Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I'm not convinced the decline in church culture has contributed to much of anything. Did church communities commonly fund actual house purchases back in the day? Because as I said previously, these days it really doesn't cost much to fill a house with furniture, and extend that to crockery, cutlery, and so on. As long as you don't want the highest quality, a few grand goes a very long way to kitting out a house these days. The problem is the house itself.

Having social networks to find jobs, yeah, might be helpful, but then we didn't used to have the internet to make searching jobs so easy as well. I can do some googling and find jobs all across the world, it wasn't that long ago that finding work even a few towns away would have been more of a challenge.

I did consider the internet, but getting an address to submit a resume isn't nearly as good as knowing someone who can either vouch for you to their boss, or who is the boss, or can talk directly to somebody they know who is a boss. Obviously going further afield is easier in the internet age, but you'd be surprised at how well the priests/ministers of one town know those in the surrounding area and can point you in the right direction, especially if your church has a denomination in that area.

And the internet has made those jobs available to everybody with a connection, so competition is higher than ever for the good jobs, so I don't think it's as much of an advantage these days. The interpersonal network is a strong advantage and most professionals cultivate a network in their field for good reason, so that they don't have to compete as much for future jobs - knowing someone is ALWAYS better than having a buff resume.

I think that a lot of entry level jobs are found by social connections, and not be cattle call postings. Larger organizations tend to hire in larger batches, so they sift through resumes, but even then, having a tip to look at one in particular helps hiring managers out.

 Polonius wrote:
I think that a lot of entry level jobs are found by social connections, and not be cattle call postings. Larger organizations tend to hire in larger batches, so they sift through resumes, but even then, having a tip to look at one in particular helps hiring managers out.

That is certainly the case in a lot of situations. It goes beyond entry level though. It's a huge player in government jobs. Good ole boys club if there ever was one.

 djones520 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that a lot of entry level jobs are found by social connections, and not be cattle call postings. Larger organizations tend to hire in larger batches, so they sift through resumes, but even then, having a tip to look at one in particular helps hiring managers out.

That is certainly the case in a lot of situations. It goes beyond entry level though. It's a huge player in government jobs. Good ole boys club if there ever was one.

Oh sure. Government executives love bringing in people they've worked with before, but that's not really the same as referrals. I agree 100% that many to most government jobs aren't really open competitions.

nfe wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Those modest homes belonging to my grandparents could have been had for $50K or thereabouts in this decade.

You have sources for then and now prices on a specific area?

I don’t know what the feth you’re talking about. I told you what their homes sold for.

If you literally can’t find a livable home in the UK for less than $600K or whatever some of you are claiming, then that’s a problem specific to the UK and more importantly a problem specific to YOU. If prices are high, there’s demand to support them and people who can pay that price. I’m sorry that’s your situation, but $600K isn’t a worldwide reality.

Those homes I mentioned were also owned by actual blue-collar people - my family - and located in blue-collar areas. LOL. Full of homes going for modest prices. But I suspect that said areas and homes wouldn’t be desirable to most people here complaining about home prices.

There is plenty of housing that is affordable in the UK. There are places where you can get properties for under £100k. It just depends on whether you live there/want to live there or not.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
There is plenty of housing that is affordable in the UK. There are places where you can get properties for under £100k. It just depends on whether you live there/want to live there or not.

And whether you actually can live there or not. Not a lot of sense moving to a small town if you're just going to end up unemployed when you get there.

 djones520 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that a lot of entry level jobs are found by social connections, and not be cattle call postings. Larger organizations tend to hire in larger batches, so they sift through resumes, but even then, having a tip to look at one in particular helps hiring managers out.

That is certainly the case in a lot of situations. It goes beyond entry level though. It's a huge player in government jobs. Good ole boys club if there ever was one.

I have a government job and no one in my office got there through knowing someone.

Might depend on where you are and what level of government we're talking.

ITT:
"Man, life expectancy is not doing well, could it be our healthcare system?"
"Nah man, chicken breasts and veggies!"
Hilarious.

Those saying that housing costs haven’t increased much have not experienced those costs increasing on them first hand.
As an example, in 2007, when my wife was pregnant, our rent was $700 a month for a 2 bed condo. Our landlords wife died, she left everything to her kids, and he was left without a home due to the kids selling his house from under him. He had to kick us out so he had a place to live.
We had lived there since 2003.
In January of 2008 when we were required to move, rent for the exact same size of apartment went from $700-800 average to almost triple - $1800.

My wife and I had to absorb that monthly cost literally the next month of paying rent. Not including the deposit of the same. Our wages were the same as years before.
Then when we decided to move a few years later again, in 2010, there was a massive housing crunch, pushing rents even higher, to around $2k for the same place.
Our current place, we had to settle for, and beat out over 40 other applicants. That’s how bad housing has gotten in less than a decade. There’s something seriously wrong when my rent almost tripled from one month to the next. How many can afford that kind of increase? We’re talking an $1100 increase in your housing costs from one month to the next, and have enough to save to buy a home? Hint: you can’t.
So those savings we had? Move once and they’re toast. Move twice and they’re devastated.

That never happened to my parents, grandparents, or anyone else I’ve heard from in previous generations.

How does one absorb that kind of expense from one month to the next? And some of you wonder why some folks are in bad situations? Housing costs. Plain and simple.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:Renting gets a bad rap, but there are plenty of people who want or need to rent. It's not the devil its made out to be. In the 6 years I've been a landlord, my property has been unoccupied for a combined total of 3 months.

Without reverting to politics too much, I read labour's land for the many manifesto, and it promised to really crack down on landlords. They got thoroughly told in this past election, and I truly believe that people not being interested in that policy had a lot to do with it.

Polling makes clear that Labour policy is pretty popular, very popular is you poll people without telling them it's from Labour, Brexit and Corbyn killed them (and probably will for some time). People do want controls and tighter regulation on landlords.

gorgon wrote:

nfe wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Those modest homes belonging to my grandparents could have been had for $50K or thereabouts in this decade.

You have sources for then and now prices on a specific area?

I don’t know what the feth you’re talking about. I told you what their homes sold for.

You claimed that those 'modest' homes could be had now for $50k. I want you to demonstrate a) what they cost two generations ago and b) that they have a 50k price tag recently.

I simply don't believe that to be the case with any frequency but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Just had a search for houses below 55k in West Virginia, the cheapest state to buy houses in, and, ignoring foreclosure auctions with no price tag, there are a few, but most look like they're absolutely wrecked and in the middle of nowhere.

If you literally can’t find a livable home in the UK for less than $600K or whatever some of you are claiming, then that’s a problem specific to the UK

Nobody has claimed anything of the sort.

Those homes I mentioned were also owned by actual blue-collar people - my family - and located in blue-collar areas. LOL. Full of homes going for modest prices. But I suspect that said areas and homes wouldn’t be desirable to most people here complaining about home prices.

I currently live in a flat that was built for factory workers in 1903. I don't want a mansion. Though my complaint about the absurd cost of housing doesn't apply to me. I'm very lucky and can own two homes. I'm concerned for people who struggle.

nfe wrote:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:Renting gets a bad rap, but there are plenty of people who want or need to rent. It's not the devil its made out to be. In the 6 years I've been a landlord, my property has been unoccupied for a combined total of 3 months.

Without reverting to politics too much, I read labour's land for the many manifesto, and it promised to really crack down on landlords. They got thoroughly told in this past election, and I truly believe that people not being interested in that policy had a lot to do with it.

Polling makes clear that Labour policy is pretty popular, very popular is you poll people without telling them it's from Labour, Brexit and Corbyn killed them (and probably will for some time). People do want controls and tighter regulation on landlords.

Popular among some, I'd say the young college kids most likely, and those who believe in the redistribution of wealth, but there are plenty of people who believe if would be disastrous for the economy.

Its also based on some pretty odd ideas. there really is no 'Buy to Let Frenzy' especially after the 2008 crash. They essentially seem to believe that BtL mortgages are the same as regular mortgages, despite the much stricter regulation and affordability checks that must be passed to obtain them.

