2nd home somewhere on the South coast

cheltenhamgirl

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh yes. Peoples "right" to spend their money on whatever they please and to hell with the consequences to others.

What about a young working couples right to not be completely priced out of having a small modest home to have kids in within 100 minutes drive of where they work and a school?

Oh dear you appear to have a job, no council housing for you. Oh dear is that all you earn, forget about getting a home.

House price inflation is crippling this country. And frankly its obscene the burden of tax that younger people have to pay to provide services to smug pensioners with their million pound houses that will be completely non existent when we are retirees.

OMG - I am getting very wound up. I'm a FTB and would desperately love to get on the ladder (although maybe i'll wait until the market's dropped, but hey, that's another thread;) ). HOWEVER, I am getting extrememly annoyed with all of these people who feel that they have a god given right to own a property. We don't! Rent somewhere. You do not have a RIGHT to own a house near where you live, and i'm not quite sure where you get that impression from. Just because our predecessors did, doesn't mean we can too.

Nobody has a god given right to buy a car - you either save up until you can afford one, you get hire purchase or lease one, or you use public transport. It's exactly the same with houses. And every other commodity.

People are perfectly entitled to spend their money on what they want if they've saved up - and yes - that may be to the detriment of you. However, if we're talking about people spending money to the detriment of others, maybe we should all stop and think about us buying cheap clothes, or tea-bags, or wood, meaning people are being displaced form their mud huts (which by the way they find perfectly adequate), or working their fingers to the bones for 8p a week. Is that not spending your money to the detriment of others?

cheltenhamgirl

GavP wrote: »

Yep, that's right, sod everyone else!

With attitudes like this, it's no wonder this country's on the skids.

People do have every right to spend their money on what they want. Every bit of money you spend could be seen as to the detriment of others. You are just looking at it from your view-point. If you go shopping in Tesco's today, you're spending your money to the detriment of Mr Greengrocer and Mr Butcher in the high street, because you are effectively depriving them of business, and ultimately they may lose their livelyhoods.

If you spend all of your money at the Mr Greengrocers, you are depriving Maureen on the checkout of a job becuase they have to cut down on staff because spending is down in store. Maureen loses her livelihood.

Come on people get a grip. If you can honestly tell me that you have NEVER spent money to the detriment of others, I'd be happy to hear from you. If not, I think we all need to get a grip.

As I said before, I'm a first time buyer, and live in the Cotswolds (huge amount of 2nd homes) so this is hitting me as hard as anyone, but I don't resent OP's parents for having enough money to buy another house. Envy maybe!

northernsal

I've enjoyed reading all the interesting comments surrounding the thread.

Thanks to those that have bothered to add their comments without bleating like sheep and then jumping on the 'We hate second home owners bandwagons'.

My parents will spend their money however and whenever they want and they will buy a second home on the South Coast.

I feel sympathy towards so many of you..it must be so awful to feel so jealous and resentment towards others that have goals and want to improve their standard of life and plan for their retirement. - I'd hate to go through life having feelings like that.

Merry Xmas:beer:

Pez2

Don't be silly. Some way of spending money are more detrimental to society as a whole than others.

Everyone has the right to buy a gas guzzling 4x4 and spew tons of pollution out into atmosphere, but it would be more detrimental to society as a whole than if they bought a low emissions car. That is a simple fact. No amount of calling on some notional right to spend your money how you please will make it not true.

We can choose to act to the benefit of others or we can choose to act selfishly, both are within our rights. Or to put it another way: just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

cheltenhamgirl

GavP wrote: »

Don't be silly. Some way of spending money are more detrimental to society as a whole than others.

Everyone has the right to buy a gas guzzling 4x4 and spew tons of pollution out into atmosphere, but it would be more detrimental to society as a whole than if they bought a low emissions car. That is a simple fact. No amount of calling on some notional right to spend your money how you please will make it not true.

We can choose to act to the benefit of others or we can choose to act selfishly, both are within our rights. Or to put it another way: just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

A buy to let landlord who owns 80 properties is more detrimental to society than one person buying a second home if you're going to look at it like that. All I'm saying is that people don't have a 'right' to own their own house.

boinging_2

If I remember rightly, the whole point of the O/P was that they were finding it difficult to find a second home for the price they could afford.

Thus it surprises me not that people are a little at ends with that sentiment, as it's a bit like feeling sorry for an alcoholic who can't afford wine, maybe some good would come of the them not being able to buy?

Anyhoo, you can spend your earnt money as you wish, though I would hold fire on buying now and keep the money safely earning interest in the bank or pay off mortgage on current house and start saving again, then when time to retirement comes, jet down to sunny Bournemouth and rest easy.

btloptingout

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

First of all, nobody deserves venom thrown at them, period..

Agreed, venom was a poor choice of word. As I pointed out in a follow-up post I was referring to the term "idiot". I happily stand by a correction of my post as: "You deserve to be called an idiot"

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I can understand your points above but let me ask you a different question, how many properties are available for rent as opposed to say in the 50's (or even further back if you like)?

The remainder of your post is utterly irrelevent as this is about a 2nd "holiday" property which will not be available for rent to a family. At no stage have I condemed BTL......nor indeed have I condemed 2nd holiday ownership....all I have said is that there are repurcusions on "society" in doing so.

As a right-wing capitalist I accept everyones right to buy/do what they like.....as a responsible citizen I temper my desire with it's wider repurcusions.

btloptingout

northernsal wrote: »

My parents will spend their money however and whenever they want and they will buy a second home on the South Coast.

I feel sympathy towards so many of you..

Good for you.....but please don't feel sympathy......

Someone will enjoy nothing more than purchasing your parents property off them in 5 years time for 30% less than they paid following the fallout of this credit crunch.

When they've lost 30% equity on both properties and have b*gger all left for retirement maybe they will thank you for forcefully standing up for their "rights" rather than providing an open-minded, objective and alternative view which would assist their decision making.

My best friends and the ones most useful to me are the ones who challenge my thinking and provide an alternative opinion and view....It is through this challenging that I arrive at well thought out life decisions....."Yes friends/relatives" are b*gger alll use to me in life.

Re-read the whole thread....you will find the first person to jump down someones throat was yourself at the suggestion of an alternative view to your own.

Good luck.....you need it.

SquatNow

btloptingout wrote: »

Re-read the whole thread....you will find the first person to jump down someones throat was yourself at the suggestion of an alternative view to your own.

Agreed. I posted:

SquatNow wrote: »

Have they considered the moral implications of what they plan to do?

By buying on the south coast they deny a local family of a place to live.

For £180,000 they could spend a lot of nights in good quality hotels helping the local economy rather than damaging it.

Then TruelySaintly posted an anecdotal.

Then the OP threw a hissy-fit. :rotfl:

Ironically mine was actually quite a good suggestion... his parents could probably live in nice B&Bs for their entire retirement off of the interest without ever havnig to touch the capital. But whatever, let them blow their money on a devaluing asset, it's his choice.

btloptingout

SquatNow wrote: »

Agreed. I posted:
Then the OP threw a hissy-fit. :rotfl:

Ironically mine was actually quite a good suggestion...

Indeed....lots of positive alternative contributions have been made on this thread. However anything of a contrarian nature is treated as "oh you must be a no-hoper, waster with a grudge".

Well lets give NorthernSal what he/she really wants....

NorthernSal: In response to your OP to answer (and only answer) the question you posted....I recomend your parents purchase in Aldershot High Street. A lovely town in the South of England with a particuarly vibrant colourful ambience particuarly on a Friday and Saturday night.