Starter homes being bought by BTL LLs

dryhat

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

1. People could choose to try and increase their income through additional working/ promotion / training etc

This above is supposed to be a solution for renters who cannot afford their increased rent.

Yet when it comes to "second-step" homeowners who can't afford to trade up, instead of suggesting they they should try and increase their income, it is thought they should get help from the government.

The hypocrisy and inconsistency of these HPI cheerleaders is unbeleievable.

ukcarper

dryhat wrote: »

This above is supposed to be a solution for renters who cannot afford their increased rent.

Yet when it comes to "second-step" homeowners who can't afford to trade up, instead of suggesting they they should try and increase their income, it is thought they should get help from the government.

The hypocrisy and inconsistency of these HPI cheerleaders is unbeleievable.

What is housing benefit if it's not help for renters. If BTLs can achieve more than LHA the only real solution is to build more houses. When you have a limited resource it will always be the one who are able to afford it that get it.

By the way not a debt junky just a realists.

moneyinmypocket

Percy who must stop this persecution of house prices and what homeowners pay. The market sets the rate.

You managed to buy a house as have lots of other people. Some people will never buy its always been like that

Percy1983

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

Percy who must stop this persecution of house prices and what homeowners pay. The market sets the rate.

You managed to buy a house as have lots of other people. Some people will never buy its always been like that

The problem is the market is currently unbalanced and private individuals shouldn't be able to exploit that when its something as basic as shelter.

There is many markets which get exploited like ticket touts, I am completely against that too, but on the flip side a few people being priced out of one direction tickets isn't going to make them homeless.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

The problem is the market is currently unbalanced and private individuals shouldn't be able to exploit that when its something as basic as shelter.

There is many markets which get exploited like ticket touts, I am completely against that too, but on the flip side a few people being priced out of one direction tickets isn't going to make them homeless.

So you agree with Hamish that more lending shouldwith lower deposits should be available to FTBs as that is the main thing stoping them.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

So you agree with Hamish that more lending shouldwith lower deposits should be available to FTBs as that is the main thing stoping them.

Nope, I think lending should be inline with available stock, as it currently is, I just believe that landlords shouldn't be allowed to exploit thsi problem in the meantime while the building gets going.

IveSeenTheLight

dryhat wrote: »

This above is supposed to be a solution for renters who cannot afford their increased rent.

Yet when it comes to "second-step" homeowners who can't afford to trade up, instead of suggesting they they should try and increase their income, it is thought they should get help from the government.

The hypocrisy and inconsistency of these HPI cheerleaders is unbeleievable.

LOL, it's not about being a HPI cheerleader, it's about, if you can't afford it, do something about it.

Where's generalis bread quote again
Here it is

Generali wrote: »

There's a story about a visit by a senior Soviet Union official to the USA during the Cold War. He was taken to a supermarket and asked what, to him, was a perfectly reasonable question upon seeing shelves full of food in a way that would have been unimaginable to a normal USSR consumer at the time:

"Who is responsible for ensuring the supermarket has bread to sell?"

IMHO, the shelves are full because nobody has that responsibility. Someone grows wheat, another mills it, yet another sells the flour and makes the yeast and makes the bread and makes the plastic bags it goes in and drives the lorries and chicks the checkouts...........................

So who is responsible for making petrol the right price?
So who is responsible for making the right number of houses at a right price?
So who is responsible for making the price of money right?
So who is responsible for you getting a job, educating your kids, caring for you, providing you with health care.....?

Do you want to take responsibility for yourself or hope that the man in Moscow can get bread to your local supermarket?

dryhat

shortchanged_2

Question for you ISTL.

Your opinion and that of some of others is the simple answer to ever increasing living costs is to cut back, live on gruel, bread and water and the occasional treat of cabbage soup etc. Find a better job, move elsewhere etc.

The thing is society is made up of people of different abilities and capabilities, some of whom are never going to be the next Richard Branson or rocket scientist.

My point being there is always a section of society who are never going to be big earners even if they work all the hours under the sun, and believe it not these people do contribute to society often by doing the horrible jobs that the majority of us would not want to do.

So what do you see as the future for these people who are being squeezed more and more who realistically are not going to earn good wages?

Also bear in mind without these workers society will fail to function so be careful when you dismiss low earners because they are a very important cog in the chain.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

So what do you see as the future for these people who are being squeezed more and more who realistically are not going to earn good wages?

Recessions expose those with low skills, poor qualifications and poor money management skills.

They'll continue to let other people decide their futures - just like they've always done