Are our views always entrenched?

Should we ban the ownership of more than one home unless they are ?

for letting!!

Should we start right NOW ring-fencing the money from council house sales for building relevant housing? Tens of years too late, but better late than never.

Should any profit from the first resale of a council house by its tenant/buyer within a set length of time be payable to the council in addition to the original buying price?

We are on a roll elegran but seriously all could happen!

All brilliant ideas!

What NOT to do is to pile guilt onto people. It does not make them do what you want them to. Make them want to do the thing that you are aiming for. Giving up your home for some unknown person/people is not an incentive. Neither is taking a stranger into your home, unless it is an idea that YOU thought of as a way to get your spare room to make money for you. It works for some, but not for others. I have a feeling too that subletting may in fact be illegal in some councils.

Well said again, elegran. Wherever the fault lies it is not with the people in the houses (except perhaps for a TINY minority), so they should not be made to feel targetted as if they'd done something wrong.

Agree re guilt elegran never a great motivator but great at creating defensive behaviour!

Apart that it is not your home, it is a council home, for people who need them the most.

Why should people who have bought their own homes have to give them up or share them.

It is your home while you're paying rent for it. Tenants do have some rights, thank god.

jura, I'm sure that many people would have bought their own home if they could have afforded it. Don't you see? That's the difference – people who buy their own homes are, generally speaking better off than people who don't.

So, if it's allright to vary rent (I think you suggested that) depending on someone's income, then it's also allright for people who have capitalinvestments in the form of a house to use that wealth to help pay for their care if necessary. It's never compulsory, is it? I eman, you can die in your own house if you choose.

I think that is what your arguments boils down to – you appear to resent the fact that some house owners (better off people) may have to sell up to pay for care when people who don't have a house to sell (poorer people) get their care provided by the state. Which suggests to me that you are not in favour of to each according to his need and from each according to his ability.

granjura ask why shouldn't home owners have to do that?

The many people I know who are council /housing association tenants would love to own their own homes and have more choice in where they live. The jobs they do do not allow them to do this: TAs,NNEB, care assistants, nurses, retail workers, admin/office workers, light industry etc. and their OHs have similarly low paid and/or temporary work in the building industry/ fire fighters/car mechanics are the one I know. I live in SE where property prices/rents are high and even any London weighting in pay does close the gap.

Should these people have less protection (home wise) because they earn less money even if they they work as hard?

I think it DOES come down to demonising council house tenants, althought Granjura does not believe that she does that. They are seen by those who own their homes as somehow feckless and unwilling to work hard to earn the money to buy a house. They are seen to be living in houses built by the local authority, repaired and decorated by the local authority, all for nothing, in fact they are seen as getting benefits from the state as well. In truth, they are seen as living there on sufferance - that is why I do not like the term social housing, it is too like charity housing.

Well, that is not true. They are people who, for one reason or another, do not own a house of their own. They pay rent to live in a home of their own. Not one from which they can be evicted at any time for someone more deserving. They have rights, they have a contract, and as long as they keep to their side, they expect to keep those rights. They personalise them, they fill them with memories, they live, love and die there. When they die the tenancy can be taken over by a son or daughter. How can they not believe that it is their home? how can anyone grudge them that belief?

Rents are set at different levels by different councils, but they are not peanuts, and that amount is then not available to save for a deposit on a bought house.

I think Jura is on the same wavelength as Frank who thinks that the only reason anyone has just the basic pension when they retire is because they have not paid into a scheme to get it higher or worked harder at their job. No Frank, no Jura, it is because they did not have the money to start with.

Can someone explain to me why there is no tax payable on the increase in house value but if a council house tenant EARNS money , they pay tax and NI on it?

As do all earners of course except the super rich who manage to avoid it

bluebell is the house banding system for council tax a way of addressing house value? Is that what you meant?

Just found out that one of my brilliant ideas is already in place:-

"Paying back your discount

If you sell your Right to Buy home within 5 years of buying it, you’ll have to pay back some or all of the discount you got.

If you sell within the first year, you’ll have to pay back all of the discount. On top of this, the amount you pay back depends on the value of your home when you sell it. So, if you got a 20% discount, you’ll have to pay back 20% of the selling price.

If you sell after the first year, the total amount you pay back reduces. You pay back:

80% of the discount in the second year
60% of the discount in the third year
40% of the discount in the fourth year
20% of the discount in the fifth year"

also:-
"Selling your home

If you sell your home within 10 years of buying it through Right to Buy, you must first offer it to either:

your old landlord
another social landlord in the area
If the landlord doesn’t agree to buy your home within 8 weeks, you can sell it to anyone."

Ah but Elegran - what about Help to Buy? Nanaje. - sorry for not explaining properly, no I meant that any increase in value when you sell a house ( unless its a second home) is tax free. Why?

I don't understand Bluebell's question either. Do you mean there is no tax on the profit made by reselling a "Right-to-buy" council house?

Crossed posts.

I don't know anything about that, Bluebell

Elegran said it all: "I think it DOES come down to demonising council house tenants....."

We owned our own home in Queensland, Australia, but it took both our incomes to pay the mortgage, bring up two lads etc. DH worked for a Tory-owned company - the boss was president of the local Liberal (ie Tory) party. In 1993 there was an election that the Liberals 'could not lose', and the boss brought in a Lib candidate to address the workers. DH saw this as a legitimate political forum and expressed the opposite view.

Then the Libs lost the 'unlosable ' election and in a fit of sour grapes the boss fired DH, calling it redundancy. Everyone was horrified as he was a terrific worker, had trained all the juniors, knew his stuff, was professional. We were horrified too, but DH was a good worker with a good record, so he thought he'd get another job. BUT...unknown to him the boss had blacked him - every time someone rang the firm to check DH's work record, he badmouthed DH, who did not find this out for 3 years, when the old boss sacked the personnel manager who rang DH and told him. She had no proof though.

In the first 2 years we'd struggled on, on my relatively low clerical income, but had to sell the house in the end and we got a council house equivalent ie a commission house. We've been here since 1995, and a new State government - Liberals again - are starting to threaten our tenancies. Our lads have long since left home. We have a permanent lease, but all the carry-on has deeply affected DH's health - he has arthritis and agoraphobia. We cannot feel secure here any more. We save every cent we have, so that we can buy a permanent caravan on a permanent site, if the worse comes to the worse. I think we are OK while there are two of us, but when one of us dies - who knows?

The shortage of council houses/commission houses is the fault of governments NOT tenants. If a family is short of a house it is the fault of the authorities, not the people already permanently settled in a house.

When we first got this house we paid full market rent, and have always paid a sizeable rent. It is always a quarter of income, up to a ceiling of market rent. We look after the place, cause no bother, and our rent has already effectively paid for the place, and more.

A Tory (now dead)caused our problem, and Tories are trying to ruin our solution.

PS
After DH realised he would never get a job - he was still blaming ageism at the time - he enrolled in Open University, then his good marks got him into the prestigious University of Queensland, where he got a BA in Political Science. His last job was as electoral officer for a State Labour MP.

He spent a fair bit of time getting desperate people into commission houses.

Sorry for not being clear - firstly, I meant profits on houses whether right to buy or not should be taxed - why not? As for Help to Buy - govt scheme which gives 20% deposit interest free for 5 years for new houses upto £600000 - when resold, only loan repayable - none of increase in value. Why?