PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

landlord bashing

Options
1…1517192021

Comments

  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Guest101 wrote: »
    That depends on your definition of 'fair'.
    <nods>
    Like I said, equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome - and rewards are measured very differently for different people.
  • Crashy_Time
    Crashy_Time Posts: 13,386 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    Guest101 wrote: »
    No I don't want the state interfering in the sale of property. That would be market manipulation



    :rotfl: As if they are not eyeball deep in manipulating (propping up) the market already. If they want SALES (loans) to pick up though they will need to manipulate a crash.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    Crashy_Time wrote: »
    :rotfl: As if they are not eyeball deep in manipulating (propping up) the market already. If they want SALES (loans) to pick up though they will need to manipulate a crash.

    There's a massive difference between influencing the economy e.g. interest rates, tax, etc.


    And telling people who they can (and by proxy cannot) sell to. - that was the original suggestion, that is what I am arguing against.
  • johnbusby
    johnbusby Posts: 181 Forumite
    Options
    Guest101 wrote: »
    There's a massive difference between influencing the economy e.g. interest rates, tax, etc.


    And telling people who they can (and by proxy cannot) sell to. - that was the original suggestion, that is what I am arguing against.

    The government has already gone far beyond interest rates and tax. Look at the shambles of a policy that is Help to Buy for a good example.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    johnbusby wrote: »
    The government has already gone far beyond interest rates and tax. Look at the shambles of a policy that is Help to Buy for a good example.



    I don't agree with Help to Buy, so ... :)


    I think there's too much obsession with home ownership in the UK personally, but each to their own.
  • LadyL2013
    LadyL2013 Posts: 191 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    It's not really about affluence, it's more about attitude.


    To use a really simple example. If I have 10 loaves of bread that I have worked for them, then great. I should enjoy that bread. But if you are doing your best and can only afford one loaf of bread and I then decide I'm also going to buy that loaf of bread and then sell it back to you for nearly double the price, that would be a bit of a cruel move, wouldn't it? Especially when I could do other things with those loaves that would also be profitable to me. I could exchange them for some cans of soup, or perhaps sell a loaf and put that money into something else. And those would all be perfectly fine things to do, I get to make a profit and reap the rewards of my success, without depriving others of something they really need, when I don't really need it myself.


    If you look at that scenario and think 'eff, the guy who can only afford one loaf, I'm having it anyway', then the problem is with your attitude, not how successful or affluent you are. There are plenty of people who have great success who also see something wrong withy that scenario. Indeed, I have been very fortunate financially and I have been very hard up financially and at no point has my attitude to the housing crisis and the lower end properties being used almost parasitically by some changed.


    It's just a bit of basic human decency to think about others, y'know?
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Guest101 wrote: »
    I think there's too much obsession with home ownership in the UK personally, but each to their own.
    I'm just going to put this here without comment.

    _48776599_housing464x281.gif
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    LadyL2013 wrote: »
    To use a really simple example. If I have 10 loaves of bread that I have worked for them, then great. I should enjoy that bread. But if you are doing your best and can only afford one loaf of bread and I then decide I'm also going to buy that loaf of bread and then sell it back to you for nearly double the price, that would be a bit of a cruel move, wouldn't it? Especially when I could do other things with those loaves that would also be profitable to me. I could exchange them for some cans of soup, or perhaps sell a loaf and put that money into something else. And those would all be perfectly fine things to do, I get to make a profit and reap the rewards of my success, without depriving others of something they really need, when I don't really need it myself.
    Your analogy falls down on one fairly major detail.

    Loaves of bread are for consumption. They don't store for the future.
    The person who doesn't buy a loaf still gets to eat a loaf.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    LadyL2013 wrote: »
    It's not really about affluence, it's more about attitude. - Can you expand?


    To use a really simple example. If I have 10 loaves of bread that I have worked for them, then great. I should enjoy that bread. But if you are doing your best and can only afford one loaf of bread and I then decide I'm also going to buy that loaf of bread and then sell it back to you for nearly double the price, that would be a bit of a cruel move, wouldn't it? - So there's only one loaf of bread? No other substitute would do? You can only afford one, and it must be that one?


    Especially when I could do other things with those loaves that would also be profitable to me. I could exchange them for some cans of soup, or perhaps sell a loaf and put that money into something else. And those would all be perfectly fine things to do, I get to make a profit and reap the rewards of my success, without depriving others of something they really need, when I don't really need it myself. - Is this about letting property? I'm so confused now :)


    If you look at that scenario and think 'eff, the guy who can only afford one loaf, I'm having it anyway', - I dont think that. then the problem is with your attitude, not how successful or affluent you are. There are plenty of people who have great success who also see something wrong withy that scenario. - What I would see as wrong, using your scenario is that a 'police officer' (read authority) would force you to sell your bread for a set price. Indeed, I have been very fortunate financially and I have been very hard up financially and at no point has my attitude to the housing crisis and the lower end properties being used almost parasitically by some changed. - I appreciate this example works for you, but honestly I'm lost. Is this about property sale or renting?


    It's just a bit of basic human decency to think about others, y'know?



    I'm glad you put that last line. Absolutely it is about human decency. Which is a moral stand point. Me and you are unlikely to share the same morals - probably not drastically different, but not identical.


    What I'm opposed to is the state saying: The moral position of one party is backed up by the law.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Guest101 wrote: »
    What I'm opposed to is the state saying: The moral position of one party is backed up by the law.
    Hmm. That's exactly what the job of government is, of course. To make new laws, based on the consensus of the MP's moral positions...
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards