Affordable Housing - Can it be done?

lynzpower

Guy_Montag wrote: »

There's a difference between what you can afford while maintaining your standard of living & what you can afford.

Well when you look at property prices, both renting and buying, theres no way we could afford to exist on one salary. So it would be tax credits time, not that im happy about that, but at the end of the day I accept the fact that we might have to claim benefits, as some recompense for the governments so badly haldling the property market that they have to subsidise peoples income so we can keep the population going.

lynzpower

Generali wrote: »

That's a terrible idea (thanked you by mistake).

This government can't even employ cleaners capable of keeping a hospital clean. What makes you think they can put up houses. I cite Ronan Point.

gvernment dont employ cleaners, they are tendered out under best value.
therefore you made my point for me :cool:

Guy_Montag

lynzpower wrote: »

Well when you look at property prices, both renting and buying, theres no way we could afford to exist on one salary. So it would be tax credits time, not that im happy about that, but at the end of the day I accept the fact that we might have to claim benefits, as some recompense for the governments so badly haldling the property market that they have to subsidise peoples income so we can keep the population going.

You could move somewhere where it's cheaper to live thus allowing you to live on one salary. You'd loose the LondonLife(tm), but you can find reasonable houses for £600 pcm all over the country. It's all about standard of living.

(I'm not genuinely suggesting you do, one of my pet hates on this board is people saying "if you can't afford to buy in Cornwall/London/Lochgelly, buy in Grimsby instead.)

Actually cutting benefits would be an excellent way to keep on top of inflation especially in essential goods & services. If it's not hurting it's not working (or some such guff) - Blue Montag

Generali

lynzpower wrote: »

gvernment dont employ cleaners, they are tendered out under best value.
therefore you made my point for me :cool:

Govt makes the decisions on NHS. It's why it's such terrible value for money.

And Ronan Point and all those other tower blocks put up in the 60s?

Dizzie_3

I don't think more houses are the answer, too much of this country is built on and it's affecting our wildlife, many species of bumble bee are now protected and their decline is largly down to loss of habitat. Without the bumble bee to polinate our plantlife, the human race would eventually starve to death so it's not just playing feilds that should be left green, but woods and meadows. Their are lots of empty houses in Manchester and in other places around the country, I don't see why we need more.

House prices have been allowed to over inflate because the banks lend money to people way beyond their means, when the customer can't afford the repayments the bank is still laughing because they get the house. So I think the goverment needs to cap mortgage lending, is a house that was worth 30 ten years ago really worth 125 now? I don't think so.

Btw Guy_montag, I have 3 children and live in a council house, my husband works full time but we can't afford a mortgage, does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to "breed" as you so crudely put it? I can see your point about too many benefits for those who have no intention to work but I find your comments very offensive, unless the child would be at risk everyone has a right to experiance the joys of parenthood.

lynzpower

Guy_Montag wrote: »

You could move somewhere where it's cheaper to live thus allowing you to live on one salary. You'd loose the LondonLife(tm), but you can find reasonable houses for £600 pcm all over the country. It's all about standard of living.

(I'm not genuinely suggesting you do, one of my pet hates on this board is people saying "if you can't afford to buy in Cornwall/London/Lochgelly, buy in Grimsby instead.)

Actually cutting benefits would be an excellent way to keep on top of inflation especially in essential goods & services. If it's not hurting it's not working (or some such guff) - Blue Montag

We pay 753. So its not that we have excessive overheads. Everything is naturellement to the bone, we dont go out, we dont do anything flamboyant we spend as little as possible. Im telling you now, as im the "main earner" we cant afford it. Believe me , if we coud , Id be doing it right now!

lynzpower

Generali wrote: »

Govt makes the decisions on NHS. It's why it's such terrible value for money.

And Ronan Point and all those other tower blocks put up in the 60s?

