And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..

Psycho Sonny said:
Okay let's take your factory worker earning £18k a year and compare what they have in this country to someone in Africa, India or China earning £1k a year.

Should we be helping the factory workers or those that truly are at the bottom or let capitalism decide?

Do you suggest we all get paid the same wage regardless?
Click to expand...

So we don't need to do anything until our workers are the poorest in the world? Fair do's.

Our maybe, just maybe, we sort our own problems before saving the rest of the world.

I'm in no way suggesting we all get paid the same, in over the average wage myself just about. I'm just suggesting maybe even poor people shouldn't be worrying about a place to live.
 
BTW if anyone hasn't checked the regs lately as of this year BTL is now significantly less profitable than it has been over the last 30 years due to the way it is taxed.

Thats not to say it isn't profitable but less so.

Also if a house does go up for aake not everyone has an equal chance of buying it, those pesky cash buyer developers will get it 90% of the time, over a first time buyer.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
Why not just heavily regulate the industry, at the end of the day landlords are providing a service which is as vital as most statutory services so they should be regulated as such?
  • Cap rents
  • Properly legislate, police, and enforce laws relating to the requirements around the state of housing provided by landlords. Enforce strong penalties including jail time for the worst offenders
  • Get rid of no fault evictions
  • Create a whistleblowing system for tenants to call out bad landlords, ensure that they are protected from retaliation.
  • Heavily tax profits on sales of btl homes and inheritance of btl homes.
I'd say privatisation of housing is as important to social wellbeing as privatised health care so it should be policed strictly.
Click to expand...
That would certainly be a good start. It would, at the very least, cleanse the market of the worst offenders, who let sub-standard accommodation and are not prepared to fix it.

I'm not sure about "cap rents" tho, at least to begin with. In your analogy, we don't cap the fees that vets or private healthcare providers can charge.

We could see what effect those other regulations have on the market before thinking about capping rents. It may still be necessary.

I'd also add long-term guaranteed tenancies (10 years, etc) as per other EU countries (the tenant has the right to cancel but the landlord does not).

But listen, how likely is any of that? Almost 0 probability.

We in this country have fully embraced the dog-eat-dog, climb up the pile mentality. I don't see even Labour wanting to tighten rental regulation. It's not on anyone's agenda.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
All of that is already happening in Scotland.

It's already been taxed to oblivion as well. All the decent benefits and expenses have been removed.

In Scotland you need to register to become a landlord within each council authority and then register each property within that authority too at your own expense.

They then police you and your tenants can go to them with complaints and if you don't provide adequate housing bailiffs and sherriff court officers cqn be sent to your home for the money to repair and maintain the property and then even the police can be drafted in if that doesn't work.

I know it's different in England but all that's already happened in Scotland. Landlords have so many expenses and duties it's a game full of hassle for very little to make any money you need to own the property outright with no mortgage.

It's why higher end properties where people are less likely to abuse the property if they can afford the higher rents are a better prospect than slum type properties where they never bother to clean the cooker, smoke 20 fags per day inside the rooms and never clean anything or bother to even do a lick of paint in 15 years.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a good thing?

You can still be a BTL landlord and your tenants are less likely to give you hassle if you target the upper end of the market.

Leave the lower end rentals to the state to provide.

Nobody in the private sector should be interested in making money from "slum type properties", after all.

But it still won't happen in England (extra regulation).
 
Woden said:
So we don't need to do anything until our workers are the poorest in the world? Fair do's.

Our maybe, just maybe, we sort our own problems before saving the rest of the world.

I'm in no way suggesting we all get paid the same, in over the average wage myself just about. I'm just suggesting maybe even poor people shouldn't be worrying about a place to live.
Click to expand...

They don't need to if they live and buy within their means.

The problem is nobody taught them how to be frugal, how to save money and be savvy with money.

I know a millionaire who jumps the fence to play golf every morning. He can easily afford to pay the fees but he decides to save that money instead.

There are lots of cheap homes for sale within 5 miles of where I stay and I stay in the city.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-97088993.html

£25k
 
Psycho Sonny said:
They don't need to if they live and buy within their means.

