MoD housing cash paying the rent

#1
Source: BBC News 28./Nov/2007

Forty per cent of the £5bn set aside to improve military housing will be spent on renting the buildings from a private landlord.

Property developer ******* Homes will receive almost £2bn of that sum.

State property was apparently flogged off (well, of course it was....) to these "people" over a decade ago. The Army Families Federation allegedly said the sell-off "had led to an under-investment in homes for service personnel and their families". Probably true, but in my own life I think....who wants to be in that position?

I can't find the words to respond to this news, and if I could, they would probably be grossly unsuitable for these pages.


W.M.
 
#2
Given the long term, above inflation, increase in land and property value, the sell off of anything with the slightest potential for us to need it in the future is barking. Why couldn't the MoD rent out spare properties - makes financial sense and safeguards against cockups like this. :evil:

Oh, sorry I forgot. Because the govt want us to do everything with c**k all we have little option but to release capital - a prime example of being tight costing you more in the long run... I used to get angry, now I suppose its more a kind of resignation to the inevitable - blood pressure can't register if it's all been boiled off already :evil:
 
#3
Playing devils advocate here -

We pay tax to provide us with services, including defence, that we cannot provide alone as private citizens.

We do not pay taxes because we believe the State can make better investment decisions than us as private individuals. It would therefore be wrong for the State to invest our taxes in property (or anything else) that it does not need - the Conservative Govt was therefore right to sell off unneeded married quarters and return the money to the taxpayer through reduced taxation (ie if they had not been sold we would have had to either pay more tax or the State raise more debt). Additionally these properties were possibly released back for use instead of sitting idle - saved a bit of the greenbelt?

By selling off unneeded assets, and reducing taxes, the State gave me the option to decide where to invest my money instead of doing it for me. If I felt that property was a good bet then I could have invested in property myself with my share of the money. The State now needs more married quarters and will therefore be coming to me for some money - if I've invested wisely I will be at least as well off as if the Govt had done the investing for me.
 
#5
you have short memories many moons ago most service families wanted there own house i remember all the barrack furniture being sold off because most people didn't want it then married quarters that were empty started out numbering the full ones every winter the pipes would burst bringing the ceilings down what with the cost of heating an empty quarter the jury was out sell them off now everyone moaning because the housing is in a sh*t state married quarter rents were peanuts most landlords around brize norton are serving officers or sncos who live in quarters for peanuts whilst charging a small fortune to rent there houses sadly the dog is biting back and no one likes it
 
#6
sretosf said:
Playing devils advocate here -

We pay tax to provide us with services, including defence, that we cannot provide alone as private citizens.

We do not pay taxes because we believe the State can make better investment decisions than us as private individuals.....By selling off unneeded assets, and reducing taxes....
Except that they only got £1.6b for the homes they are now renting back for £2b over the next few years and will continue to pay for way into the future. An even worse property sell-off was the sale of Royal Ordnance to BAe. Several sites and a business as well. BAe almost immediately sold the land around just one of the sites for more than they had paid for the whole caboodle. On a smaller scale - the sale of Cultybraggan camp for the price of a medium sized house.... There is a long list of examples.
 
#7
Annington Homes are a bunch of *** who exploited the MoD. Most of the board of directors are ex-military, most of them had at least one star...

I wouldn't say that the MoD were criminally naive in signing the contract they did with Annington - they were - but the fact remains that a bunch of retired senior officers are milking the MoD, sadly quite legitamately, of money that should be spent on improving the state of the houses we live in.

It would be interesting if we were to know the identy of the board of directors of Annington - they tend to keep out of the limelight, strangely enough - but all three services are represented and are getting rich out of the exploitation of the people they used to command.
 
#8
Adjutant said:
Annington Homes are a bunch of criminals who exploited the MoD. Most of the board of directors are ex-military, most of them had at least one star...

I wouldn't say that the MoD were criminally naive in signing the contract they did with Annington - they were - but the fact remains that a bunch of retired senior officers are milking the MoD, sadly quite legitamately, of money that should be spent on improving the state of the houses we live in.

It would be interesting if we were to know the identy of the board of directors of Annington - they tend to keep out of the limelight, strangely enough - but all three services are represented and are getting rich out of the exploitation of the people they used to command.
Im not good with the new law but wonder with the FOI if they would have to release names of share holders and top brass in Anningtons. :?
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#11
The MoD is entitled to profit share on disposal of individual units as well as on a change of control of the Company. This currently stands at 22% until 5 November 2007 when it reduces at a rate of 3% per annum down to
10% by 2011. With effect from 5 November 2011 it falls away. To end
June 2007, the Treasury had been paid £146 million in profit share
http://www.annington.co.uk/downloads/corporate/AnningtonInfo200708.pdf

I wonder how much of the 146M has been used on housing?
 
#12
Trossachs said:
sretosf said:
Playing devils advocate here -

We pay tax to provide us with services, including defence, that we cannot provide alone as private citizens.

