Meet Swingers

Entertainment

Latest Members

Fun and Games

Information

Shopping

Site Stats

Members:
1,389,800
Online Now:
2,079
Msgs Sent:
157,443,077
Photo Ads:
745,630
User Pics:
579,536
Video Chat:
171
Search
Next »
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
< >

Re: Why council housing is not subsidised

7th Aug 2011 - 6:57pm
Staggerlee_BB's AvatarStaggerlee_BBGodlike
Joined:
14 Jun 2007
Posts:
2849
Location:
Cahoots
ProfilePM
starlightcouple wrote:

Staggerlee_BB wrote:



So we can see that whereas the rent on property A is a genuine reflection of the cost of maintaining that property the rent on property B is artificially inflated by the needs of the landlord



laughabove.giflaughabove.gif

i think you will find in many cases mr stagggers that the landlord does not set the rent, the market place does.
i have an estate agent near me and a landlord could try and go in there and say he wants 1600 pounds a month rent for his property but the good estate agent will kindly point out that the market says his property is only valued at 1000 per month. he can of course decide to continue to try and get the 1600 pounds, but nobody is going to pay over the odds.
a bit like the cost of a property. a valuer values the said property and then puts a value on it based on the market value. the owner of that house does not set the value the market does. are you with me on this one mr stagggers as i know you can drift off from time to time notes.gif
of course on occasion you get the idiot who will pay over that market value as they reely want that property but on the whole unless you go to a private landlord privately which would be madness, a letting agency will only charge what it deems the market value no matter how much the landlord may want extra to fund what exactly again mr staggers? icon_lol.gif


And that market value is determined how ???
 

Why council houses are not subsidised

7th Aug 2011 - 7:02pm
Staggerlee_BB's AvatarStaggerlee_BBGodlike
Joined:
14 Jun 2007
Posts:
2849
Location:
Cahoots
ProfilePM
Addendum .... as starlight has so kindly pointed out there is also the fee of the letting agent to take into account when calculating how private rents are artificially inflated .... thank you starlight I'd forgotten that one
 

Re: Why council housing is not subsidised

7th Aug 2011 - 8:11pm
Too Hot's AvatarToo HotSuper human rambling
Joined:
7 Oct 2005
Posts:
788
Location:
North West
ProfilePM
Staggerlee_BB wrote:


And that market value is determined how ???


Go into a letting Agent - they will tell you. You are in cuckoo land if you think a private landlord picks a number out the air just because it may cover his mortgage. The letting Agents know the market value - it is what someonne is willing to pay - simple.
 

Re: Why council houses are not subsidised

7th Aug 2011 - 8:16pm
Too Hot's AvatarToo HotSuper human rambling
Joined:
7 Oct 2005
Posts:
788
Location:
North West
ProfilePM
Staggerlee_BB wrote:

Addendum .... as starlight has so kindly pointed out there is also the fee of the letting agent to take into account when calculating how private rents are artificially inflated .... thank you starlight I'd forgotten that one


At one point in time I suspected that some of your posts contained some kind of thought process - even if I didn't think the same way - there was some thought there. The last few posts in this thread have given you away.

What on earth can you possibly imagine that the letting fee has to do with anything at all? It is a tax deductible expense which bwears no relation whatsoever to the market value of a rental property in a particular area! what a bizarre last couple of posts.
 

Re: Why council housing is not subsidised

7th Aug 2011 - 8:35pm
Staggerlee_BB's AvatarStaggerlee_BBGodlike
Joined:
14 Jun 2007
Posts:
2849
Location:
Cahoots
ProfilePM
Too Hot wrote:

Staggerlee_BB wrote:


And that market value is determined how ???


Go into a letting Agent - they will tell you. You are in cuckoo land if you think a private landlord picks a number out the air just because it may cover his mortgage. The letting Agents know the market value - it is what someonne is willing to pay - simple.


Surely then private rents would be inline with council rents or even lower .... or do the landlords in reality have a say in determining rent .... they may well not get exactly what they want ... but I'm damn sure they get what they need
Now not being able to determine things hhhhmmmmmm ???? let me think
 

Re: Why council housing is not subsidised

7th Aug 2011 - 8:40pm
Lizaleanrob's AvatarLizaleanrobGodlike
Joined:
27 Mar 2007
Posts:
2078
Location:
somewhere between
trouble and chaos
ProfilePM
Staggerlee_BB wrote:

Too Hot wrote:

Staggerlee_BB wrote:


And that market value is determined how ???


Go into a letting Agent - they will tell you. You are in cuckoo land if you think a private landlord picks a number out the air just because it may cover his mortgage. The letting Agents know the market value - it is what someonne is willing to pay - simple.