The problem is nobody taught them how to be frugal, how to save money and be savvy with money.

I know a millionaire who jumps the fence to play golf every morning. He can easily afford to pay the fees but he decides to save that money instead.

There are lots of cheap homes for sale within 5 miles of where I stay and I stay in the city.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-97088993.html

£25k
Click to expand...

Nice if you want to buy 25% of a flat.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
They don't need to if they live and buy within their means.

The problem is nobody taught them how to be frugal, how to save money and be savvy with money.

I know a millionaire who jumps the fence to play golf every morning. He can easily afford to pay the fees but he decides to save that money instead.

There are lots of cheap homes for sale within 5 miles of where I stay and I stay in the city.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-97088993.html

£25k
Click to expand...
I owned a shared ownership flat and despite being in a good area it was impossible to sell even below its value, In the end as the other 50% owner was a housing association I managed to convince them to buy back the 50% they owned after 2 years trying to sell without even a single viewer, shared ownership is a resale nightmare IMO and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. You are essentially throwing that £25k away.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
They don't need to if they live and buy within their means.

The problem is nobody taught them how to be frugal, how to save money and be savvy with money.

I know a millionaire who jumps the fence to play golf every morning. He can easily afford to pay the fees but he decides to save that money instead.

There are lots of cheap homes for sale within 5 miles of where I stay and I stay in the city.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-97088993.html

£25k
Click to expand...

That's shared ownership. You still have to pay rent
 
Bit of a fixer upper, but the weather is nice

Screenshot-20200920-224200-Chrome.jpg
 
Psycho Sonny said:
All of that is already happening in Scotland.

It's already been taxed to oblivion as well. All the decent benefits and expenses have been removed.

In Scotland you need to register to become a landlord within each council authority and then register each property within that authority too at your own expense.

They then police you and your tenants can go to them with complaints and if you don't provide adequate housing bailiffs and sherriff court officers cqn be sent to your home for the money to repair and maintain the property and then even the police can be drafted in if that doesn't work.

I know it's different in England but all that's already happened in Scotland. Landlords have so many expenses and duties it's a game full of hassle for very little to make any money you need to own the property outright with no mortgage.

It's why higher end properties where people are less likely to abuse the property if they can afford the higher rents are a better prospect than slum type properties where they never bother to clean the cooker, smoke 20 fags per day inside the rooms and never clean anything or bother to even do a lick of paint in 15 years.
Click to expand...

Good
 
Woden said:
There is more to it than poor life choices. Capitalism as a system requires the people to be poor. For some to have more, others have to have less. What we have done is made the gap between more and less so vast that the poor can't afford a place to live. We're also actively making sure that more and more go in the "less" catagory so the top free can have even more.

It's not just about poor life choices. Where I work there are around 200 general workers on minimum wage. Over them are 12 team leaders, over them 6 managers, then 2 shift managers. Not everyone can move up, there just isn't room, there never will be.

We can't just pay them all more, all that will do is increase prices.
Click to expand...

The point is that your own life choices result in your situation.

It is easy to be 25 years old and have £100,000 in savings, adjust that for inflation depending on your age.

As for me i believe in efficient use of space, so if i am in power i would build high-rise flats, and it would be on a very large scale.

This would make housing very affordable, while normal houses would keep their value or increase.

So on average if a flat is worth £100k, then a house would be £4million (rough guess based on land use)

All of that extra land will be parks, and other things, bigger and better road and rail systems also.
 
platinum87 said:
The point is that your own life choices result in your situation.

It is easy to be 25 years old and have £100,000 in savings, adjust that for inflation depending on your age.

As for me i believe in efficient use of space, so if i am in power i would build high-rise flats, and it would be on a very large scale.

This would make housing very affordable, while normal houses would keep their value or increase.

So on average if a flat is worth £100k, then a house would be £4million (rough guess based on land use)

All of that extra land will be parks, and other things, bigger and better road and rail systems also.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cost efficient high density housing projects typically have a really good track record.......

Also £100k in savings at 25? Assuming they start work at 18, that would require a saving rate of £1,200 pm. How likely do you think that sounds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom