Generation Whine

pinkteapot

abaxas wrote: »

As you already know, shelter is not defined as a human right.

If we wish to have an argument over need/want. Maybe we should first start with the above? IE there is no right to shelter. Which by definition is rather sick.

You said at the start of this that the Housing Act rationed a human need. All I have been doing is explaining why I think this is a gross exaggeration.

Now you are mixing up needs and rights. Shelter is a human need, at least in most parts of the world. In most climates, a human would struggle to survive for too long without any form of shelter (even if that shelter is underneath a bridge or by digging a hole). Human rights (assuming you are talking about the legal sense) are another story altogether.

I just think that in a world where you've got people living in the conditions of the tent cities in Haiti, the flooded areas of Pakistan and countless others, to suggest that the housing market in Britain 'rations a human need' is absolutely laughable.

This is all I've been trying to say and you haven't argued against it. But you have given me something to get frustrated about on a very dull Friday at work, so I thank you for that sir.

Generali

abaxas wrote: »

But that goes back to the free/manipulated market problem.

Most of out needs are provided via a free and highly competitive market.

Good point. Now IMO the market for housing isn't directly manipulated as such but the dumb planning laws the British people seem to love ('cos otherwise the country will be concreted over obviously) wreck the supply side of the equation at present.

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with owning investment property, as not everyone can afford to buy and people have to live somewhere.

I have no BTLs before you start.

But it does maniplate the market as the FTB's are going head to head with the BTL's causing prices to rise which prices more out which means there is more to rent off said BTL parasites.

As mentioned if there wasn't so many 'investors' prices would be lower meaning less people needed to rent off them.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

Because most of the 1980 onwards children can't afford a single property to raise a family in, never mind think about a second property.

Boomers, can cash in on there £100k house they have a £25k mortgage on.

I am a boomer I know 2 people who are renting 1 is a boomer who runs a very succesful buisness the other is a 35 year old who is renting out his house because he has moved in with his girlfriend. I think you will find that plenty of buy to let landlords are not boomers.

abaxas

pinkteapot wrote: »

You said at the start of this that the Housing Act rationed a human need. All I have been doing is explaining why I think this is a gross exaggeration.

Now you are mixing up needs and rights. Shelter is a human need, at least in most parts of the world. In most climates, a human would struggle to survive for too long without any form of shelter (even if that shelter is underneath a bridge or by digging a hole). Human rights (assuming you are talking about the legal sense) are another story altogether.

I just think that in a world where you've got people living in the conditions of the tent cities in Haiti, the flooded areas of Pakistan and countless others, to suggest that the housing market in Britain 'rations a human need' is absolutely laughable.

This is all I've been trying to say and you haven't argued against it. But you have given me something to get frustrated about on a very dull Friday at work, so I thank you for that sir.

Comparison is never a good idea to formulate arguments as a greater or lighter shade of grey is still grey.

FTBFun

abaxas wrote: »

But that goes back to the free/manipulated market problem.

Most of out needs are provided via a free and highly competitive market.

None of the market is truly free though, is it?

For example we have food standards legislation which inflate price as there has to be a minimum quality threshhold. If this wasn't in place manufacturers could sell whatever they wanted as food was concerned thereby potentially offering proper dirt cheap rubbish.

Planning permission is just there to offer the same kind of protection IMO.

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

But it does maniplate the market as the FTB's are going head to head with the BTL's causing prices to rise which prices more out which means there is more to rent off said BTL parasites.

As mentioned if there wasn't so many 'investors' prices would be lower meaning less people needed to rent off them.

That's an astonishly simplistic view of housing supply and demand.

pinkteapot

:wall:

I may need a beer in the buffet car on the way home from work tonight.

FTBFun

Generali wrote: »

Good point. Now IMO the market for housing isn't directly manipulated as such but the dumb planning laws the British people seem to love ('cos otherwise the country will be concreted over obviously) wreck the supply side of the equation at present.

That's because we have a limited amount of land compared to you guys. Actually I think its needed in some places (I lived in Perth for 3 months, now that's just a big urban sprawl and then some).

You, for instance, have tighter controls on water use then we do.

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

That's an astonishly simplistic view of housing supply and demand.

True, I don't think it covers the entire market, but genrally the BTLs and the FTBs are after the same houses, this has to be pushing house prices higher than if there where only FTBs.

How much of an effect his has I am unsure, but it is effecting things.