need alot of advice about alot of stuff!!!

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Neither is the council house next door. SH is rarely allocated on the basis of income. In fact, income is almost never taken into account. It's assumed to be self regulating that when people earn enough to buy, that's what they do, rather than sitting it out on the SH waiting list.

Nor is SH just for the vulnerable. Plenty of the usual suspects get through too. Homelessness being a case in point. Until the 2011 Localism Act, if you were threatened with homelessness, you had 2 options:

A: Make every possible effort to secure, for you and your family, suitable alternative accommodation in the PR sector. Result - Not homeless.

B: Sit back and wait for eviction, doing absolutely nothing at all to seek resolution to your situation. Result - Social Housing allocation.

Is that who SH is really there for? The fe ckless. the idle, the chancers, those who would take advantage of a system? The OP fits right in.

Indeed, might break into a verse of Rule Brittania

hostie

I think people are just jealous of the opportunity you have. They sound more like trolls than you do.

I don't think the government should be selling off council houses at all.

Having said that I have a friend who wants to do a similar thing as you and I don't judge anyone who is entitled to buy a house below market value for wishing to do so in order to better their financial situation one way or another.

If we took a pure moral stance, everyone would be entitled a house as a basic human right, and no-one would be allowed to profit by renting one to someone else, as is the case in Cuba. We had good social housing in the 1970s. We need a government that is prepared to invest in more.

You will need to live in the house first for a few years before you can re-mortgage to buy to let.

You can get landlords insurance which covers the rent if the house is empty due to fire, flood etc. You will need to save up a bit to cover periods when you don't have a tenant or unexpected expenses such as a new boiler.

Mrs_Imp

headhurts.com wrote: »

Money makes the world go round and there is no one on this planet that deserves it more than my children.

Not entirely true (on both counts).

See here http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html and here http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html for the first bit.

As for the second bit, unless your children have the cure for all ills, and the solution to achieving world peace, then just no.

Pixie5740

Rule Britannia, Marmalade and Jam
Five Chinese Crackers in your ear’ole
Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,

anotheruser

The only advice you need is that "a" and "lot" are two separate words...

Pixie5740

anotheruser wrote: »

The only advice you need is that "a" and "lot" are two separate words...

:beer:

It's one of my pet peeves. Someone showed me this blog post and now I just smile whenever I see "a lot" written as one word.

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

ViolaLass

headhurts.com wrote: »

Money makes the world go round and there is no one on this planet that deserves it more than my children.

Can't they make their own?

Also, as it is, you're going to have your mother's property to pass on to them. Why do you/they need another? At what point does 'deserving' become 'greed'?

rosie383

Pixie thank you!
After having spent the last few weeks doing a huge proofreading job, I needed that. So funny.

harrys_dad

It seems my comments about "defiantly" being a Freudian slip were ignored by the OP. She is definitely being defiant, a wonderful example of the me me me approach which is pulling everyone down.