|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 10, 2024 20:05:47 GMT
Like most things, property ownership is cyclical. The current generation of people who cannot afford to buy a house aren't the first. This is no different to the 50's and 60's when the proliferation of council houses satisfied the need. In that generation, there were people who made sacrifices to buy a house. Many had minimal furniture, did not have foreign (or maybe any) holidays, did not have a late model car each, or even one between them. When they were given the opportunity to purchase houses, then they were able to slow down or prevent those estates from becoming sink estates. These are the people who cared for their children, and still do to some extent through support such as gifts towards deposits and childcare for grandchildren or great grandchildren. Sadly, a lot of this support has only created a sense of entitlement in the current generation who cannot live without a very expensive mobile phone, Netflix subscriptions, top branded clothing and footwear, costly takeaway food, the latest lease car each, at least one luxury foreign holiday a year, plus some short breaks. When house purchase is considered it has to be equipped with all mod cons. For those on benefits, there is an army of organisations who exist on charitable donations and public government grants to navigate them through all the complicated schemes that universal credit was supposed to eradicate. Such Benefit claimants can end up significantly better off when all additional support such as housing benefit, council tax relief and other fringe exemptions such a TV licences than low earners or retired people with moderate pensions to supplement the state pension who end up paying income tax. The poor are not always the ones who claim to be. I'll just pick out one point for the moment.
Just who gets a free TV licence? err not benefit claimants unless they are over 80.
Registered blind people do,
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 10, 2024 20:08:38 GMT
Ireland has had eu money poured into it since the 80’s. In fact until they let the Eastern European states in, Ireland was the biggest recipient of eu subsidies for 20years. Benefits by any other name. The point is if a high percentage of people in a society like Uk can’t afford to eat or heat a house then that society is uncerstainable and will collapse. We are beginning to see this. Look at the rise of street crime in London. What’s the point of having a Rolex if you can’t wear it in public? This deterioration will just increase, whilst wealthy people will be insulated from the worst of decline at the start, their wealth won’t protect them for ever. We have a generation who are growing up knowing that they are likely to never be able to buy a house or have the quality of life that future generations have benefitted from. This is the first generation that have faced this situation. What about the next generation or the one after that, do you think that they will put up with being told they can’t have any kind of life because the rich old fucks have stolen all the wealth and used all the resources? What is the point of having Rolex at all? If you can’t think of something more useful to spend your wealth on than an overpriced device for telling the time (with the side benefit of telling everyone how rich you are) then it would be better to give the money to someone who could do something useful with it,
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 10, 2024 20:09:04 GMT
I'll just pick out one point for the moment.
Just who gets a free TV licence? err not benefit claimants unless they are over 80.
Registered blind people do, Freeloaders!!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 10, 2024 20:13:20 GMT
There's a shortage of housing,for sure. Visit the vast majority of countries in the world, try to buy a house. You'll be disappointed.The majority of governments, sensibly in my opinion, consider the housing needs of their people to outweigh the importance of investment vehicles for foreigners. I'd buy a house and move to Indonesia, if I could. It isn't allowed. The best I could hope for would be to lease a place. Even then, there would be a minimum lease price requirement, the requirement to employ a full time Indonesian, set up a limited company and purchase an expensive visa. The minimum lease price is around 4 times average rent. There is certainly a shortage of houses in the UK and they are very expensive. The two points being linked of course, due to supply and demand. There are not enough houses because all planning applications are met with “NIMBY”. There are not enough houses because some people have two (or more), one of which is only used for holidays. There are not enough houses because we let foreigners buy them as empty investments (especially London). All these points would be easily fixable but there is no appetite for it.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 10, 2024 20:28:07 GMT
On the subject of housing...
Both my sets of grand parents moved into social housing during the 'slum clearences' of London (happened before the 2nd world war). They allways had security of tenure and the rents were reasonable for a carpenter and a railway clerk. The rents remained reasonable for many many years - into my young teenage years when they died. This wasn't a council house, but private social housing.
It was possible then - why not now?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 10, 2024 20:44:01 GMT
On the subject of housing...
Both my sets of grand parents moved into social housing during the 'slum clearences' of London (happened before the 2nd world war). They allways had security of tenure and the rents were reasonable for a carpenter and a railway clerk. The rents remained reasonable for many many years - into my young teenage years when they died. This wasn't a council house, but private social housing.
It was possible then - why not now?
