Celtic Indian
|
Housing 'boom'Do you think the current housing boom is all a big con ? Putting asdie 'buy-to-let' (as they are probally the only ones who are benefitting),have we all been conned by the banks,fuelled by mass panic to get onto the housing ladder ?
|
sgmillerton
|
well my house has doubled in value in 5 years, i do live in a crime free leafy suburb mind you.
|
Celtic Indian
|
| sgmillerton wrote: | | well my house has doubled in value in 5 years, i do live in a crime free leafy suburb mind you. |
Yes.Most houses have doubled.But can you access that money ? It all tied up in bricks and mortar.Inaccessable.How are you richer that 5 years ago ?
|
sgmillerton
|
i'm not but i do know that i could sell tomorow for 200,000, pay the mortgage off and but at 100,000 and be mortgage free, if i wanted to, i don't. asset, not cash rich is how i find it re-assuring.
|
Celtic Indian
|
So you need to downgrade in order to free up the cash.
The reason I raised this topic is due to a report on the BBC about the possiblity of house prices falling over the next few years.In Evan Davis report he mentioned that if house prices had risen in line with inflation (like milk,clothes,wages) the average house price in the UK would be £60k.The average house price in the UK currently stands at £230k.A 383% increase.If your current home is valued below this £230k,its fair to say that it would be below the hypothetical £60k.
So what I'm saying is,that if house prices had risen in line with inflation,we'd all be richer.Why ? Because we would have more disposable income to spend as we would probally pay our mortgages of quicker,thus leading to lower debt,or none what so ever,leading to less stress.We could even afford to upgrade to bigger houses at lower prices.
The current housing boom.IMHO,is a total con.We've been conned by the Bank and Building Societies.Some banks are even leading out 120% mortages to people so they can get into the house ladder.We are told that 'we've got so good'.House prices at rampant.Yes they are,but we cannot access this cash for us to spend.Unless,as I say,your a buy-to-letter
|
doodells
|
The only problem is that if house prices had risen in line with inflation of other consumer goods such as milk etc then yes we'd all have more money to spend on others things but the costs of these others things would increase also, so in the end we'd pay more for everything. Demand/Supply curves display this. This is one problem with free markets and the impact of imperfect communcation. Its like a self-fullfilling prophecy, like when someone hears a company might not achieve the profits it said it would last year, some people sell their shares then more people and more, eventually the company is screwed.
But yes I agree that there is too much bullshxting from the banks encouraging people to buy etc. especially when it is a complicated matter. However we can't complain about the fact that if we want to borrow money, the banks will help us out. I just think people have gone too far with trying to buy to let, buy to do up and sell etc, maybe a bit of greed has influenced people.
Just for interests sake, in Spain just now they are having a bit of a nightmare with house prices too, just like us in the UK. However, here the cost of a litre of milk just overtook a litre of petrol. And their milk isn't even the fresh stuff we get, its UHT!
|
Aventinian
|
| doodells wrote: | | Just for interests sake, in Spain just now they are having a bit of a nightmare with house prices too, just like us in the UK. However, here the cost of a litre of milk just overtook a litre of petrol. And their milk isn't even the fresh stuff we get, its UHT! |
I recall someone once saying in my presence something along the lines of "[petrol] is cheaper than water [in some Arab country or other]".
My response was that water was selling at 60p for 50cl in the local shop.
|
doodells
|
Aye but buying water from a shop in Scotland is daft. Its only viable in countries where the tap water is undrinkable. The last report I read on it put the cost of bottled water at around 1000 times more than tap water! But you do get fruit flavoured, and sometimes even with gas inside 
|
Celtic Indian
|
| doodells wrote: |
But yes I agree that there is too much bullshxting from the banks encouraging people to buy etc. especially when it is a complicated matter. |
And also mass panic to jump on to the housing band wagon incase they miss a trick.This has just fuelled the boom.The media have a part to play as well.Reporting that we're all better off.If you've just got onto the house ladder in the past 10 years,then your not.I really feel sorry for the folks who have just recently bought in the past 2 years or so.They are really going to feel it.
| doodells wrote: | However we can't complain about the fact that if we want to borrow money, the banks will help us out.
|
Aye.But they'll slap an interest rate on it.That they're game.Houses are so over-priced that we have to go to the banks for loans,then pay them back more.If houses prices were in line with inflation,we wouldn't need to ask for loans.Our money would be ours,to spend on what we want.We'd have more freedom.
|
agentmancuso
|
| Celtic Indian wrote: |
Aye.But they'll slap an interest rate on it.That they're game.Houses are so over-priced that we have to go to the banks for loans,then pay them back more.If houses prices were in line with inflation,we wouldn't need to ask for loans.Our money would be ours,to spend on what we want.We'd have more freedom. |
What does it mean to say that houses are 'over-priced'?
Why should house prices be in line with inflation?