The whole point of the current system is to promote serious property investors to own and maintain good quality properties for the rental market for the long term.

imposing more taxes, rent caps and not allowing no fault evictions on landlords will only lead to less repairs being undertaken, and properties becoming run down as they have less capital to spend. For example, I have to pay £700 to repair the door of my property, but do you think I'd be doing that if I had to pay another 'progressive property' tax each month?

This is their deluded idea, basically forcing landlords to sell up. But who are they going to sell to? their houses aren't going to go to first time buyers, it just wont work that way. It would end up with the government having to buy the properties, and creating more council houses, which goes against the whole point of having people be able to own their own homes, although part of me thinks that that suits labour down to the ground.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

I know plenty of people who plan to rent for the rest of their lives, or at least the foreseeable future, and put their savings into stocks and shares, or pensions etc, rather than trying to save for a house.

I'm literally in the middle of helping my girlfriend do up her new home. It's a leasehold one bedroom flat in South London in an Edwardian building that her parents bought for about twenty five grand back in the mid-90's as an investment. There's lots that needs doing (last tenant was a hoarder, one before a chain smoker, etc), and her parents didn't put any money into it since they bought it beyond a new carpet. So we're having to scrub and repaint all the walls, skirting boards, doors, and so on; along with fillering cracks around the windows, deal with damp, redo the bathroom sealant, etc. Lots to do, and I'm learning a lot about DIY in the process!


Out of curiosity, I hammered in the local house prices, and you know what what a comparable one next door went for two years ago? £400,000. Four hundred thousand pounds. I mean, it's just mind boggling when you compare it to the average incomes then and now. This flat is in one of the last cheap parts of London too, so gentrification has just started rolling in. Give it ten years, and I'd wager good money it'll be worth £600,000. The work we're doing on it now has probably added £20,000 to the value, for Christ sake.

When you look at those sorts of costs, you realise that you have a choice. You either accept that you're going to rent your whole life and effectively function as an economic unit generating cash for your landlord. Or you work hard, scrape together a deposit, and spend the next thirty years locked into a job and location somewhere to try and make enough money to buy what was a speculative purchase for a middle-class family twenty five years ago.

Or heck, you take the third (invisible) option, find some way of making money on the move, and go to live in places where land is dirt cheap. But that's about it.

The easiest way to make quick ish money is playing the stock market, but that obviously requires money to invest, and comes with risk.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

nfe wrote:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:Renting gets a bad rap, but there are plenty of people who want or need to rent. It's not the devil its made out to be. In the 6 years I've been a landlord, my property has been unoccupied for a combined total of 3 months.

Without reverting to politics too much, I read labour's land for the many manifesto, and it promised to really crack down on landlords. They got thoroughly told in this past election, and I truly believe that people not being interested in that policy had a lot to do with it.

Polling makes clear that Labour policy is pretty popular, very popular is you poll people without telling them it's from Labour, Brexit and Corbyn killed them (and probably will for some time). People do want controls and tighter regulation on landlords.

Popular among some, I'd say the young college kids most likely, and those who believe in the redistribution of wealth, but there are plenty of people who believe if would be disastrous for the economy.

Some Labour policy, like renationalisation of natural monopolies are popular across the board. Nationalised rail polls majority support amongst Tory voters. Tighter controls on landlords is popular with pretty much everyone who's ever rented. Except some of the ones who later went on to be landlords themselves.

I hope I'm still staying just on the right side of politics discussion here...

Its also based on some pretty odd ideas. there really is no 'Buy to Let Frenzy' especially after the 2008 crash. They essentially seem to believe that BtL mortgages are the same as regular mortgages, despite the much stricter regulation and affordability checks that must be passed to obtain them.

Of course, they also let you raise far more capital at much lower payments. Which leads us to...

The whole point of the current system is to promote serious property investors to own and maintain good quality properties for the rental market for the long term.