We do not pay taxes because we believe the State can make better investment decisions than us as private individuals.....By selling off unneeded assets, and reducing taxes....
Except that they only got £1.6b for the homes they are now renting back for £2b over the next few years and will continue to pay for way into the future. An even worse property sell-off was the sale of Royal Ordnance to BAe. Several sites and a business as well. BAe almost immediately sold the land around just one of the sites for more than they had paid for the whole caboodle. On a smaller scale - the sale of Cultybraggan camp for the price of a medium sized house.... There is a long list of examples.
I was assuming that we sold the properties at, or close to, market value - sounds like this assumption was wrong!
 
#13
Even if the property was sold at market value and the money put in to tax cuts it would not nessarily of been invested if it had been it is unlikly it would have been invested in anything with as high growth as house prices over the last 15 years unless it was invested in houses-). The would then be the problem of recovering the money as although some tax may have been payed back which could be seen as yeild that could have been gained through rent the captial sum would no longer be in the government control. What if the money had just been squandered on German made cars and forgien holidays.
 
#14
Your post is a bit difficult to read, but I think you are saying that taxpayers may have spent the money rather than investing it.

My point is that would have been the taxpayers choice - if they wanted to invest in property then they could have done so, if they wanted to spend the money on cars etc then again that would be their choice. I do not believe that the Government should be taking money from us to invest on our behalf - if I want to invest I will, if not I won't - it's not the Governments job to make that choice for me.
 
#15
sretosf said:
Your post is a bit difficult to read, but I think you are saying that taxpayers may have spent the money rather than investing it.

My point is that would have been the taxpayers choice - if they wanted to invest in property then they could have done so, if they wanted to spend the money on cars etc then again that would be their choice. I do not believe that the Government should be taking money from us to invest on our behalf - if I want to invest I will, if not I won't - it's not the Governments job to make that choice for me.
I take your point but the Defence Estate was paid for by previous generations of taxpayers and they might reasonably expect that the estate would be managed in the best interests of the country; not sold off for absolute peanuts to Guy Hands, Nomura (a Japanese bank) et al. The sale and leaseback of the MQ estate was absolutely criminal behaviour on the part of the Conservatives - they were repeatedly warned that it was wrong - and I hope they rot in hell! Why the hell wasn't responsibility for maintaining the fabric of the estate given to Annington? No, that was too expensive, so we'll keep that and starve it of money over the years!

Litotes
 
#16
Adjutant said:
Annington Homes are a bunch of criminals who exploited the MoD. Most of the board of directors are ex-military, most of them had at least one star...

I wouldn't say that the MoD were criminally naive in signing the contract they did with Annington - they were - but the fact remains that a bunch of retired senior officers are milking the MoD, sadly quite legitamately, of money that should be spent on improving the state of the houses we live in.

It would be interesting if we were to know the identy of the board of directors of Annington - they tend to keep out of the limelight, strangely enough - but all three services are represented and are getting rich out of the exploitation of the people they used to command.
Exploited my arrse. The MOD are not a bunch of little old ladies with a punch of pikeys on the doorstep offering to tarmac their drive. They just have no idea how to make money/run a business and they don't particularly care, its not as if they have to live in our sh!t accomodation or make do with crap kit.
 
#17
Yes its an interesting point.

Managing resources through the application of an idology does not always provide the most efficent use.

USSR like to follow ideology also. Old labour belived in owning the means of production. If someone suggested we run something on one of these idologies they would be considered aberant. Yet somehow other idologies seem to still be considered socially acceptable-)

I am not meaning to be rude about your belives some people might share them others may have other belives.

What interests me in terms of government is not ideology but deliverly.

I would think many people using the houses would be more concerned about the housing than the idology. I would think most taxpayers would also be more concerned about costs to themselves than idology; even the ones concerned more by idology will have many different ones.

For this reason I would think it better to aim for efficency.






The reason I say that i


But it is not an nessarily and efficent use of resources.
 
#18
Of course selling cheap renting back expensive makes no financial sense, and I am not supporting that at all.

What I am saying is that the State should not hold on to property because in the long term we believe property is a good investment. We should tax people as little as possible (within reason) so that they can make their own choices inwhat to invest whether that be houses or beer.

Holding on to property in 1996, in case we needed it in 2007 would have been wrong.

I do however agree that when we dispose of State assets we should do so with care and ensure the benefits are shared because those assets were purchased with the sweat and blood of our ancestors.
 
#19
sretosf said:
Of course selling cheap renting back expensive makes no financial sense, and I am not supporting that at all.

What I am saying is that the State should not hold on to property because in the long term we believe property is a good investment. We should tax people as little as possible (within reason) so that they can make their own choices inwhat to invest whether that be houses or beer.

Holding on to property in 1996, in case we needed it in 2007 would have been wrong.

I do however agree that when we dispose of State assets we should do so with care and ensure the benefits are shared because those assets were purchased with the sweat and blood of our ancestors.
Some of your points make sense however the MOD could have sold the houses to serving soldiers before trying to sell them to civvies at a decent price rather than flog them all to a company at a knockdown price.
 

Latest Threads