Your money is yours to spend. If you don't want to spend it on a bigger house, then keep it. Nobody will twist your arm.
|
doodells
|
| agentmancuso wrote: |
Your money is yours to spend. If you don't want to spend it on a bigger house, then keep it. Nobody will twist your arm. |
Aye, thats exactly what I mean about the greed factor, people pushing for too much. But you also have to admit that those with money enough to buy houses for 'projects'and either sell on for a huge profit or keep for letting, have generally speeded up the increases in prices.
But yeah, nobody forces anyone to buy. I remember my gran saying her and my granda couldnt buy anywhere for a few years and lived with her parents after getting married. They weren't poor either. Today, everyone thinks as soon as they pass their 21st birthday they're expected to have a new car and a house.
|
Celtic Indian
|
| doodells wrote: | | agentmancuso wrote: |
Your money is yours to spend. If you don't want to spend it on a bigger house, then keep it. Nobody will twist your arm. |
Aye, thats exactly what I mean about the greed factor, people pushing for too much. But you also have to admit that those with money enough to buy houses for 'projects'and either sell on for a huge profit or keep for letting, have generally speeded up the increases in prices.
But yeah, nobody forces anyone to buy. I remember my gran saying her and my granda couldnt buy anywhere for a few years and lived with her parents after getting married. They weren't poor either. Today, everyone thinks as soon as they pass their 21st birthday they're expected to have a new car and a house. |
Exactly.Even the wee houses are extortionate.More people buy bigger houses because their circumstances change.Single person will usually have a one bed house/flat,then move into bigger accomodation when they meet/marry a parner,then they have to move into a bigger house when the family comes along.You cant' stay in a one bed flat when you have 2 kids and a dug !
|
agentmancuso
|
| doodells wrote: | | But you also have to admit that those with money enough to buy houses for 'projects'and either sell on for a huge profit or keep for letting, have generally speeded up the increases in prices. |
I know what you mean. But I think it important to bear in mind that the seller cannot increase the market price by offering to sell something for profit: only the buyer can do that, by freely agreeing. Caveat emptor!
|
agentmancuso
|
| Celtic Indian wrote: | | Exactly.Even the wee houses are extortionate.More people buy bigger houses because their circumstances change.Single person will usually have a one bed house/flat,then move into bigger accomodation when they meet/marry a parner,then they have to move into a bigger house when the family comes along.You cant' stay in a one bed flat when you have 2 kids and a dug ! |
People used to. Now they don't, largely because they have the freedom not to.
|
Holebender
|
It's a market and you are free to participate or not as you choose. If house prices have risen so sharply it is because buyers have agreed to pay those prices. The real driver is the availability of houses; if more were on the market prices would drop as buyers would have the opportunity to play one seller off against another.
The US market is flooded with houses which the banks have repossesses after subprime mortgagees defaulted on their loans and the prices have consequently dropped. If you want to drop prices in Britain you will need to flood the market in a similar fashion.
However, the value of a house is only nominal and means very little unless you actually sell it. Of course, some folk borrow against the nominal value of their houses and spend the money elsewhere but that can lead to all sorts of trouble if they over-extend themselves and it's still debt, whether secured or not.
|
agentmancuso
|
| Holebender wrote: | It's a market and you are free to participate or not as you choose. If house prices have risen so sharply it is because buyers have agreed to pay those prices. The real driver is the availability of houses; if more were on the market prices would drop as buyers would have the opportunity to play one seller off against another.
The US market is flooded with houses which the banks have repossesses after subprime mortgagees defaulted on their loans and the prices have consequently dropped. If you want to drop prices in Britain you will need to flood the market in a similar fashion.
However, the value of a house is only nominal and means very little unless you actually sell it. Of course, some folk borrow against the nominal value of their houses and spend the money elsewhere but that can lead to all sorts of trouble if they over-extend themselves and it's still debt, whether secured or not. |
Yes exactly, supply & demand.
|
Celtic Indian
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Celtic Indian wrote: | | Exactly.Even the wee houses are extortionate.More people buy bigger houses because their circumstances change.Single person will usually have a one bed house/flat,then move into bigger accomodation when they meet/marry a parner,then they have to move into a bigger house when the family comes along.You cant' stay in a one bed flat when you have 2 kids and a dug ! |
People used to. Now they don't, largely because they have the freedom not to. |
Some people do.Most don't
|
sgmillerton
|
| Celtic Indian wrote: | | sgmillerton wrote: | | well my house has doubled in value in 5 years, i do live in a crime free leafy suburb mind you. |
Yes.Most houses have doubled.But can you access that money ? It all tied up in bricks and mortar.Inaccessable.How are you richer that 5 years ago ? |
i have more disposable income as well through hard work. if i sell my house tomorow i'll make a 100,000 quid profit.end of story.
|
mairead
|
I keep hearing the expression, "Affordable Housing"
Affordable to whom I would like to know.
|
agentmancuso
|
| Celtic Indian wrote: | | agentmancuso wrote: | | Celtic Indian wrote: | | .You cant' stay in a one bed flat when you have 2 kids and a dug ! |
People used to. Now they don't, largely because they have the freedom not to. |
Some people do.Most don't |
I doubt very many families with 2 kids & a dug stay in one bedroom accommodation these days.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
| agentmancuso wrote: |
Yes exactly, supply & demand. |
I would expect demand to substantially decrease if interest rates stay at the same rate they are just now. Many people borrowed over the odds when interest rates were low a couple of years ago. Once those fixed rate deals expire, there are going to be problems.
|
parkhead_rfb
|
i hardly think housing can be compared to other producrs in terms of letting the market decide the price and value.
if i think a car is too expensive i can use other means of transport, with food i can buy other products. a house though is a fundamental need for a person to live and so the current situation is a little more serious than it is when markets force the price of other products up.
its also an unnatural situation given that many of the problems have been increased due to the selling off of the best social housing and very high discounts. many of these houses are now being let at high rates in the private sector.
the only people benefiting from this in real terms are the property developers and land lords.
|
azzuri
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: |
the only people benefiting from this in real terms are the property developers and land lords. |
Most landlords I know are currently subsidising their tenants and getting themselves into stupid amounts of debt in order to 'get on the ladder'.
The party for property developers is over, you only need to look at the change in the share prices of UK housebuilders this year to realise that.
2008 will be known as the year when the property market in the UK finally followed the USA, Ireland and Spain, and prices started dropping YOY.
|
sgmillerton
|
| mairead wrote: | I keep hearing the expression, "Affordable Housing"
Affordable to whom I would like to know. |
someone who can afford them.
|
Cymro
|
| sgmillerton wrote: | | mairead wrote: | I keep hearing the expression, "Affordable Housing"
Affordable to whom I would like to know. |
someone who can afford them. |
No s**t sherlock (point frrom other thread proven loud and clear). As I'm sure you know the 'someone who can afford them' is getting less and less, and as a rule older and older than what a healthy market needs.
|
sgmillerton
|
and the housing market is unhealthy for who? if you cannot afford you have to look at more affordable options, thats what we did. if the market crashes then more people will be able to afford more. and all these houses selling for high prices, yep,really unhealthy.
|
Cymro
|
Unhealthy for all I'd argue. For those forced into often paying more than they can afford, and yes, many are forced believe you me, for those who then see the value collapse, for those who want to sell their house in order to get a bigger house but can't sell at a price that would enable them to take the next step.
Also for those who want to rent, with the house buying price going up rental prices have also been going up.
|
sgmillerton
|
that is about unhealthy descisions, not an unhealhty market. we were offered way more than we could afford by our lender, we knew better than to fall for it, a sensible move, not a stupid one. no-one if forcing anyone to take out bigger motrages and by more expensive houses.
|
Cymro
|
| Quote: | | [quote="sgmillerton"]that is about unhealthy descisions, not an unhealhty market. we were offered way more than we could afford by our lender, we knew better than to fall for it, a sensible move, not a stupid one. no-one if forcing anyone to take out bigger motrages and by more expensive houses. |
I'm sure you did Sg. If a person for what ever reason needs to get their own place and can't get on the housing list because as Parkie ahs mentioned we no longer have such an available stock then needs must. Renting is no longer that cheap and loads of areas.
I own my own house via a mortgage but me and the wife are stretching ourselves in order to get a house for ourselves nearish to where we both work. No way could I manage it if I was single.
Obviously everythings fine and dandy in your little make believe world though.
|
mairead
|
We also own our own home, via a mortgage which has risen by more than £100 per month in the last 2 years.
|
agentmancuso
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | | i hardly think housing can be compared to other producrs in terms of letting the market decide the price and value. |
Then who is capable of deciding? The government?
| Quote: |
if i think a car is too expensive i can use other means of transport, with food i can buy other products. a house though is a fundamental need for a person to live and so the current situation is a little more serious than it is when markets force the price of other products up. |
That's a fair point. But the problem is not that the market forces the prices up, but that artificial restrictions on supply ( i.e. bad planning laws and bad property taxes) cause demand to rise.
| Quote: | | its also an unnatural situation given that many of the problems have been increased due to the selling off of the best social housing and very high discounts. many of these houses are now being let at high rates in the private sector. |
Many more have ordinary living in them; often the first generation in the family to own their own house.
|
azzuri
|
| agentmancuso wrote: |
| Quote: |
if i think a car is too expensive i can use other means of transport, with food i can buy other products. a house though is a fundamental need for a person to live and so the current situation is a little more serious than it is when markets force the price of other products up. |
That's a fair point. But the problem is not that the market forces the prices up, but that artificial restrictions on supply ( i.e. bad planning laws and bad property taxes) cause demand to rise. |
Exactly. strict planning laws and a restriction on land which can be used for building on has driven prices up.
