The sign of things to come? Amazing!

Ad

pickles110564 wrote: »

You voted them in hoping they would give you everything for nothing ,you call others trolls yet you post hoping to cause panic in the ranks so that you think you can jump on the ladder and not miss the boat again.It will never happen we will snap them up before you get the chance to take your finger out of your @rse and make a decision that the market is at the bottom.

I never voted for them Labour.

Causing panic in the ranks? The articles are to inform and educate on the crisis this country is facing not to cause panic. The distress and panic is being faced by those who can not longer afford to shelter themselves and their families because of speculators.

Who are we?

wifeforlife

furby-2003 wrote: »

but my point is these people who own the homes are not abusing anything. It's not abuse to own to homes.

If this was the case there would be no rented properties and I would have had to live in council property along with the other people who would have rented privately. And i'm sure there is not enough to be able to house all those people. You cannot say it is ok for some to own more and not others. I came from council to private due to constant vandalisam of my property and car and harassment. The council would not re-house me. It's swings and roundabouts

You where lucky you qualified for council housing. Many of us dont so at present times we are pushed into privately renting as we are also pushed out of buying in our local communities by people who are not living there.

Most people here know I'm happy enough to rent at present as I love my wee house and myself and my landlord are very friendly and share the responaiblity of the property but I at 25 and as a mother I do aspire to owning a property at some point. I'm just too stingy/moneysaving/smart to pay the overrated/overpriced amounts for bricks and motar.

I support these people in Cornwall, as their quest is maybe different to those of other places, as it's a tourist hotspot they are truely being left homeless.

Cate

dippy

This problem is starting to garner political capital and the media is starting to latch on. BBC News 24 was today debating that tax offsetting against rental income is an unfair tax subsidy for landlords.

Housing may become the next political hot potato, especially as Gordon Brown tries to assert himself as prime minister and plan for the next general election in two years.

ceridwen

In between all the prejudice - plus bad grammar and spelling - on this topic it is clear there is a lot of anger and upset all round. Not being expressed in a very articulate fashion most of the time.

Points to make:

1. Ones point is appreciated better if expressed in a grammatical way, with proper spelling and lack of obvious prejudice coming through. Just a thought!

2. One can sympathise with everyone caught in this particular "trap" - I sympathise with the second home-owners trying to keep their property inviolate and who have probably had to buy it in the first place as a way to save for their pension.

3. I also sympathise with those who have not yet been able to buy a home for themselves - and worry whether they will ever be able to.

There are two fundamental rights at stake:

- the right to own a home of one's own (and not to have to work every hour under the sun to then pay the mortgage on it)

- the right to retire at retirement age.

How does one reconcile these rights in an overcrowded country like Britain. There does need to be a national debate on these issues - not throwing of verbal brickbats between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in this context.

Maybe the first point in the debate should be how people can protect their right to retire at retirement age - without having to buy extra property to do so. A possible second point could possibly be to do a survey of all property in the country - to see how supply matches up with demand - and, on from there, we may need to think in terms of things like converting speculative officebuildings into homes. Do we, as a country, actually have enough building stock to house everyone and (subject to protecting our pretty much non-existent national borders rather more than they are at present, to avoid further people demanding housing!) avoid building on greenfield sites.

I hope a rational debate can start here - and stop the "catfighting" that's been going on so far on this thread.

Guy_Montag

ceridwen wrote: »

In between all the prejudice - plus bad grammar and spelling - on this topic it is clear there is a lot of anger and upset all round. Not being expressed in a very articulate fashion most of the time.

*snipped for brevity*

I hope a rational debate can start here - and stop the "catfighting" that's been going on so far on this thread.

Stop being so rational & diplomatic!!:p

ceridwen

Tongue in cheek? Rational and diplomatic sounds good to me. Any more "rational, diplomatic" comments from anyone?

PS I have experienced problems buying a house myself in the past - it took a LOT longer than I expected (a LOT longer than was remotely reasonable). At long last - I am mortgage-free - and its one heck of a load off my mind.

dippy

ceridwen wrote: »

In between all the prejudice - plus bad grammar and spelling - on this topic it is clear there is a lot of anger and upset all round. Not being expressed in a very articulate fashion most of the time.

Do the newspapers and media use good enough grammar for you?

BBC Radio 4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/6230092.stm
A call is being made for the government to tackle the growing problems that are said to be developing as a result of the buy-to-let property boom.
Its detrimental effect on first-time buyers struggling to get on the housing ladder has been highlighted again in a major conference on housing.

Lake District faces war on second homes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/23/nlocal123.xml
A self-styled "popular liberation army" has pledged to attack holiday homes in the Lake District in protest at "leech-like scum" whom they claim have pushed property prices so high that local people can no longer afford to live in the area. Cumbria Police are taking the threats so seriously that they have advised householders to be vigilant.

BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6222544.stm
In the cities of Leeds and Liverpool eyebrows have been raised about what some describe as "buy-to-leave". ...
Liz Overend, who now helps run a website for frustrated first time buyers (PricedOut.org) says the government should act.

BRING ON THE CATASTROPHE
http://money.guardian.co.uk/property/buyingtolet/story/0,,2109133,00.html
As we reveal this week, buy-to-let landlords picked up around £2bn in tax relief during 2006. This year the figure will be a lot higher, and by 2010 it's likely the government will have given away more than £10bn to people who already own a first home and in some cases tens or even hundreds more. Yet this is the same Labour government that says it can barely afford to cough up more than a few hundred million for "key worker" home schemes for nurses, teachers and other low-paid workers. And it lets the super-rich private equity barons pay less tax than their cleaners.

Guy_Montag

Well it seems the problem in Cornwall, as in some other places is there is a real shortage of property.

My suggestions are:
1) planning permission should be required to convert a principle primary residence (ppr) into a non-permenent, residential property

2)If you can afford a second home (this is different from a btl) you can certainly afford a f'king big tax bill. Lets start with at least 400% council tax.

3) It certainly seems that there is a shortage of property in that part of the country. That means that we need to start ignoring the CPRE & their ilk, & building new housing, towns & villages.

4) Relax the planning laws for people buying agricultural land & building on it, with reservations - for example it must be in keeping with local styles & it must be your ppr for a decade (or it will be subject to CGT @ 100% tapered down to 0% at the end of the decade).

$$$_12

ceridwen wrote: »

- the right to retire at retirement age.

I have no problem with this - but is it really necessary to speculate on housing to do this?

There are plenty of other investment opportunities out there that don't involve driving up the prices of a basic human right like shelter or leaving an in demand resource lying unused. Unethical investment?

Plenty of houses out there - just not enough for everyone to have two or more.

Poppy9

ceridwen wrote: »

In between all the prejudice - plus bad grammar and spelling ................
Do we, as a country, actually have enough building stock to house everyone and (subject to protecting our pretty much non-existent national borders rather more than they are at present, to avoid further people demanding housing!) avoid building on greenfield sites.

Shouldn't there be a ? at the end of this sentence?:rolleyes: