Sorry, but which countries have banned home ownership for its general populace?
Should minions be the instrument of rich people?
- Thread starter tenofspades
- Start date
The idea that we don't need people to do low-paid jobs is equally hilarious. The idea that everybody can be highly paid is hilarious.
The idea that the low-paid should be exploited by the classes with wealth is an idea that we should consign to history.
But in your world the rich would milk the poor for all their worth, whilst simultaneously berating them for being poor. It speaks volumes about your morality.
If you can't beat them join them?
Learn how they made their wealth, probably the stock market/investing had something to do with it.
Create and grow a business, earn passive income, do side hussels, save your money, invest.
These people that buy the big houses aren't necessarily rich they are good at money management.
Learn how they made their wealth, probably the stock market/investing had something to do with it.
Create and grow a business, earn passive income, do side hussels, save your money, invest.
These people that buy the big houses aren't necessarily rich they are good at money management.
Communist ones did.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Heres how that works. Supply and demand.
If there is no supply of low paid workers to do low paid jobs. Then those jobs demand more money to fill the supply issues.
If all the low paid workers moved away. They would be forced to do something about them being low paid in the first place. Until then you will be shafted.
But here's the rub.
Maybe you don't want to be rich. Maybe you want a modest house to suit your modest income.
"The market" is supposed to provide expensive things for rich people and inexpensive/modest things for the less well-off.
The housing market is not doing this. The only "affordable" houses are entirely removed from the areas where people can find work, or they're outright scams ("shared ownerhip", etc).
You shouldn't have to be rich to avoid being locked in a debt trap.
I'm not even saying everybody should own their own home (I'd like to see public bodies build and own vastly more property and rent it out).
What shouldn't happen is a situation where the worst off are paying more than they would in a mortgage to some middle-class profiteer. Paying >70% of their income.
That's not the market providing options for all wallet sizes. That's the people in the middle exploiting those at the bottom. It's sad and it's morally indefensible.
I dont fully agree with this.
I expect many people today if they were able they would pop to their bank and get a mortgage to start a BTL business. But the reality is they cant, because maybe they dont have enough capital for a deposit because they spending it all on expensive rent or/and in a low paid job, maybe because they dont have a mummy and daddy helping them out, maybe because of past financial mistakes, who knows.
However I dont think a solution to a problem is for everyone to join in, this is going to come down to principles, you either support the idea that is 10s of millions of people live under AST conditions with people getting rich of it as well as 10s of billions been moved from public money to private landlords hands. Or you recognise its not a great situation and you support change, which isnt more people becoming landlords, its a movement away from AST's whether thats reforming the private rental market or building social homes. Some of us recognise of course it cant be done overnight, we have to be realistic, but would like to see the right movements to start the ball rolling. The first step of that process is to recognise the current system is broken.
Letting homes makes up almost a 1/4 of London's GDP, that is scary.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
You don't have a right to a property just because you were born in that part of the country.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Exactly. Move to where it's cheaper. Or stop whinging.
We only had a 100k (under half average price when we bought) budget, been told 100 times on here it was luck but we spent weeks living in the car and the odd winter camp site, tried coastal devon as the prices here seemed out of reach but found this one just badly presented, gardens overrun, next doot had been demolished.
So yes luck but perseverance and seeing beyond the present condition, also making ourselves homeless and jobless by selling up up country.
Its gone mental down here now though, could probably do the same now but would end up in Bodmin or similar
So yes luck but perseverance and seeing beyond the present condition, also making ourselves homeless and jobless by selling up up country.
Its gone mental down here now though, could probably do the same now but would end up in Bodmin or similar
You previously told us the property was under-valued, even compared to other houses on the same road.
Are you suggesting that finding an under-valued property is possible for everybody? If not, then it depends on luck, as we have all told you in other threads.
A strategy that depends on luck or "being in the right place at the right time" is not scalable. You cannot say that the answer to people's housing problems is to be more lucky.
We are talking about a fundamental paradigm shift in the way this country views property. That it should not be possible for the wealthy to further enrich themselves by taking advantage of a lack of housing. By taking advantage of people who are unable to get a mortgage. By extracting >70% of a person's income in rental expenditure, especially when this value is more than the payments on a mortgage on the same property.
There is so much wrong with the current system, yet supporters of the status quo endlessly reply with "Just move" or "Work harder" or "Get luckier". Those people are in favour of the status quo because it benefits them, personally, to see house prices (and rents) continually rising.