It's not the prices of the buildings themselves that have seen massive inflation, but the land itself.
|
Cymro
|
saying that I wouldn't want planning restrictions being lifed too much so any green bit of land is fair game. More tax breaks and even grants should be given to developing Browns fields in order to get rid of them before concreting over any more fields and woodlands.
|
agentmancuso
|
| azzuri wrote: | | It's not the prices of the buildings themselves that have seen massive inflation, but the land itself. |
True, but the reason for the rise in land value is generally the prospective income from housing developments!
I accept that protecting some green land is a valid concern, though frequently it is just used as an excuse by nimbies conserving their own property values.
We have a serious problem with property taxes. They are very inflexible, and so cannot be used either to incentivise brownfield redevelopment adequately, or to discourage the Tesco "buy 5 sites and sit on them for a few years before deciding where you want to build" approach. Similarly, the need for 'social housing' is undeniable, but leaving it in government hands is not a viable option.
The only way out of it I can see is by a locally set Land Value Tax.
|
azzuri
|
A locally set land value tax would be ideal, but none of the mainstream political parties seem to favour this, even though it's clearly the most sensible option.
|
Cymro
|
In terms of the environment it's a shame it's regarded as l;argely a property of nibyists but I do believe it's an importatn aspect which needs protecting. at the moment far too much power is given to private developers. At the end of the day once a field is filled with concrete or a woodland has been felled it's lost for ever. We can't afford to ignore that anymore. We need to be far more creative with how we satisfy the need for land to develop. My home town, a small market town in North East Wales has both sides of this coin. One side of town and old derelict garage has been demolished. It was an eyesore. In it's place 3 new houses have been built in keeping with the local architecutre. They are good quality housing too - gardens, drive away and not built practically on top of eachother. On the otherside of town a huge housing estate is going up, little intergration into the town, on a flood plain,which was a lovely serioes of fields and woodlands and housies are ugly. The result of this development that in order to 'intergrate' them more housing will be built until they join up with some nicer housing on the other side of town.
Whats daft also was that the Council found that the home town had a shrtage of business land for the current population. In order to develop that land they had to agree to allow private developers to build 500 new houses. So that new business land will still not be enough to satisfy the needs of the population as it's forced to grow. Odds are now that they'll need for business land. How will they get that? By building more houses. The spirall continues!
|
sgmillerton
|
[quote="Cymro"] | Quote: | | sgmillerton wrote: | | that is about unhealthy descisions, not an unhealhty market. we were offered way more than we could afford by our lender, we knew better than to fall for it, a sensible move, not a stupid one. no-one if forcing anyone to take out bigger motrages and by more expensive houses. |
I'm sure you did Sg. If a person for what ever reason needs to get their own place and can't get on the housing list because as Parkie ahs mentioned we no longer have such an available stock then needs must. Renting is no longer that cheap and loads of areas.
I own my own house via a mortgage but me and the wife are stretching ourselves in order to get a house for ourselves nearish to where we both work. No way could I manage it if I was single.
Obviously everythings fine and dandy in your little make believe world though. |
if someone cannot afford to get on the housing ladder they have wait and save or better themselves in their career to afford themselves that opportunity. nobody is being forced to do anything here. my world is not make believe here, we sold our house 5 years ago for a great profit and the house we have moved into had just about doubled in value. no-one is to blame, people making unwise descsions are to blame.
|
parkhead_rfb
|
| azzuri wrote: | | A locally set land value tax would be ideal, but none of the mainstream political parties seem to favour this, even though it's clearly the most sensible option. |
the ideal solution for me is a building programme of social housing to be built.
this would increase supply of housing and offer many who otherwise wouldnt have the chance the opportunity to live in decent housing for affordable rents.
the right to buy council houses should also be removed ensuring the stock stays within social housing.
I also dont know any poor landlords only wealthy ones.
|
azzuri
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | | azzuri wrote: | | A locally set land value tax would be ideal, but none of the mainstream political parties seem to favour this, even though it's clearly the most sensible option. |
I also dont know any poor landlords only wealthy ones. |
You obviously don't know many of the recent BTL (buy-to-let) landlords then...
|
parkhead_rfb
|
| azzuri wrote: | | parkhead_rfb wrote: | | azzuri wrote: | | A locally set land value tax would be ideal, but none of the mainstream political parties seem to favour this, even though it's clearly the most sensible option. |
I also dont know any poor landlords only wealthy ones. |
You obviously don't know many of the recent BTL (buy-to-let) landlords then... |
know quite a few and they do well from their properties.
|
Cymro
|
[quote="sgmillerton"] | Cymro wrote: | | Quote: | | sgmillerton wrote: | | that is about unhealthy descisions, not an unhealhty market. we were offered way more than we could afford by our lender, we knew better than to fall for it, a sensible move, not a stupid one. no-one if forcing anyone to take out bigger motrages and by more expensive houses. |
I'm sure you did Sg. If a person for what ever reason needs to get their own place and can't get on the housing list because as Parkie ahs mentioned we no longer have such an available stock then needs must. Renting is no longer that cheap and loads of areas.
I own my own house via a mortgage but me and the wife are stretching ourselves in order to get a house for ourselves nearish to where we both work. No way could I manage it if I was single.
Obviously everythings fine and dandy in your little make believe world though. |
if someone cannot afford to get on the housing ladder they have wait and save or better themselves in their career to afford themselves that opportunity. nobody is being forced to do anything here. my world is not make believe here, we sold our house 5 years ago for a great profit and the house we have moved into had just about doubled in value. no-one is to blame, people making unwise descsions are to blame. |
As I said the rental market is often too expensive too, especially if you're single and social housing can't cope because loads have been sold off. It's easy you sat there saying it's people making unwise decisions, however often wise or not there is actually little choice.
|
sgmillerton
|
[quote="Cymro"] | sgmillerton wrote: | | Cymro wrote: | | Quote: | | sgmillerton wrote: | | that is about unhealthy descisions, not an unhealhty market. we were offered way more than we could afford by our lender, we knew better than to fall for it, a sensible move, not a stupid one. no-one if forcing anyone to take out bigger motrages and by more expensive houses. |
I'm sure you did Sg. If a person for what ever reason needs to get their own place and can't get on the housing list because as Parkie ahs mentioned we no longer have such an available stock then needs must. Renting is no longer that cheap and loads of areas.
I own my own house via a mortgage but me and the wife are stretching ourselves in order to get a house for ourselves nearish to where we both work. No way could I manage it if I was single.
Obviously everythings fine and dandy in your little make believe world though. |
if someone cannot afford to get on the housing ladder they have wait and save or better themselves in their career to afford themselves that opportunity. nobody is being forced to do anything here. my world is not make believe here, we sold our house 5 years ago for a great profit and the house we have moved into had just about doubled in value. no-one is to blame, people making unwise descsions are to blame. |
As I said the rental market is often too expensive too, especially if you're single and social housing can't cope because loads have been sold off. It's easy you sat there saying it's people making unwise decisions, however often wise or not there is actually little choice. |
well, wait and save.
|
Cymro
|
wait for what? a dead family member. Not always possible SG
|
sgmillerton
|
| Cymro wrote: | | wait for what? a dead family member. Not always possible SG |
i had to stay with my folks for a few years to save money. one of my mates stayed with his folks till his early 30's as he was aving to buy his 1st place (mind you i think he enjoyed 3 meals a day on the table for 30 quid a week).
|
Cymro
|
Good for you. I'll quote myself though "not always possible"
|
agentmancuso
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | the ideal solution for me is a building programme of social housing to be built.
this would increase supply of housing and offer many who otherwise wouldnt have the chance the opportunity to live in decent housing for affordable rents. |
It's not the government's business to build, maintain or repair housing.
Mass estates of rented housing are a disaster anyway. Only by entering into ownership can tenants be persuaded to take proper care of the fabric of the building.
The planning system has to be reformed, in such a way as to incentivise the building of low-cost housing.
|
Cymro
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | parkhead_rfb wrote: | the ideal solution for me is a building programme of social housing to be built.
this would increase supply of housing and offer many who otherwise wouldnt have the chance the opportunity to live in decent housing for affordable rents. |
It's not the government's business to build, maintain or repair housing.
Mass estates of rented housing are a disaster anyway. Only by entering into ownership can tenants be persuaded to take proper care of the fabric of the building.
The planning system has to be reformed, in such a way as to incentivise the building of low-cost housing. |
Nonsense. I've rented and treated the houses as my own with complete respect for the property. I don't think I'm an exception to the rule either.
The government does have a responsibilityot built and provide where necessary. Mass estates may not be the idea, but they don't need to be mutually exclusive.
|
SLG
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Only by entering into ownership can tenants be persuaded to take proper care of the fabric of the building |
I'm with you on that. I think there is scope for limited social housing, but on a mass scale it doesn't work in this age. People need to feel a sense of ownership and that means we need mass home ownership as a result of affordable home ownership.
|
agentmancuso
|
| Cymro wrote: | | I've rented and treated the houses as my own with complete respect for the property. |
I don't doubt it; so have I.
| Quote: |
I don't think I'm an exception to the rule either. |
Have you ever seen a council estate?
| Quote: | | The government does have a responsibility ot built and provide where necessary. Mass estates may not be the idea, but they don't need to be mutually exclusive. |
The government has a responsibility to provide a safety net for the weakest: that does not equate to the provision of housing as a matter of course.
|
agentmancuso
|
| SLG wrote: | | People need to feel a sense of ownership and that means we need mass home ownership as a result of affordable home ownership. |
Yes. The present planning/tax system makes it unprofitable to build low-cost housing. It could quite easily be restructured, were there the political will to do so. Unfortunately the discussion always gets trapped in a public/private dispute, when what matters is the practical result.
|
parkhead_rfb
|
council estates are in a state for many reasons and i can assure you government investment in social housing is most certainly not one of them.
in fact the very opposite is true. to suggest the only way the working class will take care of their home is if they own it is pompous in the extreme.
by the way i believe its a human right for individuals to have housing so there most definitely is an onus on governments to provide social housing
|
Aventinian
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | | by the way i believe its a human right for individuals to have housing so there most definitely is an onus on governments to provide social housing |
Oh, is it now?
|
agentmancuso
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | | council estates are in a state for many reasons |
Such as?
| Quote: |
and i can assure you government investment in social housing is most certainly not one of them. |
The government built and maintained council estates with taxpayers' money. It's throwing money down the drain. Why should the taxpayer continue to shell out to accommodate those unwilling to look after what has been provided for them?
| Quote: |
to suggest the only way the working class will take care of their home is if they own it is pompous in the extreme. |
I didn't mention 'the working class' because there is no such thing as 'the working class'.
| Quote: | | by the way i believe its a human right for individuals to have housing so there most definitely is an onus on governments to provide social housing |
Isn't it a bit odd that people have a right to have housing provided by the government when they don't have the right not to be blown up by bigoted tribal warriors?
|
Cymro
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Cymro wrote: | | I've rented and treated the houses as my own with complete respect for the property. |
I don't doubt it; so have I.
| Quote: |
I don't think I'm an exception to the rule either. |
Have you ever seen a council estate?
| Quote: | | The government does have a responsibility ot built and provide where necessary. Mass estates may not be the idea, but they don't need to be mutually exclusive. |
The government has a responsibility to provide a safety net for the weakest: that does not equate to the provision of housing as a matter of course. |
Yes I have. Many are in a bad state and many are looked after by the tennents. So you proof nothing there, other than possibly your wish to generalise Council House Tennents.
I'll say it again, mass estates don't work in my opinion, but provision by the state do not have to be mass estates.
|
sgmillerton
|
so where are they going to put council housing, i certainly hope not near me. council residents are much less likely to look after the property and those housed in cooncil property always bring more crime and social problems. some may want to dance around this but it is a fact.
|
parkhead_rfb
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | parkhead_rfb wrote: | | council estates are in a state for many reasons |
Such as?
| Quote: |
and i can assure you government investment in social housing is most certainly not one of them. |
The government built and maintained council estates with taxpayers' money. It's throwing money down the drain. Why should the taxpayer continue to shell out to accommodate those unwilling to look after what has been provided for them?
| Quote: |
to suggest the only way the working class will take care of their home is if they own it is pompous in the extreme. |
I didn't mention 'the working class' because there is no such thing as 'the working class'.
| Quote: | | by the way i believe its a human right for individuals to have housing so there most definitely is an onus on governments to provide social housing |
Isn't it a bit odd that people have a right to have housing provided by the government when they don't have the right not to be blown up by bigoted tribal warriors? |
I live in a council estate and i am a tax payer. do i not have a right to have benefit from those taxes then or are they only to be used on things you deem acceptable? a new kids park in bearsden maybe?
without social housing homelessnes in this country would go through the roof and with it crime, drug abuse and poverty. it doesnt make any moral or social policy sense not to have decent social housing.
unless of course you think its acceptable for a state to allow people to sleep on the streets as they have no home.
as for the reasons why council estates are in such a mess its because they have greater levels of poverty, drug abuse and other social problems. these are then made by the fact that even greater numbers of addicts etc will then be placed in these areas out of the way.
you reek of someone who has always been lucky enough to have mummy and daddy provide the best throught your youth and have no consideration for the fact that others in society arent quite as lucky.
I would like to see how you turned out in life if you were brought up in possil with two addict parents, one things for certain though you wouldnt be the pompous c**t you are now.
|
agentmancuso
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | without social housing homelessnes in this country would go through the roof and with it crime, drug abuse and poverty. it doesnt make any moral or social policy sense not to have decent social housing.
unless of course you think its acceptable for a state to allow people to sleep on the streets as they have no home.
as for the reasons why council estates are in such a mess its because they have greater levels of poverty, drug abuse and other social problems. these are then made by the fact that even greater numbers of addicts etc will then be placed in these areas out of the way. |
As usual, you miss the point entirely. It is only right and proper that the government intervene to protect the weakest in society. But surely you don't think that everyone who lives in a council estate would become a homeless junky if the state didn't carry them along? The vast majority are perfectly capable of owning and running their own home. So why not let them, rather than tying up vast amounts of other peoples money into subsidising a hopelessly inefficient system?
| Quote: | you reek of someone who has always been lucky enough to have mummy and daddy provide the best throught your youth and have no consideration for the fact that others in society arent quite as lucky.
