So what's the solution?

nickmason

Really2 wrote: »

So who Legally owns it until/unless the covenants are breached?

Also if I sold a house and the bank owned it would they not reclaim the house off the new owners in cases of NE (like cars sold with finance against them) not come after the previous owner for the debt? just a thought.;)

All right!:)

ninky_2

we don't need more houses. we need more homes. 2 very different things. ways to increase numbers of homes...

make residential property for investment purposes less attractive (taxes on buy to let, rental incomes etc). this would lower prices for people looking to buy for property.

reduce general lending to make the mortgage market much stricter and tougher - this will also lower prices. at the same time provide state backed mortgages (glc style) that help low income families borrow. this will level the playing field for access to property.

compulsory purchase of houses in rundown / undesirable places followed by regeneration programmes replacing old and grotty housing stock (who says victorian terraces are desirable) with more pleasant, efficient housing - including greater number of homes per square mile.

remove lifetime tenancies for social housing (as suggested).

ninky_2

other ideas,

as some high street business will close due to internet change the sites of some commercial property to residential property (starting from scratch rather than unsatisfactory conversions more likely).

suggest that having fewer children or none at all and passing on housing stock (ski-ing is seriously passing poverty onto the next generation) means everyone gets a home and can retire earlier.

leitmotif

Really2 wrote: »

I hold the deeds to my house? are you telling me the bank own it? Even though it is registered in my name and I have the entitlement?

Forget the fluff you are talking rubbish, as a owner I can sell the house if I like without asking the bank so how do they own it?

They can only sell it if they gain possession, the only way they can do that is going to court if I have defaulted on the loan held against it.

Face it, your talking rubbish. Anyone with a mortgage own their home and have a loan secured against it.

I would ask you to moderate your tone with me. I haven't been rude to you so please do not be rude to me.

From your response, I'm not convinced I have made my point clear enough. The subject I raised is whether the percentage of people owning their own home (stated at 71%) constitutes grounds for asserting that the past 20 years are in some way better times than previously. I have argued that this statistic does not provide a good basis for such an assertion, as:

1) It doesn't take into account how indebted these people are. Whether or not you are (legally, colloquially, etc.) termed 'owner', higher levels of indebtedness surely result in lower general happiness, raising the question of how this might be 'better'.
2) It doesn't, on its own, provide grounds for a belief that owning a home is somehow better than not owning a home.

Another analogy:
In Britain, people are title obsessed. There are many job titles with the word 'manager' in them. For example, one party might argue that a 'Stock Replenishment Manager' is just a leader of a supermarket shelf-stacking team. Another might argue that the word 'Manager' in their title makes them a de facto manager. However, if I'm an employer thinking of employing them, I'd have the good sense to look past mere words and analyse the job content to perceive the actuality.

Here, I am of the opinion that your argument is floundering because you aren't looking past the strict definition (and legal status) of owner. As such, you fail to look past the question of ownership to perceive the actuality, which is the level of debt that would surely be a more reliable indicator (though certainly not taken in isolation) as to whether times are indeed 'better'. Furthermore, you therefore turn the issue into a much more simplistic debate centering on the rather trivial question of 'do I or do I not own my own home?'. As such, you steering away from the point I raised, which was that increased 'ownership' does not, however defined, provide grounds in itself for assuming we live in better times.

Ultimately, until you tackle those questions rather than hurling accusations of 'talking rubbish', you are not addressing the question.

Really2

leitmotif wrote: »

Here, I am of the opinion that your argument is floundering because you aren't looking past the strict definition (and legal status) of owner. As such, you fail to look past the question of ownership to perceive the actuality, which is the level of debt that would surely be a more reliable indicator (though certainly not taken in isolation) as to whether times are indeed 'better'. Furthermore, you therefore turn the issue into a much more simplistic debate centering on the rather trivial question of 'do I or do I not own my own home?'. As such, you steering away from the point I raised, which was that increased 'ownership' does not, however defined, provide grounds in itself for assuming we live in better times.

Ultimately, until you tackle those questions rather than hurling accusations of 'talking rubbish', you are not addressing the question.

71% of homes are owned.
You said.

leitmotif wrote: »

it can only be said that 71% owned their own home in 2005 if we stretch the definition of 'owned' to include those who haven't yet paid off their mortgage.

It is you stretching the term owned, no matter what you write there is no round the fact you are simply wrong.
The definition is not stretched, 71% of homes are owned. It is you trying to make out that is factually incorrect correct.

I am rubbishing what you say as you are arguing against facts with nonsensical arguments that they are not actually owned.

The fact is they are, so move on.

I am not sure what your question is? Unless you stop trying to go against facts with your own opinions there is not much to answer TBH.

If it is debt sould be the measure of ownership look at this.

Assets - Debt = net assets.

If you don't own the asset it can't be on your asset sheet can it.

So A House is a home owners asset thus they are the owner.

Next.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

It is you stretching the term owned, no matter what you write there is no round the fact you are simply wrong.
The definition is not stretched, 71% of homes are owned. It is you trying to make out that is factually incorrect correct.

It's quite clear what is being said here.

Let's try another anology, even though one has already been given.

200 people own cars in a town in 1990. Of those 200 people 10 have loans.

In 2010, 600 people own cars. Out of those 600, 500 have loans.

So, what does this tell you? Doe's it instantly tell you cars are more affordable?

Well not if you look into the data. It's more likely that loans are more accessible. This does not mean the car is now more affordable, rather that more people can get access to the means to purchase the car.

That's all the poster is saying. It's not rubbish, it's a valid point. It's only rubbish if you wish to ignore it and only look at the initial statement, and ignore everything that makes up the statement.

One would have to ask the question....if, as you say, you OWN it. Howcome banks get away with taking the home in a reposession? Are you going to class that as theft? You'd have to if you wish to continue on with your ignorance to what the poster is saying.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So, what does this tell you? Doe's it instantly tell you cars are more affordable?

Well not if you look into the data. It's more likely that loans are more accessible. This does not mean the car is now more affordable, rather that more people can get access to the means to purchase the car.

well it doesn't tell you cars are unaffordable or does it?

and so it begins...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

well it doesn't tell you cars are unaffordable does it?

and so it begins...

If you want to answer the question, can you answer it properly, in context to what was said?

If you can't answer it in context, why bother at all?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you want to answer the question, can you answer it properly, in context to what was said?

If you can't answer it in context, why bother at all?

it was the answer - not the answer that you wanted or your blinkered vision could obviously understand

let me post it again for you with a little bit more...

well it doesn't tell you cars are unaffordable does it - it tells you that cars are more affordable than unaffordable otherwise there would be less people buying cars

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

it was the answer - not the answer that you wanted or could obviously understand

let me post it again for you

well it doesn't tell you cars are unaffordable does it - it tells you that cars are more affordable than unaffordable otherwise there would be less people buying cars

Ok, can see there is no point in continuing this discussion with you as you are being deliberately obtuse.

I'll see if really2 wishes to engage in discussion, if not, I'll simply give up, as I believe you can see exactly what's being said, just want to be difficult and throw some insults around.