits,or housing affordability.Or who thinks that more state handouts and/or covering the south east in yet more housing estates is the answer to the working class struggle for better living standards.
You profess to know a lot about housing affordability, how is that exactly being that you have already admitted on here to living in your parents home? ,Or maybe they are/were as strict to their principles as you, so sold you it at the going market price, rather than at a reduced rate, being family, or in form of inheritance.
robroy:
Carryfast:
You profess to know a lot about housing affordability, how is that exactly being that you have already admitted on here to living in your parents home? ,Or maybe they are/were as strict to their principles as you, so sold you it at the going market price, rather than at a reduced rate, being family, or in form of inheritance.
Being a low paid public sector worker during an important part of the savings period,required for a deposit and starting a mortgage, to the point of not being able ‘to afford’ a ‘house’ I’d say that fits the definition of knowing a bit about housing affordability.
While the definition of Socialism doesn’t include co operation between family members to pay into the household budget of a privately purchased house purchased with no state help regards housing cots.
As for inheritance that is generally a gift,minus any contributions to it,not a sales transaction which as I said is one of the best ways to help future working class generations .On that note no I obviously couldn’t afford to ‘buy’ my parents’ house at any price.The relevant bit being that I didn’t think that more housing supply and/or state funded housing costs would have made any difference to my situation.Whereas the pre Callaghan and Thatcher wage regime probably would have.
Carryfast:
robroy:
Carryfast:
You profess to know a lot about housing affordability, how is that exactly being that you have already admitted on here to living in your parents home? ,Or maybe they are/were as strict to their principles as you, so sold you it at the going market price, rather than at a reduced rate, being family, or in form of inheritance.
Being a low paid public sector worker during an important part of the savings period,required for a deposit and starting a mortgage, to the point of not being able ‘to afford’ a ‘house’ I’d say that fits the definition of knowing a bit about housing affordability.
While the definition of Socialism doesn’t include co operation between family members to pay into the household budget of a privately purchased house purchased with no state help regards housing cots.
As for inheritance that is generally a gift,minus any contributions to it,not a sales transaction which as I said is one of the best ways to help future working class generations .On that note no I obviously couldn’t afford to ‘buy’ my parents’ house at any price.The relevant bit being that I didn’t think that more housing supply and/or state funded housing costs would have made any difference to my situation.Whereas the pre Callaghan and Thatcher wage regime probably would have.
So you had the luxury of being able to fall back on your parent’s home when things started to get tough, well lucky you mate.
How would you have fared if that facility was not available to you, and you were basically up that famous creek without a paddle, as well as without a home and job. Also how do you consider yourself qualified to comment, let alone criticise, those that were not as fortunate as yourself to be given an easy way out of a bad situation as you were , but only had their OWN two feet to stand on, and not only that, but also have a family to house and feed into the bargain.
You sit there at your keyboard criticising, categorising and judging people that have struggled, you don’t know the half of it mate.
robroy:
truckman020:
housing association rents are a lot cheaper than standard rent anyway I know this cos my sister is in one as a secure tenant,she was/is paying a lot less than your average rent payer
Don’t tell Carryfast about her for Christ’s sake, he’ll have her down as the biggest freeloader since Prince Edward
Housing association/council rent’s are at the correct rate. The problem is… the private landlord (Buy to let) is charging inflated prices for their house. Remember… greed is good. Also because of the wicked witch allowing council tenant’s to buy their house, who have now sold it on and made a tidy profit to private landlord’s, there is a shortage of housing association/council property.
525 rent on a one bed room my god I pay that for 3 bed semi detached in the private sector.
If your on that kind of money why not buy one of the affordable homes being built