I would like to see how you turned out in life if you were brought up in possil with two addict parents, one things for certain though you wouldnt be the pompous c**t you are now. |
You don't know anything about my background, though the ugliness of your stereotyping would very revelatory were it not for the fact that it's already established that you are an apologist for murderers.
|
Aventinian
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | | I live in a council estate and i am a tax payer. do i not have a right to have benefit from those taxes then |
Nope. That's sort of the point of taxation - you're not entitled to anything from them, they go towards the greater glory of the nation.
| SLG wrote: | | Yes, but these would clearly be people that aren't set against independence. |
I don't think that follows necessarily.
While people may well not like Alex Salmond's Nat bullshit, they may have liked Jack McConnell's bullshit even less.
|
parkhead_rfb
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | parkhead_rfb wrote: | without social housing homelessnes in this country would go through the roof and with it crime, drug abuse and poverty. it doesnt make any moral or social policy sense not to have decent social housing.
unless of course you think its acceptable for a state to allow people to sleep on the streets as they have no home.
as for the reasons why council estates are in such a mess its because they have greater levels of poverty, drug abuse and other social problems. these are then made by the fact that even greater numbers of addicts etc will then be placed in these areas out of the way. |
As usual, you miss the point entirely. It is only right and proper that the government intervene to protect the weakest in society. But surely you don't think that everyone who lives in a council estate would become a homeless junky if the state didn't carry them along? The vast majority are perfectly capable of owning and running their own home. So why not let them, rather than tying up vast amounts of other peoples money into subsidising a hopelessly inefficient system?
| Quote: | you reek of someone who has always been lucky enough to have mummy and daddy provide the best throught your youth and have no consideration for the fact that others in society arent quite as lucky.
I would like to see how you turned out in life if you were brought up in possil with two addict parents, one things for certain though you wouldnt be the pompous c**t you are now. |
You don't know anything about my background, though the ugliness of your stereotyping would very revelatory were it not for the fact that it's already established that you are an apologist for murderers. |
the vast majority cant though.
i am a graduate on a decent salary and i couldnt afford to buy in this current market.
as for your background i dont doubt for one minute i am wrong. you stand beside the very many i went to university with who can comment on social issues but wouldnt last two seconds in the areas social policy decisions effect the most.
your a silver spoon job and i would love to see your attitude change had mummy and daddy been on the social instead.
(by the way you posted on another thread about how you had the benefit of your upbringing, the inheritance thread one, so aside from your usual comfortable middle class spoutings its obvious where your coming from mate)
|
sgmillerton
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | | agentmancuso wrote: | | parkhead_rfb wrote: | without social housing homelessnes in this country would go through the roof and with it crime, drug abuse and poverty. it doesnt make any moral or social policy sense not to have decent social housing.
unless of course you think its acceptable for a state to allow people to sleep on the streets as they have no home.
as for the reasons why council estates are in such a mess its because they have greater levels of poverty, drug abuse and other social problems. these are then made by the fact that even greater numbers of addicts etc will then be placed in these areas out of the way. |
As usual, you miss the point entirely. It is only right and proper that the government intervene to protect the weakest in society. But surely you don't think that everyone who lives in a council estate would become a homeless junky if the state didn't carry them along? The vast majority are perfectly capable of owning and running their own home. So why not let them, rather than tying up vast amounts of other peoples money into subsidising a hopelessly inefficient system?
| Quote: | you reek of someone who has always been lucky enough to have mummy and daddy provide the best throught your youth and have no consideration for the fact that others in society arent quite as lucky.
I would like to see how you turned out in life if you were brought up in possil with two addict parents, one things for certain though you wouldnt be the pompous c**t you are now. |
You don't know anything about my background, though the ugliness of your stereotyping would very revelatory were it not for the fact that it's already established that you are an apologist for murderers. |
the vast majority cant though.
i am a graduate on a decent salary and i couldnt afford to buy in this current market.
as for your background i dont doubt for one minute i am wrong. you stand beside the very many i went to university with who can comment on social issues but wouldnt last two seconds in the areas social policy decisions effect the most.
your a silver spoon job and i would love to see your attitude change had mummy and daddy been on the social instead.
(by the way you posted on another thread about how you had the benefit of your upbringing, the inheritance thread one, so aside from your usual comfortable middle class spoutings its obvious where your coming from mate) |
hahahaha, silver sppoon,bearsden, mummy and daddy,social issues, pompous c**t. you truly are the funniest man alive. stop whining, improve yourself, make more money or save some more and do something instead of blaming everyone else for your housing situation.your situation is your fault, not mine, not the states or anyone elses, YOURS. get over it.
|
sgmillerton
|
the interest rates aredown again, good stuff and good for me.
|
Celtic Indian
|
| sgmillerton wrote: | | the interest rates aredown again, good stuff and good for me. |
Just in time for Xmas to help boost sales.Let see what happens in feb.Hopefully inflation won't rise.
|
azzuri
|
....sentiment has turned drastically.
