I do mate, had we started investing in housing and the infrastructure that goes with it it would have created a lot more jobs which would in turn increased tax revenue and put money into the economy when people spent their hard earned.

A hypothetical scenario...

Interest rates are incredibly low. 3 or 4 years ago the government were paying around 2.3 percent on 15 year loans. A loan (based on these interest rates ) of £1billion would cost £24.3 million a year on repayments.

If the loan were invested in building social housing, which in the north west would cost somewhere in the region of £120k per house, the money could be spent on 8300 houses. If they were then let out at an affordable rent-somewhere between social housing and market rent) the average return would be around £5.5k per house per year. That's a return of £46 million a year roughly. That covers the interest payments on the initial loan leaves a surplus of around £21.5m per year which over 15 years is a surplus of £322.5 million.
Add in inflation, say a conservative 2% a year, in 15 years time the £1 billion will be worth about 30% less than it is today.

If people are coming off benefits to take up jobs building the housesthere is additional benefit. If we take an average yearly benefit payment of £5,200 a year (£100 a week)is saved. If the average wage is around £22 k the same person would pay around 33.5k in tax and NI, giving a benefit to the public of £8.7k a year (benefit savings + tax and NI income)

If 500 people were used to build the houses, using the rough figures above it brings in savings and tax incomes of £4.35 million a year. As I've said these people would also spend their hard earned on goods and services, the supplers of which will also benefit, perhaps expand taking on more people, make more money so pay more tax.

Also, the suppliers of the materials to build the houses would benefit, and again this increases their profits and leads to more tax paid.

The initial billion borrowed for investment would actually be worth a lot more to the economy in the long run.

If this were to be repeated around the country, obviously the costs of building the houses and land would differ, but it would create a boon for local economies around our green and pleasant.

Because of recent cuts to services and therefore jobs, instead of an increased tax income, revenue remains flat and the national defecit doesn't get lower.

I do mate, had we started investing in housing and the infrastructure that goes with it it would have created a lot more jobs which would in turn increased tax revenue and put money into the economy when people spent their hard earned.

A hypothetical scenario...

Interest rates are incredibly low. 3 or 4 years ago the government were paying around 2.3 percent on 15 year loans. A loan (based on these interest rates ) of £1billion would cost £24.3 million a year on repayments.

If the loan were invested in building social housing, which in the north west would cost somewhere in the region of £120k per house, the money could be spent on 8300 houses. If they were then let out at an affordable rent-somewhere between social housing and market rent) the average return would be around £5.5k per house per year. That's a return of £46 million a year roughly. That covers the interest payments on the initial loan leaves a surplus of around £21.5m per year which over 15 years is a surplus of £322.5 million.
Add in inflation, say a conservative 2% a year, in 15 years time the £1 billion will be worth about 30% less than it is today.

If people are coming off benefits to take up jobs building the housesthere is additional benefit. If we take an average yearly benefit payment of £5,200 a year (£100 a week)is saved. If the average wage is around £22 k the same person would pay around 33.5k in tax and NI, giving a benefit to the public of £8.7k a year (benefit savings + tax and NI income)

If 500 people were used to build the houses, using the rough figures above it brings in savings and tax incomes of £4.35 million a year. As I've said these people would also spend their hard earned on goods and services, the supplers of which will also benefit, perhaps expand taking on more people, make more money so pay more tax.

Also, the suppliers of the materials to build the houses would benefit, and again this increases their profits and leads to more tax paid.

The initial billion borrowed for investment would actually be worth a lot more to the economy in the long run.

If this were to be repeated around the country, obviously the costs of building the houses and land would differ, but it would create a boon for local economies around our green and pleasant.

Because of recent cuts to services and therefore jobs, instead of an increased tax income, revenue remains flat and the national defecit doesn't get lower.

Have to disagree...we're now in a better financial state then we were back then (even though its still a dire one) and we'd simply be in far worse debt than we are now with a number of the projects started back then potentially coming to fruition end by the time we pull out of the EU...we'd have lost momentum rather than gearing it up...I think most on here are in agreement that now is the right time to release the schackles so to speak though.

For me its all about timing and this is just right to address/head off BREXIT in whatever form it takes rather than having done what you've suggested a few years back and then be left with no plan B...(now where have I heard that before?)

Edited by Lyons550 (03 Oct 2016 4.27pm)

In all fairness, leaving the EU in a way that appeals to many of the exit voters is going to destroy the housing market anyhow. That half a million or so migrants have been paying off buy to let and second/third mortgages... Take them out of the equation and you'll have a lot of rental property that's 'surplus to requirement', and a lot of people having to find mortgage payments for multiple empty properties and defaulting.

Ultimately they'll have to dump property from portfolios, and that will then hit the wider property market (and put a lot of people into negative equity).

I don't think there is a viable way of avoiding that either. Could soon be cheaper for the state to buy up property that's defaulted on than build housing.

Yeah that's all very well nick,bt you need builders to build houses there is a certain skill set needed.
You can't just take
people off benefits and give them a trowel and say there you go.
I know loads and loads of builders,not one of them is out of work.
What we need are more apprentice builders,instead of the last 20 years or so saying kids should all go to university.
Not everyone is academic in fact half the people who are there now probably shouldn't be there.

About the only thing I agree with nick is about social housing.
Where I live in North Bedfordshire there are s*** loads of housing being built.
But none for social housing,prices start at about £350.000, ridiculous amount of money for families on low income.
Housing associations should be given a certain amount each year from central government for the building of more social housing.

Because most councils sold most of their housing stock HA,s

Most new social housing now are housing associations

Stop posting made up s*** from your labour social media feeds.