Would you march for more affordable housing?

captainhaggis

No

carolt wrote: »

1. Build loads and loads of social housing.

There is plenty of social housing available in this country if people would lower their standards and learn to accept that, unless you're prepared to work for something and instead expect it to be provided for you, you sometimes have to just take what you're given.

Building masses of nice social houses in nice areas where other people have invested their hard earned cash will both devalue the investments made by those who are already in the area and remove almost any incentive people have to aim for owning their own home through normal means.

carolt

Yes

I disagree, captainhaggis (you're not Scottish, by any chance, are you?).

There is not 'plenty of social housing' in this country. On the contrary, since Maggie decided to sell it all off, we have a waiting list of millions. Literally.

And the 'real' waiting list is far higherr, I'm sure. Lots of hard-working people who never bother applying, because they know that as they work and haven't just got themselves up the spout, they stand no chance of getting a council home within...ooh, the next few decades.

Why bother?

So what if it devalues the investments others have made? I think the right of everyone in this country to a secure roof over their head is far stronger than the rights of others to make money off the backs of those people.

The huge rises in HPI over the last decade were unearned.

Easy come, easy go. They did nothing to deserve those gains. If they lose them, they are no worse off than thy would have been - in fact far beeter, as they've had a decade of living securely in their own homes.

captainhaggis

No

carolt wrote: »

There is not 'plenty of social housing' in this country. On the contrary, since Maggie decided to sell it all off, we have a waiting list of millions. Literally.

Hiya Carol :cool:

Is there a list of millions of people waiting for homes, or is there a list of millions of people waiting for homes that they're prepared to accept?

There's a MASSIVE difference.

carolt wrote: »

I think the right of everyone in this country to a secure roof over their head is far stronger than the rights of others to make money off the backs of those people.

I agree with you entirely that everyone has a right to a roof over their heads but I don't agree that everyone has a right to own a home. Owning a home is a privilege that you should have to work to earn (unless of course you're lucky enough to be left money or otherwise come by the financial means - other than by via benefits).

And no, nobody has a right to make money off the backs of those people, but the opporutnity exists and people have embraced it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

carolt

Yes

No, the list is of millions who would be prepared to accept anything they're offered - but they're not offered anything.

I agree with you totally about there being no right to own. But I do think there is a right to security of tenure. I don't think it's reasonable for children to be brought up in an environment where they could potentially have to move home every six months - it's extremely unsettling.

Obviously, if huge amounts of new social housing to rent - and I do agree with you that it should be for rent not for buying at a discount and selling at a profit - were built, that would have a big impact on property prices generally, as it would kill the golden goose that is BTL. But I think that would be a boon for this country - people could start to invest in real businesses that actually make something, rather than simply recycling the existing housing stock at ever-inflated prices.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

No

carolt wrote: »

So what if it devalues the investments others have made? I think the right of everyone in this country to a secure roof over their head is far stronger than the rights of others to make money off the backs of those people.

Nobody has a "right" to be provided a house at less than the going market rate.

We do have an obligation to ensure nobody freezes or starves to death.

But that does not require council houses. A dormitory and a canteen would suffice.

The huge rises in HPI over the last decade were unearned.

Utter tripe.

People bought houses through hard work. Hard work and earned income paid the mortgages. Some people even recognised the shortage coming, and took the risk to invest their hard earned money in multiple properties.

They rightly expect that work to generate returns, and taking those risks to be rewarded. Not for some lefty loony idiots to come along and redistribute wealth earned through property investment because they don't think it's "fair".

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend."

Margaret Thatcher.

carolt

Yes

Oh come off it, Hamish. No-one sensible could believe a word you just wrote there.

I cannot believe that you do either.

[Deleted User]

I think he's spot on. The thing that I find almost amusing though is the number of people bleating on about their right to a cheap house but not ANY house. Only the best for them. They look down their noses at the type of property that a huge percentage of the population is working hard to pay for.

I think the right of everyone in this country to a secure roof over their head is far stronger than the rights of others to make money off the backs of those people.

And what about peoples right to a job - all UK citizens. Not just those in the South East and in the cities. So here's the solution - move work out of overpopulated cities where there isn't enough housing to go around. That way everyone wins. Those in the poorer areas with lower employment levels get a fair crack of the whip and those in the more affluent areas with lots of jobs get to move to a place where they can afford a house.

Something tells me that kind of fairness isn't what you're after?

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

[/B]

Nobody has a "right" to be provided a house at less than the going market rate.

We do have an obligation to ensure nobody freezes or starves to death.

But that does not require council houses. A dormitory and a canteen would suffice.



Utter tripe.

People bought houses through hard work. Hard work and earned income paid the mortgages. Some people even recognised the shortage coming, and took the risk to invest their hard earned money in multiple properties.

They rightly expect that work to generate returns, and taking those risks to be rewarded. Not for some lefty loony idiots to come along and redistribute wealth earned through property investment because they don't think it's "fair".

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend.".

Margaret Thatcher.

:rotfl:


What are load of rubbish. My HPI was not anything to do with hard work. It was being in the right place at the right time Hamish. I don't know what was so hard about getting a mortgage broker to come round borrowing 3.5X single wages buying a house and then watch whilst it went up by nearly 5X!

I don't know why people like you bang on about hard work. It was way easier to buy when my parents bought, It was way easier to buy when I bought. Why dont you just admit you could not give a toss about whether prices are affordable for future generations as long as you are ok. You do not have any kid so there is no reason for you to really care about. There is nothing wrong with being honest. Maybe I would not care either if I did not have kids.

Emy1501

Deleted_User wrote: »

I think he's spot on. The thing that I find almost amusing though is the number of people bleating on about their right to a cheap house but not ANY house. Only the best for them. They look down their noses at the type of property that a huge percentage of the population is working hard to pay for.



And what about peoples right to a job - all UK citizens. Not just those in the South East and in the cities. So here's the solution - move work out of overpopulated cities where there isn't enough housing to go around. That way everyone wins. Those in the poorer areas with lower employment levels get a fair crack of the whip and those in the more affluent areas with lots of jobs get to move to a place where they can afford a house.

Something tells me that kind of fairness isn't what you're after?

Because often you can't get the right people to do the job. The last company I worked for tried this. Closed down a number of departments and moved them up north. The problem was that they could not get the right people to do the job.

The company I now work for opened an office where I live so they can get the right staff. Call centres etc can pretty much open anywhere but for many type of jobs a company will have to open where they can get the right staff.

captainhaggis

No

Emy1501 wrote: »

:rotfl:


What are load of rubbish. My HPI was not anything to do with hard work. It was being in the right place at the right time Hamish. I don't know what was so hard about getting a mortgage broker to come round borrowing 3.5X single wages buying a house and then watch whilst it went up by nearly 5X!

I don't know why people like you bang on about hard work. It was way easier to buy when my parents bought, It was way easier to buy when I bought. Why dont you just admit you could not give a toss about whether prices are affordable for future generations as long as you are ok. You do not have any kid so there is no reason for you to really care about. There is nothing wrong with being honest. Maybe I would not care either if I did not have kids.

I don't think he's suggesting that people have generated their HPI as a result of hard work - of course you're right in that it was all about being in the right place at the right time. I'm in that situation.... I have made a fair bit of cash on property because I bought at the right time (but it's all tied up in those properties at the moment, so we'll see how much I actually make).

What he's suggesting is that people's hard work enabled them to buy the house which, in turn, enabled them to benefit from the HPI.

Am I right, Hamish?