House ownership - Selling yourself into a lifetime of servitude

debtistheft

With mortgage terms now lasting anything upto 30 or 40 years and with houses costing far more than ordinary people can afford, are people blindly and willingly selling themselves into serfdom and servitude to the financial organisations that manipulated the housing market upwards.

Is the tenant the free-est person, unshackled by the false dreams pushed by the banks and their puppets, the politicians? The start of this manipulation was the selling off of the council houses,the continuation is the reduction in the number of homes built.

People who encourage others to buy overpriced houses are either fools who are blinded to the system or are part of the system.

"A free life cannot acquire many possessions, because this is not easy to do without servility to mobs or monarchs."

mr_fishbulb

Have you seen the BBC have started re-running Citizen Smith?

Londonsu

Well if homeownership is a lifetime of servitude then so is renting the only difference is that after you have paid the mortgage you own the property.

For instance take a 30 year mortgage out at age 30 you own the property at age 60, rent from age 30 by the time you get to 60 you can have another 20-30 of rent to pay before you snuff it.

And of course rents can go up a lot faster then any increase in interest rates for instance when I paid off my mortgage in 2008 I was paying £136 per month, the couple renting the same flat next door were paying over £800 per month in rent, by the time I sold my flat in 2010 next door was being let out at £1000 per month. And if the LL next door had a mortgage on the flat his tenants by paying his mortgage through their rent payments were also selling themselves into serfdom to the banks albeit through a third party.

As for me, having sold my flat and buying a house with the proceeds from the sale, I now live rent and mortgage free, thats doesnt make me better or more clever than anyone else, it makes me very lucky and fortunate but it certainly does not make me a fool.

debtistheft

Its rare to find anyone who takes out a 25 year mortgage and then stays in that house for the lifetime of the loan. We are encouraged to 'climb the ladder', forever extending the length of the mortgage and the size of the loan. The manipulators sell us all a dream of success and happiness based on the size of your brick cube. Madness.

CAN1976

debtistheft wrote: »

Its rare to find anyone who takes out a 25 year mortgage and then stays in that house for the lifetime of the loan. We are encouraged to 'climb the ladder', forever extending the length of the mortgage and the size of the loan. The manipulators sell us all a dream of success and happiness based on the size of your brick cube. Madness.

When I moved from my 1st house to my second house, we kept the 3 years we had knocked off by going for a 22 year mortgage. You don't have to have a perpetual 25 years.

Conrad

debtistheft wrote: »

With mortgage terms now lasting anything upto 30 or 40 years and with houses costing far more than ordinary people can afford, are people blindly and willingly selling themselves into serfdom and servitude to the financial organisations that manipulated the housing market upwards.

Is the tenant the free-est person, unshackled by the false dreams pushed by the banks and their puppets, the politicians? The start of this manipulation was the selling off of the council houses,the continuation is the reduction in the number of homes built.

People who encourage others to buy overpriced houses are either fools who are blinded to the system or are part of the system.

"A free life cannot acquire many possessions, because this is not easy to do without servility to mobs or monarchs."

Yea, back in the day, when the proles were all tenants, everything was sweet, just ask Shakespear.:rotfl:

debtistheft

CAN1976 wrote: »

When I moved from my 1st house to my second house, we kept the 3 years we had knocked off by going for a 22 year mortgage. You don't have to have a perpetual 25 years.

How much financial sacrifice did it entail to have sufficient money to be able to do this? Why did you buy your 1st house and then move after only 3 years? How much did it cost you in those three years to buy and sell two houses?

Have you ever totalled up how much your two brick cubes have cost you, have you ever thought of what life-enhancing experiences or opportunities that cube money could have provided you and your family?

Conrad

A very short history of British Building Societies

Building societies originated in the self help movement of 18th century Britain. Working men began to pool their funds in organisations from which they could borrow to build houses.

In the early days, once every member had a house the society would be closed – they were known as terminating societies. The “permanent” building societies we know today began when they started to accept deposits from members with no intention of building – they became institutions for saving and borrowing as well as mortgage providers.

Building societies were fully mutual – in other words owned by the members and run for their benefit.
Mutuality was a successful and popular business model in the 19th and 20th century: well-known organisations such as the Co-op, John Lewis Partnership and the AA were mutual societies.

debtistheft

Conrad wrote: »

Yea, back in the day, when the proles were all tenants, everything was sweet, just ask Shakespear.:rotfl:

Funny, but ask yourself if German people are suffering from having an economy that isnt based in property and debt? Are they back in the middle ages?

You are so deeply embeded in the system that you cant see any alternatives and you feel threatened if others suggest alternatives.

debtistheft

Conrad wrote: »

A very short history of British Building Societies

Building societies originated in the self help movement of 18th century Britain. Working men began to pool their funds in organisations from which they could borrow to build houses.

In the early days, once every member had a house the society would be closed – they were known as terminating societies. The “permanent” building societies we know today began when they started to accept deposits from members with no intention of building – they became institutions for saving and borrowing as well as mortgage providers.

Building societies were fully mutual – in other words owned by the members and run for their benefit.
Mutuality was a successful and popular business model in the 19th and 20th century: well-known organisations such as the Co-op, John Lewis Partnership and the AA were mutual societies.

Where are these building societies now? Its no coincidence that they were turned into banks just before the price of ousing was manipulated upwrd to ensure a lifetime of financial servitude to these same banks.

They have now been broken up and can never return as mutuals.

FTBFun

I'm surprised you haven't referred to "debt junkies" and the banks being "liars and thieves" yet.