Surely then private rents would be inline with council rents or even lower .... or do the landlords in reality have a say in determining rent .... they may well not get exactly what they want ... but I'm damn sure they get what they need
Now not being able to determine things hhhhmmmmmm ???? let me think


isn't private landlords rent also subject to tax where i do beleive council properties are not
 

 

7th Aug 2011 - 8:56pm
Too Hot's AvatarToo HotSuper human rambling
Joined:
7 Oct 2005
Posts:
788
Location:
North West
ProfilePM
Council built (and still build I believe) properties at cost via tender. These properties are then let via the social housing scheme at a discount from local market rates - a full explanation can be found in a parliamentary document about social housing that was last revised in january of this year:
Rent setting for social housing tenancies
Standard Note: SN/SP/1090. Last updated: 27 January 2011
You can look back over each version of this document going back years and the common thread is:
"The (Labour) Government’s policy was that all social landlords (local authorities and housing associations) should offer similar rents for similar properties, whilst maintaining substantial discounts to market rents."

That took about five minutes research and kind of works better than spouting off a load of nonsense that ends up just making you look a bit silly. If successive Government policies have been to subsidise social housing why are you banging on about it being NOT subsidised and actually being a true reflection of rent? It is illogical and so easily and factually disproved.
 

Re: Why council houses are not subsidised

7th Aug 2011 - 9:05pm
starlightcouple's AvatarstarlightcoupleGodlike
Joined:
10 Dec 2010
Posts:
1364
Location:
-
ProfilePM
Too Hot wrote:



At one point in time I suspected that some of your posts contained some kind of thought process - even if I didn't think the same way - there was some thought there. The last few posts in this thread have given you away.

what a bizarre last couple of posts.


i had my feelings all along and have been proved right. icon_lol.gif
anyway thank you too hot for making the argument of Mr Staggers flawed much better than i could have done. notes.gif

i have my suspisions that mr staggers has had a couple over the eight of these




grin.gifgrin.gif
 

 

7th Aug 2011 - 10:00pm
Staggerlee_BB's AvatarStaggerlee_BBGodlike
Joined:
14 Jun 2007
Posts:
2849
Location:
Cahoots
ProfilePM
Too Hot wrote:

Council built (and still build I believe) properties at cost via tender. These properties are then let via the social housing scheme at a discount from local market rates - a full explanation can be found in a parliamentary document about social housing that was last revised in january of this year:
Rent setting for social housing tenancies
Standard Note: SN/SP/1090. Last updated: 27 January 2011
You can look back over each version of this document going back years and the common thread is:
"The (Labour) Government’s policy was that all social landlords (local authorities and housing associations) should offer similar rents for similar properties, whilst maintaining substantial discounts to market rents."

That took about five minutes research and kind of works better than spouting off a load of nonsense that ends up just making you look a bit silly. If successive Government policies have been to subsidise social housing why are you banging on about it being NOT subsidised and actually being a true reflection of rent? It is illogical and so easily and factually disproved.


I would say that this equates to a policy of maintaining low rents not subsidy .... where in this is the cost to the councils concerned of maintaining these low rents ?? that would be a subsidy
That they have no profit margin is not a subsidy, it is not insisting on profits


In edit
P.S. Very few landlords build houses, as you say any new stock councils acquire is built by them (or as you rightly say contractors)
Now, just as a rough estimate you understand, the councils cost to build house A is £75,000 a landlord would in all probability be unable to buy House B for much less than £150,000, so we have a saving on the councils part of 50% per unit over the price the landlord has to pay (and recoup) we also have to take into account the economies of scale .... councils rarely (if ever) build just one house I'll guess another 10% off .... so as I say council housing is not subsidised it is by it's very nature cheaper .... council and social housing are not charity to promulgate the myth that they are is to condemn them and those who live in them to further degradation ..... the first thing we must sacrifice in times of hardship is usually charity

Took no googling just applied logic and reason
 

BENDING

9th Aug 2011 - 4:37pm
MidsCouple24's AvatarMidsCouple24Super human rambling
Joined:
31 Oct 2006
Posts:
919
Location:
Stoke on Trent
ProfilePM
Bending is just everyday practice to the Media and Politicians but not just them .....

Buy one get one free, £4999.99, SALE, must end Sunday, and all those big words used by toothpaste companies, hair products and the like "contains carobycarbondyatholatecarbunklestuff".

we are all surrounded by words and deeds designed to fool us.