It isn't generally attractive to landlords to tie themselves into such contracts. The few houses which come onto the market which still have regulated tenancies attached are priced significantly lower than a 'free' house. Why would a landlord enter a contract which instantly devalues their investment? OK, you could say 'stuff the landlords' but in doing so you'd create an even greater shortage of rental properties and even higher rents for all. The single solution to the housing crisis is to get a better balance between demand and supply. The former currently exceeding the latter. This requires measures to address both the demand, and the supply. It's pointless to fixate on one, ignoring the other. Or, as is the status quo, constantly failing to honour promises to increase the supply whilst forming policy which constantly increases the demand.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 10, 2024 20:46:26 GMT
The point is if a high percentage of people in a society like Uk can’t afford to eat or heat a house then that society is uncerstainable I don't think I could eat a house.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 10, 2024 20:51:03 GMT
The point is if a high percentage of people in a society like Uk can’t afford to eat or heat a house then that society is uncerstainable I don't think I could eat a house. You could if you believed in yourself.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 10, 2024 20:51:38 GMT
On the subject of housing...
Both my sets of grand parents moved into social housing during the 'slum clearences' of London (happened before the 2nd world war). They allways had security of tenure and the rents were reasonable for a carpenter and a railway clerk. The rents remained reasonable for many many years - into my young teenage years when they died. This wasn't a council house, but private social housing.
It was possible then - why not now?
It isn't generally attractive to landlords to tie themselves into such contracts. The few houses which come onto the market which still have regulated tenancies attached are priced significantly lower than a 'free' house. Why would a landlord enter a contract which instantly devalues their investment? OK, you could say 'stuff the landlords' but in doing so you'd create an even greater shortage of rental properties and even higher rents for all. The single solution to the housing crisis is to get a better balance between demand and supply. The former currently exceeding the latter. This requires measures to address both the demand, and the supply. It's pointless to fixate on one, ignoring the other. Or, as is the status quo, constantly failing to honour promises to increase the supply whilst forming policy which constantly increases the demand. Oh I totally understand that from a modern day perspective. Today's world is about maximising profit and minimising risk. Nowt to do with caring though.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 10, 2024 20:56:23 GMT
It isn't generally attractive to landlords to tie themselves into such contracts. The few houses which come onto the market which still have regulated tenancies attached are priced significantly lower than a 'free' house. Why would a landlord enter a contract which instantly devalues their investment? OK, you could say 'stuff the landlords' but in doing so you'd create an even greater shortage of rental properties and even higher rents for all. The single solution to the housing crisis is to get a better balance between demand and supply. The former currently exceeding the latter. This requires measures to address both the demand, and the supply. It's pointless to fixate on one, ignoring the other. Or, as is the status quo, constantly failing to honour promises to increase the supply whilst forming policy which constantly increases the demand. Oh I totally understand that from a modern day perspective. Today's world is about maximising profit and minimising risk. Nowt to do with caring though. Caring is all well and good. Would you spend £200K on something then hand it over to a stranger on a never ending contract, knowing that signing the contract reduced its value to £100K?
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 10, 2024 21:00:15 GMT
Oh I totally understand that from a modern day perspective. Today's world is about maximising profit and minimising risk. Nowt to do with caring though. Caring is all well and good. Would you spend £200K on something then hand it over to a stranger on a never ending contract, knowing that signing the contract reduced its value to £100K? No.
But why did things like that happen in the past? It wasn't because it was worth double the value with no rules etc.- why is it now?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 10, 2024 21:08:17 GMT
Oh I totally understand that from a modern day perspective. Today's world is about maximising profit and minimising risk. Nowt to do with caring though. Caring is all well and good. Would you spend £200K on something then hand it over to a stranger on a never ending contract, knowing that signing the contract reduced its value to £100K? I think the point is though that BTL should be discouraged in favour of owner-occupation.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 10, 2024 21:10:20 GMT
Caring is all well and good. Would you spend £200K on something then hand it over to a stranger on a never ending contract, knowing that signing the contract reduced its value to £100K? I think the point is though that BTL should be discouraged in favour of owner-occupation. That certainly isn't my point.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Feb 11, 2024 0:26:20 GMT
In my locality, private landlords houses are often cheaper than some Council owned 'affordable' houses by about 25%. They are older, but equally habitable. Housing Association properties are also cheaper than the Council ones. With social housing, when a family grows up and leaves, one or two people shou;d not be left in a 3 or more bedroom property. The so called bedroom tax on underoccupied property, whether private or public owned goes some way to mitigating this where the tenant is on housing benefit but that does not address under utilization of public assets. In London, there are at least 4 M.P.'s living in social housing properties, with one actually letting out a privately owned flat. She says her parliamentary duties don't give her time to address the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 11, 2024 9:05:32 GMT
Caring is all well and good. Would you spend £200K on something then hand it over to a stranger on a never ending contract, knowing that signing the contract reduced its value to £100K? No.
But why did things like that happen in the past? It wasn't because it was worth double the value with no rules etc.- why is it now?
Council house provision was bigger and the population level was more stable. A better balance between demand and supply. There wasn't a need then, for a large private rented sector.
|
|