MP on £65k Bleats He Can't Get on the Ladder

vivatifosi

PasturesNew wrote: »

I wanted to pick some lovely ones at random, but was over-whelmed by the staggering choice, location, features... but here was just one at the top of his FTB budget:

5 beds, £250k, huge garden, loads of parking, old Coach House. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31264442.html

That's a nicer house than my local MP's (from the outside anyway) and he wasn't a first time buyer. What more does he want?

IronWolf

ninky wrote: »

if you are single you don't need to spend 1500k a month in rent (if you are saving for a deposit you don't have a mortgage!). you rent a room in a shared house. shared house also means shared council tax and bills.

don't have kids if you can't afford them.

honestly white_horse i thought you were for all for self-sufficiency. what's with the pandering to people who have kids / lifestyles when they can't afford them and then moan they can't get on the property ladder?

Hes an MP, I think its a bit of a stretch to expect them to live in a shared house. £1.5k a month for a 1 bed flat in westminster is a fairly standard amount.

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

Luxury

That I disagree with. Pension provision especially relatively modest pension provision should not be seen as luxury but rather be considered more and more important IMO>

This MP's gay - so he's got a chance of hooking up with another high-earning bloke.

[/STRIKE] or a poor bloke....and it doesn't rule out family costs.

I think that has potential to be an very beautiful home. I like it. I'd live there.

What's the commute time to London like for him getting to Westminster...could that factor in his decision?

ninky_2

IronWolf wrote: »

Hes an MP, I think its a bit of a stretch to expect them to live in a shared house. £1.5k a month for a 1 bed flat in westminster is a fairly standard amount.

why? plenty of single professionals live in shared accommodation. just because you work in westminster doesn't mean you have to live in westminster.

IronWolf

ninky wrote: »

why? plenty of single professionals live in shared accommodation. just because you work in westminster doesn't mean you have to live in westminster.

He isn't a single professional though. Over the age of 30 I'd say there are very few people that still live in shared accomodation, or that are prepared to.

ninky_2

IronWolf wrote: »

He isn't a single professional though. Over the age of 30 I'd say there are very few people that still live in shared accomodation, or that are prepared to.

i did for a short while. you do what you have to do. rather that than bleating that the world owes you a living.

quantic

Obnoxious w4nker can't afford obnoxious things, and then complains obnoxiously. Interesting.

hcb42

ninky wrote: »

don't have kids if you can't afford them.

honestly white_horse i thought you were for all for self-sufficiency. what's with the pandering to people who have kids / lifestyles when they can't afford them and then moan they can't get on the property ladder?

There's an awful lot of people with kids who cannot afford them



Also, in general (I have no idea on this MP or where he lives, or how old he is, but I am certain that I would not want to be living in a room in a shared house, and feel completely miserable (depressing places to live make me feel very miserable). I got over that sharing thing when I left home at 18 and got my own place.

zzzLazyDaisy

IronWolf wrote: »

He isn't a single professional though. Over the age of 30 I'd say there are very few people that still live in shared accomodation, or that are prepared to.

The government obviously disagrees with you because the LHA rules are changing and single people under 35 will only be entitled to the room in a shared house rate. It isn't just benefit scroungers who claim LHA - with increasing job losses, many more people are going to have to get used to the idea.

ninky_2

hcb42 wrote: »

There's an awful lot of people with kids who cannot afford them

true. more's the pity.