Why the bad news for landlords is just beginning

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

this has got to be the most stupidist things you have said bagofwind.

Sowwee for being most stupidist

:rotfl:

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Plenty of things I want can't have don't expect any sympathy. But if you were a hard working 40 year old living in a grotty flat share because that's all you can afford I would have sympathy for you.

at what age do you expect people to buy their first home? i dont think 35yrs is bad. and with a partner as well. at age 35 someone with a partner should be able to afford a decent place together at current prices. as long as they saved well. and this is on an average wage for both.

Windofchange

westernpromise wrote: »

So what's the proposal? That other people should be taxed to pay for houses to be built to be given away at a discount to people so they can then sell them? That's quite a bit different from flogging a council house to someone who's been renting it for n years.

Do the housebuilding capacity and the land exist in the UK to do that? Where should these gift houses be built?

One might as well rail against the wind blowing.

The solution is for prices to come down. Whether this is achieved through Brexit, interest rate rises, BTL taxes, whatever. I don't think houses should be given away to people - please don't join the other two on here, you strike me as more intelligent.

As for a possible solution, I would like to see housing built that is linked with inflation. Let's build the houses as a country, sell them off to cover the land and build costs, plus perhaps a bit extra for the trouble and then limit what people can make on the flip side.

I believe this scheme exists already in the UK, I just can't locate the link currently. Housing that is owned at a fair rate, but that can't quadruple in value every 10 years. Buy a house for 200k, inflation at 2% p.a. you sell it for 210k in 5 years time. Tax payer doesn't lose out, future generations don't lose out.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

The solution is for prices to come down. Whether this is achieved through Brexit, interest rate rises, BTL taxes, whatever. I don't think houses should be given away to people - please don't join the other two on here, you strike me as more intelligent.

As for a possible solution, I would like to see housing built that is linked with inflation. Let's build the houses as a country, sell them off to cover the land and build costs, plus perhaps a bit extra for the trouble and then limit what people can make on the flip side.

I believe this scheme exists already in the UK, I just can't locate the link currently. Housing that is owned at a fair rate, but that can't quadruple in value every 10 years. Buy a house for 200k, inflation at 2% p.a. you sell it for 210k in 5 years time. Tax payer doesn't lose out, future generations don't lose out.

sounds very socialist. a crazy and badly thought out idea. i cant believe people like you exist!

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

at what age do you expect people to buy their first home? i dont think 35yrs is bad. and with a partner as well. at age 35 someone with a partner should be able to afford a decent place together at current prices. as long as they saved well. and this is on an average wage for both.

Not sure but median full time earnings in London is £34k average house price £483k. Two people earning median full time earnings would get £280k mortgage even considering I would not expect them to buy average house they are still quite a bit short.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

sounds very socialist. a crazy and badly thought out idea. i cant believe people like you exist!

Do you think that giving a couple both earning £20k a year £6k in housing benefit is well thought out.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I think it would be better if she could afford a reasonable property in a reasonable area, but as things are she wouldn't be able to buy anywhere in London . That doesn't mean I think it that will happen anytime soon if ever or that there is a practical way of achieving it. But I don't think it's unreasonable to want people to have secure affordable accomadation.

how would it work if all non married adults could live as single occupancy owners?

How many additional homes would the uk and London need for that to happen?

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Not sure but median full time earnings in London is £34k average house price £483k. Two people earning median full time earnings would get £280k mortgage even considering I would not expect them to buy average house they are still quite a bit short.

average house price of 483k? they can buy plenty of homes which go for 350k. they should be able to afford that.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you think that giving a couple both earning £20k a year £6k in housing benefit is well thought out.

no its not. they should get nothing. both earning 20k each should easily be able to afford rent.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Plenty of things I want can't have don't expect any sympathy. But if you were a hard working 40 year old living in a grotty flat share because that's all you can afford I would have sympathy for you.

Why didn't said 40 year old get married or find a partner?

Are we yet capable as a country of building the 10 million additional homes that would be needed for all unrelated sharers to live in single occupancy homes?