Of its time tho generali.

in the 60s, yes 50 years ago, we didnt have the ability of hindsight with concrete consrtruction. saying that I spoke to a surveyor about one particular tower block in south london he siad it was one of the best constructions hed ever seen. saying that I dont think anyone would use domiono style concrete these days. We have the benefit of 50 years in engineering knowledge & research.

have you not been watching the tower on bbc1?

at the end of the day high rise living isnt awful at all - many of my clients lived in them and i certainly wouldnt rule out living in one myself.

high rise but I never said everyone should live in highrise, only that the government should build the homes themselves instead of maximising profit for a contractor.

if you think central gov are crap, are they really much different to the likes of your barratts/persimmon/ st gerorge/ et al with snagging lists as long as thier expenses claims ??

lynzpower

ts_aly2000 wrote: »

Houses are being bought up by greedy investors. That's why there aren't any.

Round here for example. A block of 200 flats by the docks have gone up. 70% of them are sitting empty. They're own of course, but only merely as an investment.

To make those investments pay out the money obviously has to come from somewhere when they sell. And you know where that money comes from? It comes from you and me slogging our guts out stacking shelves at Tescos. So we're stacking shelves to give money to someone else.

I don't have the answer. I don't know enough about the dynamics of the housing market. I can only tell you what is happening right in front of me.

Wheres this aly :eek:

I would be inclined to report them to your empty homes officer and then either someone moves in or they get a compulsory purchase order on them :cool:

Guy_Montag

Dizzie wrote: »

Btw Guy_montag, I have 3 children and live in a council house, my husband works full time but we can't afford a mortgage, does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to "breed" as you so crudely put it? I can see your point about too many benefits for those who have no intention to work but I find your comments very offensive, unless the child would be at risk everyone has a right to experiance the joys of parenthood.

You find me offensive, but agree I have a point?

Three children does sound a bit much, could you not have had the self-control to limit yourself to one or two? Contraception is easily available these days - it's good money saving option.:money:

Affording a mortgage is not a requirement for being able to bring up your kids, being able to support yourself & you offspring is - so you need to be able to feed, clothe & provide shelter for them. Sounds like you manage this - after a fashion. (I'm not down on people who have council houses, but I do question why they should get far more rights than those of us that have to rent privately).

scrummy_mummy_2

dannyboycey wrote: »

Shared ownership schemes are not the answer. People want to buy a house that THEY own, not share a house with the housing association or council.

I want, I want, I want........
What you want and what you get are two different things....it's not necessarily right but we all choose to live in a capitalist democracy which (even though run by a socialist in wolf's clothing!), by definition means that some pigs will always be more equal than other pigs. (literary reference there in case of any misunderstandings/libellous action!)

Housing has ALWAYS been unaffordable, it has just been unaffordable to fewer people than it is now...when the issue of affordability begins to hit the masses in the wallet, that's when society perceives its existence...although it has always been around as long as humans have existed.
A Bentley Continental GT is unaffordable too....to many people, but that doesn't mean we should all be lobbying for everyone to have one. I have just as much right to have one as Posh and Becks, but I can't afford one...so I can't have it!
As long as society recognises the need for safe and secure accommodation for all those who need it...does it actually matter if it is owned or rented?
If society crashed tomorrow, the last thing anyone would give a monkeys about would be the market value of their home...it would be warmth, shelter, security and food.
It pokes me off when people believe that everyone has a right to own their own home.....People clearly liked that soundbite of the Thatcherism years and tout it aloft like it is enshrined as a God given right nowadays. Well, it's not. My kids (10, 6 and 4) have a struggle ahead of them if they want to be able to afford their own home, but that's their problems and they'll have to work to get good jobs in order to be able to buy or rent.

Market forces mean that house prices are high. As long as the masses continue to say "I want my own home and I'm prepared to pay ridiculous prices for it" the market will continue to grow/expand/develop new ways of parting them from thier cash....if you don't like it, move to a communist country or get a better job.