Why is it that people are so desperate to own houses?

B_Blank

Cleaver wrote: »

It isn't though, is it? People just buy or rent a house and then get on with life. The BTL boom hasn't exactly been the pinnacle of our society, but it's not 'ruining' it either. It's just people renting out houses to other people.



2011 is f*ck all like the early 1900s for a wide variety of regions. My Gran would slap you silly for saying something like that and would then bore you to death with stories from her very difficult childhood in the early 1900s. She had to leave school at 12 to work in a factory. Get some perspective you numpty.

My cousin in somalia would slap your gran silly for saying something like that. He had to die at the age of 4 due to starvation (along with his 6 siblings). Get some perspective you numpty.

See, its easy to say things like that isnt it. Life is all relative. Of course it is. But if you are suggesting that, with tech advancements, that we should be glad we have better education/health care than in 1900 then you are clearly a clown.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why would anyone want to do it when you can get away with so much less?

What's in it for the landlord? Nothing.

That’s exactly the case so although increased rights for tenants would be a good thing I wouldn’t be surprised if it did happen all that would happen would be a reduction in properties available to rent. It might make property prices fall but it wouldn’t do anything to help people who want to rent. The government could provide incentives to encourage companies to provide better rental accommodation. For example near me quite a lot of MOD land will be coming up for sale they could sell this at a reduced price to someone prepared to build rental property with better protection for tenants. Do you think the government would do it though.

Cleaver

B_Blank wrote: »

It is taking us back to a landed class dominating a non landed class. The poor cannot afford to buy and are FORCED to rent. As a result they are at the whim of the landed class who can squeeze them for more and more money (as we can see rents are going up).

Oh I can't be bothered. I agree. It's like 1910 out there with 10% owner occupied levels, people having to work down mines and slaves serving land owners. My last landlord made me feed him quail whilst also insiting I dressed as a woman.

OR...

...are we just in a period of financial crisis where house prices are still too high, mortgages are harder than before to get and people don't want, or can't, buy at the moment because of these things. And in a few years it'll all change again and we'll worry about something else.

Cleaver

B_Blank wrote: »

But if you are suggesting that, with tech advancements, that we should be glad we have better education/health care than in 1900 then you are clearly a clown.

I'm a clown for saying that our standards of living now are better than in 1900?

B_Blank

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm a clown for saying that our standards of living now are better than in 1900?

I am saying you are a clown to use the arguement that we shouldnt moan because we have better living conditions than 1900. I mean !!!!!! are you talking about. You lost all credibility with that joke arguement.

Cleaver

B_Blank wrote: »

I am saying you are a clown to use the arguement that we shouldnt moan because we have better living conditions than 1900. I mean !!!!!! are you talking about. You lost all credibility with that joke arguement.

You said that we're going back to the early 1990s with a landed class ruling over the poor. We're clearly not going back to that. What we have in society is some serious problems. We have people thinking they are entitled to make money from property, we have people renting out houses who probably shouldn't be, we had a housing boom that shoud have never been allowed, we still have stupidly high house prices in many parts of the country that stop young people buying, we have people having to wait until their late 30s to buy their first home, we don't build enough houses, we don't have proper mortgage lending at the moment etc. etc. etc. I agree with all that.

But I don't agree that we're going back to the living standards of the 1900s. Society is obviously no where near that bad and is certainly not heading in that direction. You're just being melodramatic.

B_Blank

Cleaver wrote: »

You said that we're going back to the early 1990s with a landed class ruling over the poor. We're clearly not going back to that. What we have in society is some serious problems. We have people thinking they are entitled to make money from property, we have people renting out houses who probably shouldn't be, we had a housing boom that shoud have never been allowed, we still have stupidly high house prices in many parts of the country that stop young people buying, we have people having to wait until their late 30s to buy their first home, we don't build enough houses, we don't have proper mortgage lending at the moment etc. etc. etc. I agree with all that.

But I don't agree that we're going back to the living standards of the 1900s. Society is obviously no where near that bad and is certainly not heading in that direction. You're just being melodramatic.

Well ok. The trend is towards the domination of a landed class. Can we agree on that?

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m not sure that that is true I was born in one of the most affluent places in the home counties and over the past few years they have pulled down all the house on one side of a particular road and put up flats. But the builders seem to prefer selling them to renting them out. I’m not sure where all the people willing to build and rent property and get a much lower return are.

Oh come on, new starts on builds are the lowest they have been in God knows when. There is a massive shortage of property and 200,000 immigrants settled last year alone, never mind new births.

Of course developers sell what little they are producing; they are laughing all the way to the bank. New build flat, cost price £30k at most. Two hundred nicker to some shared ownership desperado with a nice wodge from the tax payer thrown in.

I mean if we had a normal housing market where supply was allowed to at least go in the same direction as demand.

ukcarper

What you say is true but do you really think that if more land is made available builders will build property and let it out on long term contacts with low rents. I’m not sure that places like Surrey could stand massive development perhaps a better solution would be to try and shift some of that demand away from the southeast.

birkee

MacMickster wrote: »

What is your obsession with inheriting money? Go out and earn your own. Where do you think that your parents got their money from? I expect to leave money to my son (but with a bit of luck he will be in his 60s or 70s before he gets it), but if he was actually relying on this to happen I would have made a big mistake in the way that I brought him up.

If people want to avoid selling their home to pay for care they can take out insurance policies to cover care costs.

Renters are far less likely to leave anything to their children than homeowners.

I think YOU have got hold of the wrong end of the stick!

I do have my own money and house, and I would like to pass it on, so you're telling me to "go out and earn" my own, is a misplaced sarcasm don't you think?
My three children also have their own houses, so EXPECT nothing.

Shall I take an apology as read?