I remember (cos I am an old git) watching MUTV when Sir Alex Ferguson was asked if he would be interested in buying the then wolves striker Robbie Keane who the commentator thought was going for a bargain price of £500,000, Sir Alex said he would not buy him at that price because he had a full stock of strikers and just wasn't in the market for another despite the obviously good price for an extremely talented player, the media repeated this interview but missed out a few vital words simply saying Sir Alex Ferguson said he would not play £500,000 for Robbie Keane, people including poor Robbie were made to think that this was a derogatory statement about the players value and skill, not worthy of Manchester United or the asking price. so simple yet so wrong. But hey, it sells papers icon_wink.gif
 

 

12th Aug 2011 - 10:26am
fem_4_taboo's Avatarfem_4_tabooGodlike
Joined:
31 Oct 2003
Posts:
2674
Location:
uk, southwest
/cornwall
ProfilePM
housing association properties are not subsidised, compared to a private landlord yes the rents less typically, but that is due to housing associations being no profit organasations.

in the future because the government are enforcing housing associations to provide a set amount of new tenancies then the housing associations are having to look at setting new rents to that of the (LHA) Local housing allowence. this is so they can start to make a profit so they can fund new builds.

now if you are working and do not recieve any benefits and are un likely to recieve housing benefit then you would pay the full rent, if you are working but eligable for housing benefiy you would pay a % of the rent and housing benefit would top it up to the full rent within the LHA, if you are on full benefits, the rent would be paid in full up to the LHA.

the reasons most people seek social housing is not only due to the rent cost, as those on benefit would get full hb to the LHA private or social, but because most private landlords are a nightmare, do not fix repair issues, often damp properties, and do not want any one with kids or pets.

it is probally in fact prople on a modest income that need teh social housing more as they have to pay all the rent, where by a person on benefit would get a private rent fully paid.

xx fem xx
 

 

12th Aug 2011 - 10:30am
Ben_Minx's AvatarBen_MinxSuper human rambling
Joined:
5 Jul 2011
Posts:
730
Location:
Snowdonia
ProfilePM
Nice post fem.
 

Re: Why council housing is not subsidised

2nd Oct 2011 - 9:47pm
Calista's AvatarCalistaGodlike
Joined:
11 Jun 2004
Posts:
8023
Location:
Derby
ProfilePM
starlightcouple wrote:

Staggerlee_BB wrote:



So we can see that whereas the rent on property A is a genuine reflection of the cost of maintaining that property the rent on property B is artificially inflated by the needs of the landlord



laughabove.giflaughabove.gif

i think you will find in many cases mr stagggers that the landlord does not set the rent, the market place does.
i have an estate agent near me and a landlord could try and go in there and say he wants 1600 pounds a month rent for his property but the good estate agent will kindly point out that the market says his property is only valued at 1000 per month. he can of course decide to continue to try and get the 1600 pounds, but nobody is going to pay over the odds.
a bit like the cost of a property. a valuer values the said property and then puts a value on it based on the market value. the owner of that house does not set the value the market does. are you with me on this one mr stagggers as i know you can drift off from time to time notes.gif
of course on occasion you get the idiot who will pay over that market value as they reely want that property but on the whole unless you go to a private landlord privately which would be madness, a letting agency will only charge what it deems the market value no matter how much the landlord may want extra to fund what exactly again mr staggers? icon_lol.gif


The value of a property is purely what someone else will pay for it. I'm in council housing. I pay £350 a month, no benefit payments. I could potentially buy my house for £56k. The privately bought house next door, similar to mine is currently under offer for £100,000.

The difference between the two house prices? Profit. The owner wants the profit. Lots of owners buy cheap and sell high, it's the same with renting. I know of few landlords who charge what I pay because their mortgage needs covering and they want PROFIT. Many housing associations are charities who cannot make massive profits, the councils are similar. They charge the marketable rent of the property. Private landlords are driven by profit.

The private rental market and the social housing market are very different sadly.

I quite probably fall into the category you mentioned above, where we could move into private rented accommodation. We chose not to though. My rent would double for a smaller house, we're not fantastically well off and having a house that is well within our affordable means (aka living on one salary) has also meant that I can start my own business working from home, meaning I'm here for my kids and have set them the example that effort = reward. I also have well educated, polite, decent human beings for kids.

I don't stay in social housing to rip anyone off, we chose this as it means that we live on one income,taking it in turns to achieve our own dreams (he graduated last year, I'm about to embark on my degree). About 3 years ago we came very close to giving this home up and moving to private rent, if we had then right now we'd be back on the list waiting as the prices rocketed and we'd not be able to pay the rent and live.

The whole point of social housing is that it is affordable. The size of the waiting lists for affordable houses kind of back up that privately rented accommodation is not affordable, driven by landlords looking for profit.
 
Next »
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
< >
Search