No it isn't. It's to allow people who control capital to generate further capital. Nobody cares about the quality of housing which is why cities are so full of horrendous rental properties. That BtL mortgages allow you to raise much higher mortgages once you already have capital is entirely rooted in this.

I didn't really know anything about BtL mortgages until our financial advisor suggested we take one against our current flat to stick another few hundred grand on our pot to buy a house in London that we could cover the payments on with the interest from our savings account. That's obscene given how brutal it is for those without considerable capital already.

imposing more taxes, rent caps and not allowing no fault evictions on landlords will only lead to less repairs being undertaken, and properties becoming run down as they have less capital to spend. For example, I have to pay £700 to repair the door of my property, but do you think I'd be doing that if I had to pay another 'progressive property' tax each month?

The mooted plan was to enforce a property MOT. So you would still be carrying out those repairs.

This is their deluded idea, basically forcing landlords to sell up. But who are they going to sell to? their houses aren't going to go to first time buyers, it just wont work that way.

Why? What would sustain the housing bubble and keep properties out of reach?

It would end up with the government having to buy the properties...

Why? Leave them to hang until the prices flatline and people can buy them.

Hilarious that people owning multiple homes and investment properties are complaining about the cost of housing.

Usually I don't come to OT as a policy because it is the place where braincells come to die. However there is one fallacy going on here which I cannot ignore. People treat the 2000's and 50' as being next to each other, that is people just suddenly went from being in the fifties to modern day, but this is obviously wrong. Nobody denies that living standards rose between 1950 and 1990, however since then living standards have started to drop in many countries.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Hilarious that people owning multiple homes and investment properties are complaining about the cost of housing.

I don't have investment properties. We have a flat we live in where I work and soon will have a second home where my girlfriend works after she goes back from maternity leave. We sold the house she had when she came up here on sabbatical and then went on maternity leave. When we're both in one a PhD candidate or post-doc in my or my girlfriend's department will live in the other for the price of council tax and bills. We'll sell one when we can get jobs in the same location but academic positions aren't commonplace. Clearly buying property as investments is damaging to the opportunities of others, but simply owning two homes isn't immoral if you aren't using them to extract money from others or generate capital from capital - I would impose significantly higher stamp duty and council tax on us though.

Why shouldn't lucky people advocate for the interests of those less fortunate?

That 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude is exactly why young people today have such a tough time of it in terms of cost of living.

nfe wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Hilarious that people owning multiple homes and investment properties are complaining about the cost of housing.

I don't have investment properties. I have a flat I live in and soon will have a second home I also live in. When we're not in one a PhD candidate or post-doc in my or my girlfriend's department will live in it for the price of council tax and bills. We'll sell one when we can get jobs in the same location but academic positions aren't commonplace. Clearly buying property as investments is damaging to the opportunities of others, but simply owning two homes isn't immoral if you aren't using them to extract money from others or generate capital from capital - I would impose significantly higher stamp duty and council tax on us though.

Why shouldn't lucky people advocate for the interests of those less fortunate?

That 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude is exactly why young people today have such a tough time of it in terms of cost of living.

Lol at nfe, complains about the housing of others, complains about landlords, owns two places, want's to cut even on one, and yet the landlords are all the issue.

Newsflash, EVEN if you go as cheap as you go, living space is finite or to put it in actual economic turns, the market is pretty unelastic short and midterm, by your own logic you make it MORE difficult for the unfortunate, but you allready got called out once, no point in doing so again.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Hilarious that people owning multiple homes and investment properties are complaining about the cost of housing.

I don't have investment properties. I have a flat I live in and soon will have a second home I also live in. When we're not in one a PhD candidate or post-doc in my or my girlfriend's department will live in it for the price of council tax and bills. We'll sell one when we can get jobs in the same location but academic positions aren't commonplace. Clearly buying property as investments is damaging to the opportunities of others, but simply owning two homes isn't immoral if you aren't using them to extract money from others or generate capital from capital - I would impose significantly higher stamp duty and council tax on us though.

Why shouldn't lucky people advocate for the interests of those less fortunate?

That 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude is exactly why young people today have such a tough time of it in terms of cost of living.

Lol at nfe, complains about the housing of others, complains about landlords, owns two places, want's to cut even on one, and yet the landlords are all the issue.

Newsflash, EVEN if you go as cheap as you go, living space is finite or to put it in actual economic turns, the market is pretty unelastic short and midterm, by your own logic you make it MORE difficult for the unfortunate, but you allready got called out once, no point in doing so again.

As desperate stuff as last time.

Renting at profit is the problem. Not landlords per se. Any landlords who wants to let places for bills only is a hero in my book. I don't care if someone's circumstances make it cheapest or most convenient to own multiple homes. Or even if they want a holiday home. I'm not interested in punishing people for doing well- though of course we're enthusiastic about giving someone in a precarious position somewhere rent free is because we feel guilty about being in such a fortunate position. That's such a small part of the market that it can be addressed with stamp duty and council tax penalties.

In our personal situation, we're essentially a long distance couple with jobs at opposite ends of the country that (will) have a home each. We're just lucky enough that we work jobs with lots of time where we don't need to be in an office so we can live together for decent amounts of time. If we kept a single home until we got jobs in one place one of us would be paying to live in a hotel or short term let for 10 weeks at a time twice a year.

Anyway, you finding excuses to reference previous debates aside, has the cost of living substantially increased relative to earnings in the past couple generations? That's the conversation.

Housing all depends on the location, for obvious reasons. If you have to work, then you are obligated to live somewhat near a metropolitan area to find work. If you do not need to be dependent on this, you can live further out and have reasonable housing costs, whether you rent or buy. Many companies realize this and in the US the telecommute policies have been expanded greatly over the past few years. i am extremely lucky that i really do not need to go into my office, so where I live does not matter.

This whole telecommute policy has a lot of positives and negatives for the company (worker productivity vs. able to pay a lower wage as they do not need expensive housing, etc.), but all-in-all, it is a boon for the workers.

Excuse me but what is desperate about it?

And holiday homes are very much an issue, sincerly someone that lives in a half year long ghost town thanks to holiday homes.. (oh btw, locals nope, not anymore, local shops nope also dead. but hollydayhomes are fine he says,,......)

The cheap money, and the stockmarket that has virtually inflated at a great rate will be a fun little bubble to detonate.

The one that suffers here is just the general population, and guess who will get the bill for the inevitable crash aswell.

---------

Now of course there are also other ways around this, it's called decentral development, or basically, skrew the metropols and invest in the area around it, especially infrastructure to travel. That would entice more people to actualy live in rural or less developped parts of the country, would also mean that you should have less issues with trafic etc.

And then you realise that this is simply put not done correctly or not at all, because you can create milieus you can abuse for political gains, cue Banlieus, worker quarters, public housing for party members (speciality here in switzerland in some parts) , rust belt etc, etc.

Also, my regards for your trainsystem.

People think that landlords are raking in cash like some endless money pot, it's really not that way at all. I make about 100 gbp per month in profit after fees. Thats 1200 a year. After I pay my income tax of about 300, that leaves 900, most of which goes on repairs throughout the year. If anything I'm usually down by years end

The only benefit I have is that at the end I will have a property in my name, but it's by no means an income. The only reason I'm able to do it is because I have such a well paid job too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


Some Labour policy, like renationalisation of natural monopolies are popular across the board. Nationalised rail polls majority support amongst Tory voters. Tighter controls on landlords is popular with pretty much everyone who's ever rented. Except some of the ones who later went on to be landlords themselves.

I hope I'm still staying just on the right side of politics discussion here...

Of course, they also let you raise far more capital at much lower payments. Which leads us to...

No it isn't. It's to allow people who control capital to generate further capital. Nobody cares about the quality of housing which is why cities are so full of horrendous rental properties. That BtL mortgages allow you to raise much higher mortgages once you already have capital is entirely rooted in this.

I didn't really know anything about BtL mortgages until our financial advisor suggested we take one against our current flat to stick another few hundred grand on our pot to buy a house in London that we could cover the payments on with the interest from our savings account. That's obscene given how brutal it is for those without considerable capital already.


