People should buy a house to live in

lostinrates

leveller2911 wrote: »

I understand what you say Lostinrates and it seems to work in some areas.
Sadly it doesn't here,people buy here from London , London wages are far more than here and the young in this area can't compete anywhere near with them with house buying.
We have had people move into the area and don't want to mix, they don't want to talk or chat etc.
We have had people complaining about cows being noisy en-route to milking (not many milking cows left but they still complain).Lastly in a small town not too far away where I do a lot of work, people have moved in and any planning applications that are submitted to bring business to the town they are the first to object,purely because it will change the "historic,idylic town we moved into"........ Im sure not everywhere is like this but sadly it is here...

Oh, we get the odd cow haterr here too. In fact, its roosters they hate. and yes, the planning is an issue here too. Infact though, as a lot of our local economy is tourism I think that actually the argument has a place, but not quite in the way either true locals or true weekenders see it! I'm the middle ground:o I'm certainly no National Truster, and agree, the attitude can be extremely damaging: ancient they maybe, but there is a dual role of preserving the past and accomodating the present that has to be fulfilled.

Having lived in ''historic, pituresque'' areas elsewhere I point out here are ways round it: if MacD's can forgo the yellow and red in such places in cities it can do it here, for example, and if MacD's can do it local businesses should be able to as well. Where planning failed (local and incomer protest alike) has actually caused a huge blight on a local town, and instead of providing a lot of local employment as was promised, most employment I understand has gone to other EU workers (I can believe this though I'm not a close the borders now type).

I imagine our local wages are at least as low, we're further from london than you are in e. sussex:and I'm not going to pretend it hadn't had dramatic impact on local housing: because it has, tremendously. But it would be pants if we had more local housing, and far fewer independant businesses/employment.

Gorgeous_George

Where would tenants live if nobody owned a house that they didn't live in?

GG

dopester

spuds wrote: »

He says: 'We needed a recession but we needed it seven years ago, as a recession puts a hand of caution on governments and consumers who carried on spending and consuming.'

I agree - if the brakes had been applied to the housing market and the throwing around of credit seven years ago, we wouldn't be in as bad a state now.

It was around seven years ago when Hargreaves Lansdown got some critical reviews for their mailshot... September 11th themed, can't recall it exactly but lots of flames.. maybe buildings on fire.

They also couldn't have got it more wrong, expecting a recession to begin, although if not for Gordy's newish regulatory regime with banks lending ever more money at anyone wanting to borrow - maybe it should have begun then..

"any chance that recession might have been averted has probably just disappeared" and painted a terrifying picture of economic meltdown.

Shameless terrorism advert condemned
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shameless-terrorism-advert-condemned-620656.html

leveller2911

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Where would tenants live if nobody owned a house that they didn't live in?

GG

Well GG how is this for radical thought............THE TENANTS WOULD BUY THE HOUSE THEY LIVED IN........NO NEED FOR A LANDLORD THEN...

not rocket science

If houses weren't 50% over priced MOST people could afford to have one, yes ONE each ...

lostinrates

leveller2911 wrote: »

If houses weren't 50% over priced MOST people could afford to have one, yes ONE each ...

Most might be able to, but what about the others, what about those just starting out in life, especially with student debt and not settling in one area, moving for careers/education?

I thin GOOD landlords are part of the housing solution.

leveller2911

lostinrates wrote: »

Most might be able to, but what about the others, what about those just starting out in life, especially with student debt and not settling in one area, moving for careers/education?

I thin GOOD landlords are part of the housing solution.

We need more social housing for one thing and I don't mean for single mums who get pregnant at 17 just to get a council house,which was the case in previous years.I don't have all the answers and wouldn't say all landlords are bad, that would be stupid.
As for student debt ,I don't think people should have to pay fees at all.ALL sudents should have free higher education for 3yrs after that they should contribute to the system...

But over the last 10 yrs or so too many people built up false wealth with property portfolios and now look at the mess we are in .Its all down to me,me,me,me ,greed,greed, and more greed.

lostinrates

leveller2911 wrote: »

We need more social housing for one thing and I don't mean for single mums who get pregnant at 17 just to get a council house,which was the case in previous years.I don't have all the answers and wouldn't say all landlords are bad, that would be stupid.
As for student debt ,I don't think people should have to pay fees at all.ALL sudents should have free higher education for 3yrs after that they should contribute to the system...

But over the last 10 yrs or so too many people built up false wealth with property portfolios and now look at the mess we are in .Its all down to me,me,me,me ,greed,greed, and more greed.

LOL, well, lets agree to disagree, eh? Its nice to disagree cordially

leveller2911

lostinrates wrote: »

LOL, well, lets agree to disagree, eh? Its nice to disagree cordially

Yeah ... lets hope a few more can learn from us........lol

Dan:_4

leveller2911 wrote: »

As for student debt ,I don't think people should have to pay fees at all.ALL sudents should have free higher education for 3yrs after that they should contribute to the system...

So you want FREE further education and half price houses. Sorry mate, but you can't have life handed to you on a plate - If you want a decent living, get out there and earn it.

themanbearpig

Dan: wrote: »

So you want FREE further education and half price houses. Sorry mate, but you can't have life handed to you on a plate - If you want a decent living, get out there and earn it.

Its funny how you say the younger generation have to "earn it", by paying extortionate property prices and university fees, as if you have been through the same hardship.

Hypocritically the baby boomer generation were happy to get educated at grammar schools and go to university with a grant, pay next to nothing for a house, but then decide to create a "fairer" society by burdening young people with £20,000 student debt before even earning a penny, and allowing a property bubble to develop.


If you want capital gains, how about you get out there and earn it, instead of expecting someone else to give it to you.