chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I notice you omitted the bit of my post that said he wasn't in the 'buy to let business'. He could afford his home, but he was a single man who had moved in with a partner. They didn't need two homes, and because his home was in negative equity he couldn't afford to sell it either. It wasn't an expensive house, but he probably bought it because like many of us, he couldn't get a council property when he needed somewhere to live. I don't think you realise that some people buy their homes because they have little alternative. I believe you edited your post after I quoted it, that is why There is a crack head down the road from me, he paid £50 for a computer game and it was in negative equity, he sold it for a fiver to cash converters to pay off a debt. Why shouldn't this mortgagee do the same. Are we to decide between the deserving rich and the undeserving poor, the crack head with a job, vs the idiot who could sign his name on a piece of paper and qualify for a mortgage? If were going to do up and rent out this man's houses, let's do it for all 60 million of us, let's build 60 million homes, do them all up and rent them out to people on housing benefit. Only problem is.... So why should the chuff who got a mortgage get bailed out (and indirectly the bank), whilst the guy without a home or home-secured debt, get's nothing. Somebody buying a home because they have little alternative? Seems to me they had a lot more alternative than a homeless jobless man living on the street due to a lack of housing, due to the lack of housebuilding and immigrant induced population increase! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Are we to decide between the deserving rich and the undeserving poor, the crack head with a job, vs the idiot who could sign his name on a piece of paper and qualify for a mortgage? What....... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 What we need to do is tax empty and 2nd homes more. 1 home, 1 council tax. 2 homes, 2 council tax. 2 homes, but one empty for longer than 6 months, 1 council tax + 1 double lot of council tax. We have NIMBY scum that are into buy to let. Not content with owning multiple homes and renting them out at vast profit due to the shortage of homes, they oppose new homes as it would effect the rental value/value of their homes in a market where there is a lack of homes. These parasites get tax relief, whilst the landless peasants get taxed ever higher. We should not be doing up people's 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes so they can rent them out at a profit. We should increase their taxes, and force them to give up the homes that are surplus to their requirements. Fully agree!..............and of course if more young girls kept there knickers on,and we had not let too many immigrants in over the years,and did not need to house vast hoardes of students,there would not be such a big problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gribz Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I will watch the programme, but building on more would still be needed. Its more to do with the selfish attributes eco types and wealthy middle aged older people have towards others which will stop progress. I'm 34 and very much not wealthy. I am utterly and totally opposed to building on green belt land. There are MANY solutions to the housing problem, building on brownfield land and bringing empty homes into use are just two ways. What really needs to happen is that people need to stop churning out yet more children, control your selfish genes people ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I believe you edited your post after I quoted it, that is why There is a crack head down the road from me, he paid £50 for a computer game and it was in negative equity, he sold it for a fiver to cash converters to pay off a debt. Why shouldn't this mortgagee do the same. Why should he sell at a loss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Somewhere cheaper, in a squat, in social housing, in a tent, in a container, in prefab housing, in a caravan etc. They're free to do that now, clearly that isn't an attractive option though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 So why create these landlords and fix the price via bailing out this chuff who couldn't afford to sell his 2nd home and was struggling with the mortgage. Did it mention struggling with his mortgage? It was an idea to bring the house onto the market as a rental property rather than stand empty waiting for property prices to rise. Then providing tenants whom have a floor rent of whatever the local LHA rate is, quite possibly having their rent paid by the state. You're obsessed with the LHA rate, but most rental prices are above this because the market price is above it. This guy doesn't even own the property and is in negative equity, he owns less of his property, than the debt he has secured against the property, in effect he OWES his property. Yes he does, and if he chose he could sell it and take the hit and then pay off the remaining debt over time, but he wasn't choosing to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They're free to do that now, clearly that isn't an attractive option though. They are coerced into paying daft amounts for housing, even without an income - housing benefit/lha/dss etc. It maintains the high prices and allows landowners to extract a greater economic rent from the people. But it is backfiring and destroying the economy. As a working man now struggles to compete against the benefit system for housing, he often gives up and claims dole. Perhaps working on the side. As the ex public sector workers (the Harwoods') who retired on generous pensions and did very well out of buy to let through the boom said, ""We need the people who don't want to go out to work and be DSS tenants, otherwise we wouldn't have those tenants in our properties." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Why should he sell at a loss? If he can't afford it, he should sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 History repeats itself if the same mistakes are made. My generation is getting older and larger in number, and we are very very angry with the situation, believe me. How is your generation getting larger? Are we importing people of your age? What generation are you talking about anyway. I don't know anyone but you and a few other posters who are angry at the situation. If it helps I'm generation Y (after X), and my parents (who also aren't angry) would be baby boomers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.