The mooted plan was to enforce a property MOT. So you would still be carrying out those repairs.

Why? What would sustain the housing bubble and keep properties out of reach?

Why? Leave them to hang until the prices flatline and people can buy them.

Re-nationalisation is a terrible idea. You really want the government running those industries? Do you really think theyre competent enough to do so?


See my above post about capital from property... Its really not the free money that they make it out to be.

So you'd have properties sitting empty, waiting to devalue? Who's going to maintain them? Then when the 'MOT' states they're inadequate, who's going to pay for the work? The price would come down sure, but only because the places would be in rag order, and with no one to maintain them the government would have to step in again. Its just not feasible.

This is the problem with re-distribution. Penalising me for having wealth, and removing my asset, will not put it in the hands of someone poorer and magically solve the problem, becuse at the end of the day someone has to pay for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware there are terrible landlords who run terrible properties in absolute states, and that's not on, but you shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of a few.

The profit in renting generally comes in a the end - i.e. the increase in value of the property when you sell it. Renting is generally a means of paying the mortgage and upkeep on a property in the meantime. Renting houses is a very inefficient means of providing rental living space - not everyone wants or needs to own a home - compared to apartment buildings or the like.

I generally lean against too much intervention in the housing market, but apartments should be encouraged to take up the rental market, and especially unoccupied investment properties should be penalized. Your average landlord owns 1-2 rental properties to fund their retirement, not to get super rich.

Re-nationalisation is a terrible idea. You really want the government running those industries? Do you really think theyre competent enough to do so?

the whole swiss railway system is in governmental hands, either Kantons or federal. it's also better built and on time with great user comfort for comparatively cheap prices in order to lower general trafic and not waste money for companies and taxation by having workers sit in rushhour.

If we can do it, with our small backyard politicians and general people intervention then you should be more then able to do so.....

See my above post about capital from property... Its really not the free money that they make it out to be.

never was, however tehree starts to be an issue if you have the huge stockmarket cats investing and keeping living space empty in order to maintain their profit margine, talk to a real venetian f.e. and that is commonplace for quite a lot of higher class living space which Has atm an oversaturation atleast here however does not drop in price.

So you'd have properties sitting empty, waiting to devalue? Who's going to maintain them? Then when the 'MOT' states they're inadequate, who's going to pay for the work? The price would come down sure, but only because the places would be in rag order, and with no one to maintain them the government would have to step in again. Its just not feasible.

All depends on the implementation, in that regards i agree with nfe.

This is the problem with re-distribution. Penalising me for having wealth, and removing my asset, will not put it in the hands of someone poorer and magically solve the problem, becuse at the end of the day someone has to pay for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware there are terrible landlords who run terrible properties in absolute states, and that's not on, but you shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of a few.

i sincerly beliefe that you are not in the class to be an issue monetary wise, the real issues are those multi billionaires just buying up whole streets and then keeping them empty in order to maintain their prices due to their win margin and also to speculate with the room due to them creating artificial scarcity.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:People think that landlords are raking in cash like some endless money pot, it's really not that way at all. I make about 100 gbp per month in profit after fees. Thats 1200 a year. After I pay my income tax of about 300, that leaves 900, most of which goes on repairs throughout the year. If anything I'm usually down by years end

The only benefit I have is that at the end I will have a property in my name, but it's by no means an income. The only reason I'm able to do it is because I have such a well paid job too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


Some Labour policy, like renationalisation of natural monopolies are popular across the board. Nationalised rail polls majority support amongst Tory voters. Tighter controls on landlords is popular with pretty much everyone who's ever rented. Except some of the ones who later went on to be landlords themselves.

I hope I'm still staying just on the right side of politics discussion here...

Of course, they also let you raise far more capital at much lower payments. Which leads us to...

No it isn't. It's to allow people who control capital to generate further capital. Nobody cares about the quality of housing which is why cities are so full of horrendous rental properties. That BtL mortgages allow you to raise much higher mortgages once you already have capital is entirely rooted in this.

I didn't really know anything about BtL mortgages until our financial advisor suggested we take one against our current flat to stick another few hundred grand on our pot to buy a house in London that we could cover the payments on with the interest from our savings account. That's obscene given how brutal it is for those without considerable capital already.


The mooted plan was to enforce a property MOT. So you would still be carrying out those repairs.

Why? What would sustain the housing bubble and keep properties out of reach?

Why? Leave them to hang until the prices flatline and people can buy them.

Re-nationalisation is a terrible idea. You really want the government running those industries? Do you really think theyre competent enough to do so?

Natural monopolies like rail and power? Absolutely. If other states can do it efficiently and effectively, why can't the UK? As it is they're dreadfully run, extremely expensive, and still massively subsidised by the state!

See my above post about capital from property... Its really not the free money that they make it out to be.

Depends on how wealthy you are at the outset I suppose. If you have several properties that draw decent recents, then you can absolutely make a comfortable living with agents doing all the actual work.

So you'd have properties sitting empty, waiting to devalue? Who's going to maintain them? Then when the 'MOT' states they're inadequate, who's going to pay for the work? The price would come down sure, but only because the places would be in rag order, and with no one to maintain them the government would have to step in again. Its just not feasible.

I'm not sure how your getting to here. Are you saying if a Property MOT says you need to treat damp or fix central heating, you'd just not bother and have the proper empty? You'd fix it or you'd sell it, wouldn't you? You're not going to hang on to it for 7 years waiting for that to get worse and the value to drop even further.

This is the problem with re-distribution. Penalising me for having wealth, and removing my asset, will not put it in the hands of someone poorer and magically solve the problem, becuse at the end of the day someone has to pay for it.

I have to say I think 'me' and 'my asset' are telling here. Do you really think your position is the just one or is it just the one that benefits you financially?

Anyway, forcing massive numbers of properties onto the market are drastically reduced rates absolutely puts them in the hands of poorer people provided you've sufficiently protected against buy-to-let and investment property buyers. Which isn't very difficult with stamp duty and council tax.

Is that just house rentals or does it include apartments?

No you said they would sit empty. At least I thought thats what you meant when you said leave them to hang?

Regardless, we clearly sit on different sides of the free market property divide, which is fine. I believe that the system is built to allow those with wealth to provide steady, well maintained properties to those who cant afford that larger outgoing, and also people who'd rather rent due to work or other reasons, so landlords are necessary. I also believe wealth belongs in the hands of the people, not the government. And I just can't see a party ever getting voted in with those sort of Robin Hood policies.

John Prins wrote:Is that just house rentals or does it include apartments?

All rentals. I'm sure stats broken down by type of home will exist but I've no idea where you'd find them.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:No you said they would sit empty. At least I thought thats what you meant when you said leave them to hang?

I simply meant the state would have no obligation to purchase them at high costs, if at all. I don't think the Landlord MOT would force many on to the market anyway. It would just increase the laughably low standards we have now.

Regardless, we clearly sit on different sides of the free market property divide, which is fine. I believe that the system is built to allow those with wealth to provide steady, well maintained properties to those who cant afford that larger outgoing, and also people who'd rather rent due to work or other reasons, so landlords are necessary.

I just don't believe anyone who actively participates in that system as a renter (excluding those renting very high value properties, which are well maintained in my experience) can truly believe this to be the case.

I also believe wealth belongs in the hands of the people, not the government. And I just can't see a party ever getting voted in with those sort of Robin Hood policies.

I can, but we're definitely into politics here!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Seriously, this thread might as well be renamed "people who don't understand academic concepts mock said concepts".

I was thinking "Gibs Me Dat for Free Because I'm as good as my WW2 Vet Grandpa".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
ITT:
"Man, life expectancy is not doing well, could it be our healthcare system?"
"Nah man, chicken breasts and veggies!"
Hilarious.

"I deserve free health care"- fat guy that was telling me he doesn't know how to cook food and must rely on fast food.