property sellers will still need to drop prices despite rate cut - Rightmove

Incisor

pickledpink wrote: »

What some of you don't seem to understand is that NO-ONE has a RIGHT to own their own home: they have to work for it.

Of course, we all want to live in a nice place - but no-one can DEMAND that the price be lowered to accommodate THEM! If I were to to walk into a car showroom in Park Lane and DEMAND that they lower the price of their Bentley's by 30 or 50% because I couldn't afford what they were asking I'd be carted off to the local loony bin!

I understand how irritating it must be for those who aren't even on the first step of the ladder to resent the likes of the Wilson's - but they're simply business people who had the gumption to buy to let. Their investment in property would not affect your own opportunity to purchase a home.

Further, there is no law in this land that stipulates a person is only allowed to buy ONE home! We're not in last century Russia!!

Quite frankly, it doesn't make any difference how many properties the Wilson's have bought: if someone can't afford to buy - they can't afford it. Simple as that. The Wilson's don't enter the equation.

Anyway, I don't know why you're all so desperate to buy your own home when you all seem to think renting is better!:p Hmmmmmmmmmm..........

Speaking of last century Russia [and I am glad you raised it], because the haves had too much [and your point is well made, perhaps they didn't have a right to it], the have nots lined them up against the wall and shot them.

Personally, I would rather not see things go down that road. But lets be clear, if BTL was still going on now in the way it was a year ago and there was no crash in sight, you would find that in part your attitudes are those which spawned the 1905 and 1917 revolutions which you think we are a million miles away from. You are in no position to be smug about being superior to last century Russia.

jaype

Hmmm. Let's see. If a handful of people started to buy up all the water in the country and only sell access to it to the rest of the population at a huge mark up, leaving them little money for any other of life's necessities there would be an outcry. So why should shelter be any different? Especially as the terms of an AST are so short in this country - why should families with children at local schools, networks of friends and so on be at risk of being moved on every 6 months?