no she doesn't have that power... and you're referring to the land - all land technically belongs to the Crown(the state) - not 'the Queen'
Cameron's housing plans
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
no she doesn't have that power... and you're referring to the land - all land technically belongs to the Crown(the state) - not 'the Queen'
well of course you don't get any cash if your mortgage is for a larger amount than the house sells for
you also still owe the bank money in that scenario - since you owned the house not them... is it sinking in yet?
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
Mortgages and deeds of trust both grant the title for your property to your lender until the loan is paid.
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
You know she can take it back at anytime.
realistically it isn't going to happen and she probably couldn't even if she did go mad and try
it is also got very little relevance re: whether a homeowner or the bank issuing the mortgage 'owns' a home... the homeowner (clue in the name) does!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
Absolutely terrible policy which has just increased the value of all the land currently held by developers with absolutely no way for a government to deliver affordable housing, we cannot rely on private developers to deliver as has been proven and now we've lessened their obligations.
The previous strategy was not perfect, it was at least a strategy.
The previous strategy was not perfect, it was at least a strategy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So it hasn't, you just keep misrepresenting our arguments as if we don't understand the legal difference between a mortgage and something like HP.
I know the technical differences, but my point is that the mortgage on a philosophical level, on a practical level and on a rights of both lender/borrower level is a lot closer to HP than it is to what most people would consider proper ownership of an asset.
In my opinion, to "own" something means if you were to sell it and not replace it then you get all of the money that sale generated. Tell me what happens if I buy a £500k house, pay half the mortgage off, sell it then move back in with my parents and stop paying the bank?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,119
Ah it's good to see the usual socialist entitlement rhetoric appearing in one of these threads.
I had constructed a more balanced and reasoned debate, appraising many of the socio-economic factors in housing supply, provision, ownership, rental and benefits system. Ultimately though it pertains to my above sentiment.
I had constructed a more balanced and reasoned debate, appraising many of the socio-economic factors in housing supply, provision, ownership, rental and benefits system. Ultimately though it pertains to my above sentiment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,906
Problem being is that they need to preserve the 'Green Belt' to some extent, otherwise that will cause some big issues.
By all means build on Brownland, but I think the avoidance of using the Green Belt is a good thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
damn them forcing those poor people to live rent free
Sounds like you'd rather have millions of homeless people.
Cambridge is development central it seems at the moment, mostly of flats it has to be said there are the odd houses going up here or there though. I say house developments but two that spring to mind close to our house are both of 5 detached (and by detached I mean there is half a metre gap between the houses), 5 bed houses, one development starting at £800,000 and the other at £1.5m (it's on the river).
It's bonkers, we both earn well above the national average, have no debts (other than the mortgage) and we couldn't size up in Cambridge, no where near, so how are starters going to get a house in Cambridge given that we're effectively in a massively over-valued "starter" home? Given the huge profit we'd make on our house I'm sort of wanting to sell, but it feels like its squandering an asset, because I'm not convinced we'd get back on the property ladder in such a place, so we're effectively trapped.
The change in planning laws have been disastrous for Cambridge in particular, and I wish Councils had the guts to stand up to developers more. They don't build affordable housing in Cambridge anymore, employing the social housing trick to make the new estates look lived in and then wacking the rents up naturally, eg a 300 room Student flat development was just approved on a local trading estate, putting some out of business by force, and despite both Universities saying they do not want nor need more accommodation. A brainless decision based solely on money obviously.
It's bonkers, we both earn well above the national average, have no debts (other than the mortgage) and we couldn't size up in Cambridge, no where near, so how are starters going to get a house in Cambridge given that we're effectively in a massively over-valued "starter" home? Given the huge profit we'd make on our house I'm sort of wanting to sell, but it feels like its squandering an asset, because I'm not convinced we'd get back on the property ladder in such a place, so we're effectively trapped.
The change in planning laws have been disastrous for Cambridge in particular, and I wish Councils had the guts to stand up to developers more. They don't build affordable housing in Cambridge anymore, employing the social housing trick to make the new estates look lived in and then wacking the rents up naturally, eg a 300 room Student flat development was just approved on a local trading estate, putting some out of business by force, and despite both Universities saying they do not want nor need more accommodation. A brainless decision based solely on money obviously.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,720
- Location
- La France
damn them forcing those poor people to live rent free
Indeed. I wish someone would force me to live mortgage free.
A laughable, "I'm alright Jack", attitude.
It really isn't hard to see how people get caught in a spiral of paying more rent than allows them to save for a deposit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
What do you think about BTL landlords then who buy houses and charge more rent than the mortgage meaning the tenant is paying off their mortgage and giving them a profit at the same time?
Suppose them getting 'free' houses at the expense of others is smart and aspirational?
What I don't get is when the tennant is on Housing Benefit, so it ends up us the tax payer buys the house for the BTL Landlord who may have multiple houses, but if you own your own house and get into trouble, you get very little help (apart from some payments towards mortgage interest) because, oh no, the state isn't going to pay for your home...
It's a mad situation.
I would imagine plenty of right wing people can't afford to buy a house either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,720
- Location
- La France
Making money is always the smart thing to do and I would do the same myself if I had the means to fund it.
Where I am, there's a few developments going up and I've been keeping an eye on them. Generally speaking as soon as a 2 or 3 bedroom property (typically a semi or a "townhouse" i.e. posh terrace) gets released, it's reserved in days (price is usually 275k-400k). Each development also seems to build a handful of 4-5 bedroom detached houses which are on the market for 600k-800k - these tend to stay on the market for ages. I can only speculate but I would guess that these larger properties are where the developers earn their profit i.e. the sale of the smaller homes just covers the cost of the loans. Surely when there's an obvious shortage of 2-3 bed starter homes we need to find ways of incentivising developers to build more of these homes and not the bigger super homes.