Is this right?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

How can you save £175k on £15000 a year and pay rent even if it is subsided. I agree something needs to be done about the situations you are talking about but if the solution were simple it would have already been done.

You may not be wee willy, but trying to poo poo someone elses arguments while, again, being obnoxious and pretending someone would have to save the entire value of the house in cash to be able to buy into housing makes you just as bad.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It'll never happen.

Oh ok i was not aware that there was infinite building plots in surrey, sorry my mistake.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You may not be wee willy, but trying to poo poo someone elses arguments while, again, being obnoxious and pretending someone would have to save the entire value of the house in cash to be able to buy into housing makes you just as bad.

Did you read my original post in the part of surrey I was born in a 2-bed terrace will cost you £300k if you are earning £15k and can get a 5x salary mortgage it you would need £175k saved.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A person with 1 child wouldn't be restricted to having another. They have 2 bedrooms. The kids can share, and that is the policy.

What Jimmy is talking about is overcrowding. You and he are not (and I think purposely not) on the same level.

You appear to be suggesting that the person should have 2, 3, 4, however many more children and get re-homed every time.

Jimmy is saying that they shouldn't be given bigger homes than they have already succesfully received, or cry about overcrowding for having over and above the amount of children to hit the overcrowding rules.

In the middle of all of this, theres loads of stupid "are you implying, are you saying, are you suggesting" which is only serving to wind people up.

You now, after your last post, to be on the very same level as myself, and Jimmy. You are now just laying in to the "so you are suggesting they should only be able to have children if they buy a house" line, when its quite clear he simply meant pay their own way, be that buying or paying the rent out of their own earned money. Wasn't the best explanation, granted....but then when you have people all over you trying to tarnish you with anything they can and confuse matters with "are you implying", it's difficult to explain things anyway, as no matter what you say, it gets twisted, and thats what has happened.

You did it to me, I explained everything, and you haven't come back to me on any of the points I raised, rather moved on to suggesting Jimmy is saying stuff he hasn't said, because mayeb he hasn't fully explained to the enth degree what he means. But it's pretty clear what's meant. Whats meant is, you;ve got a house, if you cannot afford your own large house, whether that be renting or owning, why should you be any different to any other family in the country not using the social housing system.

But you AREN'T different. The Social Housing system would be open to you as well.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

Did you read my original post in the part of surrey I was born in a 2-bed terrace will cost you £300k if you are earning £15k and can get a 5x salary mortgage it you would need £175k saved.

So what happens when there are no council propertys left in surrey.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So you agree that there is a problem and this problem is only going to get worse.

Of course I agree there is a problem and I don’t see anybody rushing to solve it even though they might make out they are.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It means this...conviniently directly above your post.

Surely even you can see the sheer desperation at the end of that post.

Isn't that the same as the suggestions you seem to take such issue with?

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So what happens when there are no council propertys left in surrey.

Council houses do become vacant, people get LHA, people who can afford to move out and commute like I did and people will stay living in crowded accommodation.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Can you not see the problem.

If people do not intend to save for a house of their own then at some point there will be no council, or private rent homes left. so what then ?

Is it not better to change the way council houses are currently used, and to also stop people who have no means to support x amount of children from having them.

Do you want to see more and more massive tower blocks appearing so that people can keep having children and have a place to home them, you do realise we live on an island dont you and at some point there wont even be any space left for tower blocks.

By the way what you saw in that tv program is very typical of the area i live in, and they didnt show anything that i have not seen before on my own doorstep, if they did show what actually goes on in these estates then the general public would be up in arms. Trust me it will never be shown on tv.

Then build more social housing. At the end of the day, people will need housing, regardless of tenure. If we need tower blocks, then we need tower blocks.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Did you read my original post in the part of surrey I was born in a 2-bed terrace will cost you £300k if you are earning £15k and can get a 5x salary mortgage it you would need £175k saved.

So, point 1. There is nowhere, within a 15 miles radius, where you can buy a 2 bed cheaper than 300k?

Point 2. You've complained at the use of individual cases to make an argument. So you make an individual case to make an argument?

Novel.

Point 3. If they are on 15k a year total household income, extra kids are probably not that wise a move anyway. Will be a struggle enough on those wages.