Too late for the housing market now it seems. They tried this ploy in August 2005 but the market has changed dramatically since then. Just look at the amount of fixed price places on the market now.
The media follow opinion rather than shape it when it comes to the economy, and even they are now saying this rate cut won't affect the market one bit.
The credit crunch has happened and the sub-prime problems in the USA have now come to the fore. People are finding out that easy credit is gone for good.
It's just part of the economic cycle, bubbles always have and always will burst.
|
Cymro
|
I'm on a fixed rate mortgage for another few months anyway so at this moment in time rate cuts or rises don't really affect me. However it does sound like the rates are set to come down again in the new year. This is something which will in time effect me.
From what I gather this interest cut has merely limited the possible freefall the economy could potentially have got into. Sounds like a good thing I suppose.
It's not a bad thing that easy debt is now harder to accuire. I have some debts which I'm busily repaying and wish it had been harder for me to get it at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Ironic that while banks are cutting down on the amount of debt they are allowing us to have for economic reasons, the governments justification for getting students into debt has been the economic power graduates would have.
|
sgmillerton
|
i'm on a fixed discount and that works well for me.
|
Cymro
|
I'm sure you are. What incidently is a Fixed Discount?
|
sgmillerton
|
| Cymro wrote: | | I'm sure you are. What incidently is a Fixed Discount? |
no really, we are. a fixed discount is where your rate is a certain % below the standard rate, so it goes up and down but always stays 2% below the standard rate. we have had this for years and has worked very well.
|
Cymro
|
Oh right. I'll take you word for it. Not heard of that one. If true(blue) then I suppose you'd have had to pay a fee to get it.
|
sgmillerton
|
no fee, just part of our package. this is where folks go wrong with their mortgage, they do not look into it properly and are not looking for the best deals available for the (most likely) biggest investment of their lives. very silly of them not knowing how much money they can save.
|
Cymro
|
I'm sure. I looked into it and was never offered that. Really bad to generalise SGMillerton, given my mortgage is 100% it's pretty sure I wouldn't have been entitled to certain 'offers'. But hey, in your own little world I'm sure it's nice being perfect.
|
sgmillerton
|
ah, now that is where you are going wrong, as your mortgage is 100% you will not be entitled to as many deals and offers as the people (such as we) whose mortgage is 90/95% (cannot recall how much deposit we paid). basically 100% mortgages are seen as a bigger risk compared to those saving and paying a bigger deposit.
|
Cymro
|
| sgmillerton wrote: | | ah, now that is where you are going wrong, as your mortgage is 100% you will not be entitled to as many deals and offers as the people (such as we) whose mortgage is 90/95% (cannot recall how much deposit we paid). basically 100% mortgages are seen as a bigger risk compared to those saving and paying a bigger deposit. |
3
I know.
However just Googled 'Fixed Discount Mortgages' and have come up with 'Fixed Rate' and 'Variable Discount'. No mention of 'Fixed Discount'. Care to say which bank you came across this?
|
sgmillerton
|
we are with hbos.
|
sgmillerton
|
i've just googled it as well and there are plenty offering this.
|
Cymro
|
Well we have 2 different googles ar work then. 'Fixed Discount' bring up a lot of Fixed Rates and a lot of Variable Discount and Tracker Discounts.
|
sgmillerton
|
i tried fixed discount mortgage. maybe hbos don't do it anymore.i'd actually be surpsed if they did cos it is a fantastic deal.
|
Cymro
|
Not just HBOS have dropped it then as it doesn't come up.
|
sgmillerton
|
A discount rate works like this, then. A 1% discount off a Standard Variable rate of 5.75% means you pay 4.75%. If UK interest rates increased by 0.25% and the SVR, as is usual, followed it so it is 6%, you'd then be paying 5%.
from the wise mouth of moneysipermarket.com.that is the mortgage we have.i can only assume, as noted above they have stopped doing them as it is a nice deal. i'll have to do some searching for the right deal when this one runs out.
|
Cymro
|
So it's a tracker. Had you said that, you'd have saved a whole lot of message posting Mr Millerton
Aaaah Moneysupermarket, a good old (well new) Welsh company
|
sgmillerton
|
no. it's a fixed discount like it says at moneysupermarket and on the top of our mortgage staement.when it comes to our mortgage i make sure i know what i'm talking about cos it saves me money. if more people took the timethey would be better off.
|
azzuri
|
Although I no longer have a mortgage, Virgin's 'One account' and similiar deals are quite simply the best on the market, if you have the willpower not to just spend all of the 'equity' lying in your account.
It can theoretically cut your interest payments in half...
|
sgmillerton
|
we looked into the virgin stuff at the time, wisne the right product for our circumstnces.
|
|
|
