We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
the snap general election thread
Comments
-
Except that it's not as profitable as you may think. A lot of BTL landlords paid rather a lot for small properties.not rubbish.
There is nothing successful about rents that are in some cases over double the cost of a mortgage, perhaps even triple and all one gets is 6 months security. Standards is a secondary issue to that.
By the way my area has one of the lowest rents in the country due to the poverty here, I dread to think how bad it is in more affluent areas.
You are simply looking at it as how profitable it is for landlords and from a business viewpoint, the problem is this is not just some optional commodity people can turn away from, they need shelter.
Demand is artificially constrained for obvious reasons.
Blame the naughty builders (they'll blame land prices & labour costs) or blame the previous owners.
The yield on central and not-so-central London flats (imagining you owned it outright so no mortgage interest to calculate) can be as little as 1.5% ROC. Many tenants consider that for living centrally while developing their career, renting is a bargain over buying.0 -
What Labour offer is very appealing but a lot of us have to be convinced that is affordable and they can deliver it, to get significantly more votes that's what they have to do and I don't think they can.What they have offered affects a very large part of the population in a positive way.
The only clear losers I can see from labour's policies are landlords.
The way things are now, millions of people live as if there is a permanent recession.
There is two directions been offered.
The tories are offering selected prosperity, for the have's at the expense of the have not's. Note how well the south east has done vs the north and midlands since the 1980s.
The labour are offering less prosperity for the very best off, but those at the bottom will do better and as such the equality gap should in theory reduce, I say in theory because the rich tend to always find a way to keep their hold.
Personally I couldnt care less if we borrow, I consider it perfectly normal to borrow money to advance, businesses do it, governments do it, individuals do it (mortgages etc.), I think running in permanent austerity just "in case" a recession hits tomorrow is ridiculous, it clearly hinders growth and enforces poverty.0 -
Except that it's not as profitable as you may think. A lot of BTL landlords paid rather a lot for small properties.
Blame the naughty builders (they'll blame land prices & labour costs) or blame the previous owners.
The yield on central and not-so-central London flats (imagining you owned it outright so no mortgage interest to calculate) can be as little as 1.5% ROC. Many tenants consider that for living centrally while developing their career, renting is a bargain over buying.
Yeah I perhaps dont know all the reasons, I just know its not working.buglawton wrote:No, it is rubbish, because you can't buck the market! You just can't! If something - not necessarily a home, anything - is worth £1500 then NO ONE will sell it for £1000. Why should they? They won't is the answer.
Im not saying it's right, it's just how it is, a free market controlled by supply and demand. This will not change.
It can be bucked which is why some things get regulated.
e.g. voice lines from BT are regulated.
water is regulated
it looks like electric/gas is soon to be regulated
When something is deemed as essential then it can be regulated, or state controlled.
So what happens to the supply and demand if we add say 1 million council built homes to the rental market, would you still consider it fair?
If things carry on as they are then we heading for a mess, something will give at some point basically when the amount of people made homeless gets too large to be kept out of the news.
Various countries already regulate rent as well.0 -
Except that it's not as profitable as you may think. A lot of BTL landlords paid rather a lot for small properties.
Blame the naughty builders (they'll blame land prices & labour costs) or blame the previous owners.
The yield on central and not-so-central London flats (imagining you owned it outright so no mortgage interest to calculate) can be as little as 1.5% ROC. Many tenants consider that for living centrally while developing their career, renting is a bargain over buying.
You probably talking about very high earners.
Renting does work for those who can afford it and dont care about security, the problem is, that is not most people, its a minority.0 -
The difference is there are enough phone lines, but there are not enough properties.Yeah I perhaps dont know all the reasons, I just know its not working.
It can be bucked which is why some things get regulated.
e.g. voice lines from BT are regulated.
water is regulated
it looks like electric/gas is soon to be regulated
When something is deemed as essential then it can be regulated, or state controlled.
So what happens to the supply and demand if we add say 1 million council built homes to the rental market, would you still consider it fair?
If things carry on as they are then we heading for a mess, something will give at some point basically when the amount of people made homeless gets too large to be kept out of the news.
Various countries already regulate rent as well.0 -
The difference is there are enough phone lines, but there are not enough properties.
actually there isnt always enough phone lines.
When there isnt, BT are required by law to install a new phone line even if its at a loss, as its decided the needs of the civilian is more important than the profitability of the line.
We agree there isnt enough properties, which is why I am saying there needs to be a mass building program, the free market has already proven it will not / cannot provide the homes that are required. Not surprising really given it would hit their profit levels.
The government has already tried soft prodding, tax breaks etc. but the private market is refusing.0 -
since how often do you see homeless on the street? a lot less then there were 20-30 years ago. therefore things are a lot better.0
-
What Labour offer is very appealing but a lot of us have to be convinced that is affordable and they can deliver it, to get significantly more votes that's what they have to do and I don't think they can.
Both parties are spending as much money as each other.
The tories 10s of billions in tax giveaways.
Labour 10s of billions in investment.
Not sure why you think labour has to convince you but the tories get a free pass.
When the bbc asked may how her policies would be funded, she seemed shocked to be asked the question as if the tories are above having to make their numbers add up.0 -
since how often do you see homeless on the street? a lot less then there were 20-30 years ago. therefore things are a lot better.
thats mainly down to hostels, in that respect things are a "bit" better for the actual homeless.
I dont consider a hostel a decent way to live tho. An old work mate of mine 15 years ago was living in a hostel, dont know how he ended up there I didnt ask, but he was employed full time.0 -
steampowered wrote: »Not all of us are motivated solely by selfish self-interest. Most people and most politicians will support the best interests of the country when push comes to shove.
:rotfl:ilovehouses wrote: »On principle?
More :rotfl::rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards