Sell up and stop complaining about going hungry and cold.

chewmylegoff

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Downsizing could work, selling up and moving into rented doesn't make a lot of sense though.

might as well just sell, and then go to the casino with the money and stick it all on red or black. if they win, then they can buy a house outright, if they lose then they can just claim benefits.

technically it would be deprivation of capital, but the govt would be too stupid to notice i should think.

as a solution, the govt could just actually make benefits more difficult to claim and much more unattractive (i.e. much lower) and then use the money to give tax cuts to people on low incomes. nothing sensible like that which resulted in it being work going to work would ever happen though, so i advise people to follow the casino approach.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Downsizing could work, selling up and moving into rented doesn't make a lot of sense though.

If you are struggling to buy your kids food, and you are sitting on 10's of thousands of pounds (as suggested by the OP), then it makes absolute sense.

Again though, like many threads, it would only be a suitable solution to a handful of people. Though it seems pensioners, probably sitting on the biggest asset windfalls, have the most to gain if they can't afford their heating bill.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you are struggling to buy your kids food, and you are sitting on 10's of thousands of pounds (as suggested by the OP), then it makes absolute sense.

Not if they have to pay extortionate rent instead. If they have 10's of thousands of equity then they'd have had a nice rate and low mortgage payments.

So now they are spending more per month, and at some point they'll be back at the same situation. Isn't this the whole can kicking thing you dislike so much?

And all this just means even more rent for BTLers.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres some merit in what HSW states. He just came across wrong in the opening OP.

We've all seen the woe is me articles, with people in nice houses, who moan about the heating costs, the council tax costs, how they haven't got a payrise and are always on the edge.

To me this suggests either:
A) Something went wrong in their life and their income reduced
They maxed themselves out from the start (which, appears is still the avice from some today).

If they have hit a problem in life, then theres sympathy.

If they maxed themselves out, bargaining on pay promotions etc, then maybe it is only through their own doing that it didn't work out? Maybe they should look at other ways, including downsizing?

Let's face it, thats the only choice so many othhers would have in so many other countries. We are somewhat unique in this country as to how the government protects us from the reality from so many other countries. Some other countries put finanical protection before asset wealth, and therefore find themselves able to support their lifestyle choices, even though hardship, as they didn't max out in the first place.

On the flip side, we've all seen the woe is me articles with people in rented accomodation, who moan about high rental cost compared with mortgage costs, increased deposit requirements, how they haven't got a payrise and how they are on the edge and can barely afford rent let alone pay rent and save up for a deposit.

To some this suggests either:
A) Something went wrong in their life and their income is insufficient to save for a deposit.
They maxed themselves out with debt and have a poor credit rating.

If they have hit a problem in life, then theres sympathy but the harsh reality is that they need to either sort out their problems and increase their income or stop moaning about it.

If they maxed themselves out, bargaining on pay promotions etc, then maybe it is only through their own doing that it didn't work out? Maybe they should look at other ways, including moving to a cheaper rental property and paying off their debt then saving for a deposit?

Let's face it that is the choice they would have to make in other countries. We are somewhat un-unique in this country as to how you are not born with an entitlement to own a property.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Not if they have to pay extortionate rent instead. If they have 10's of thousands of equity then they'd have had a nice rate and low mortgage payments.

So now they are spending more per month, and at some point they'll be back at the same situation. Isn't this the whole can kicking thing you dislike so much?

And all this just means even more rent for BTLers.

Sorry, but you are simply trying to hard here.

If you are stuggling to buy food for your kids and families, selling up and using what money you DO have, isn't can kicking. It's doing the best for your family. To say otherwise is just idiotic.

I honestly don't believe you actually believe what you state, and that it would be better for your kids to go hungry and hold onto some paper wealth. You are just wrapping yourself up in forumonics again, doing anything to oppose what someone says.

In most cases, you'd get SMI if you were REALLY struggling, so it's a moot point really anyway. Everyone moans they can;t afford things, when in reality what they really mean is they cannot afford what they were accustomed to.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you are struggling to buy your kids food, and you are sitting on 10's of thousands of pounds (as suggested by the OP), then it makes absolute sense.

Again though, like many threads, it would only be a suitable solution to a handful of people. Though it seems pensioners, probably sitting on the biggest asset windfalls, have the most to gain if they can't afford their heating bill.

Not if downsizing means moving to a 1 bed apartment if you have kids. Pensioners downsize because they have no need of a family sized home because their kids have moved out to start their own families. How does this work for a family?

Graham_Devon

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Not if downsizing means moving to a 1 bed apartment if you have kids.

Well, yes, obviously. Though I fail to see why anyone with tens of thousands could only afford to rent a bedsit.

There are loads of "not ifs" and you could sit there all day finding problems with unique situations.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well, yes, obviously. Though I fail to see why anyone with tens of thousands could only afford to rent a bedsit.

So you're now saying a family should move from a family home with equity to a rented family home and use the savings (former equity) to fund the higher rental costs? What do they do when the savings have been used up?

Or are you saying that it's cheaper to rent a family home than to pay a mortgage on one, especially a family home with 'tens of thousands' in equity?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There are loads of "not ifs" and you could sit there all day finding problems with unique situations.

Why introduce "If you are struggling to buy your kids food" into the discussion if you are not talking about families?

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, but you are simply trying to hard here.

If you are stuggling to buy food for your kids and families, selling up and using what money you DO have, isn't can kicking. It's doing the best for your family. To say otherwise is just idiotic.

What happens when the money runs out?

It's not black and white but you only see in those 2 colours.

Suffice to say, selling up and renting is not a solution for everyone in this situation.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

What happens when the money runs out?

Well, in rented, you'd get benefits.

Look, the situation here is very simple. If yuo have access to tens of thousands of pounds, but are struggling to live, surely it's not outrageous to suggest you could access those tens of thousands?

This appears to be one of those threads that divides the two sides of discussion yet again. As it's homeowners were talking about here, suddenly it's offensive and fraught with silly little issues as you suggest they could sell up to access their own money in order to live more comfortably.

If it was a renter suggesting they are struggling, these issues wouldn't even be raised. YOU would just suggest they move elsewhere, earn more etc etc. You certainly wouldn't be suggesting they did nothing.

So I see this as purley a pro homeowner situation, whereby the homeowner must not lose in all cases. Just the way it's coming across. This thread would certainly be very different if you just removed the homeowner part and suggested people couldn't afford to feed their kids because of their accomodation costs.

All hell would break lose with the "they shouldn't have an ipad, computer, a car, broadband...hell they shouldn't have electric and should work 3 jobs while simutaniously moving up north where you can buy a hole for 40k".