Ultimately, this is all a question of ethics.
Very well put.
It does broadly, there are cheap, modest houses available in the UK... there are sometimes some available for £1 even. I think the big problem you have is that you're looking in a very desirable area.
Take it to the extreme - suppose I was born in Chelsea, London - I just want to work a low effort/min wage job, modest hours etc.. and I only want a modest house - sound fair? But a "modest" house in that area will cost a few million... the desire is not really all that modest when you're talking about say prime central London or a super popular holiday destination.
There is an obvious supply issue and when lots of people want the thing you also want then the price tends to go up, the thing you want is actually rather desirable.
Now they could perhaps permit more new development or indeed allocate some more new housing to social housing - reserve some for key workers (NHA, carers etc..) or part rent part buy schemes for people who have lived in certain areas (on the electoral roll) for 5+ years etc..
This is just bitterness at where (some portion of) the money goes, if you paid the same rent to a public body would that somehow be better (for you)?
What do your local councillors and local MP have to say about the lack of supply of affordable housing in your area? Have you spoken to any of them about it?
The only situation where the supermarkets etc. have no bottom tier workers, is when they all on the dole. Its impossible for the everyone to all be doing the best jobs. It is what it is. You cannot have 40 million judges e.g.
When the standards are tried to be driven up e.g. making university easier to access, then the result is low tier jobs suddenly require a degree, as the base line level of applicant increases.
I dont fully disagree though, there is ways to think out of the box and improve one's life, I just dont think its like the fairy tale that people tend to write.
Also lets say if shelf stackers etc. are suddenly getting £40 an hour. There would be inflation to go along with it, so £40 an hour is effectively the new £10 an hour, the guy who was previously on £40 an hour then wants £160 an hour to maintain the same margin, rents shoot up and so on, the only real gains perhaps would be if the gap between the highest paid and lowest paid was reduced but ultimately there will always be poor and rich people. The only means of improving things for poor people in capitalism societies is forced state distribution of money (tax and social security) plus access to credit.
Its not perfect, not fair, but been honest about it is better than pretending things are not what they are. Sadly I do see a lot of denial from certian people, the millionaire lady of course who rang up that radio show who legitimately thinks those new social care reforms are fair, all the people who think everyone in poverty is down to their own fault, likewise the unemployed, and of course everyone can become rich by merely working harder. Denial of a housing crisis, denial of poverty existence in England, denial of need for food banks and more.
Last edited:
Actually the system is designed to make it harder to do that.
Claiming for social housing has to be where you currently live unless you can prove a local link, they wont accept reasons such as "but there is more houses over there".
Likewise with things like school boundaries, job's and so forth.
Your comment suggests a complete disconnect from the reality millions of people live in.
What it really shows is the entitlement disconnect between those in state subsidised housing and those solely responsible for funding their choices.
You not solely responsible for anything, you pay into the state, and the state opens up opportunities in return(including subsidies), as well as providing infrastructure and a social structure to facilitate your life, a bad idea to go down that road, I thought you was been reasonable earlier with your acceptance of my proposal for housing but you treading down the denial path again.
Do you want us to go back to medieval times, where we have the freedom that you crave but as a consequence, only the few have a reasonable life, the survival of the fittest.
No one is calling for communism, just some basic common sense adjustments to make things easier for those who are most exploited and are most vulnerable, the rich stay rich, the poor stay poor.
You wouldn't pay the same extortionate rents to a public body. It just wouldn't happen. Publicly owned housing would be affordable for people who needed it, not for (excessive) profits. It's like saying, "Would you be happy paying private medical rates to the NHS?" It just wouldn't happen, so there is no point even considering it.
I also think it's entirely justified for anyone to be bitter about paying >70% of their income on rent.
We should also (collectively) be bitter about the £billions of tax revenue being funnelled to private landlords.
Unless your goal is to make the rich richer, that is. In which case, carry on, nothing to see here.
Lastly, I also think it's unfair to expect the lowest-paid to commute for multiple hours each day to get to their min-wage cleaning jobs. Wherever there is work to be done, and that work is low paid, there should be affordable housing nearby. I don't see why entire swathes of London should be wall-to-wall mansions and penthouses. And then all the cleaners have to spend hour commuting in at their own cost.
How can you expect the lowest paid to take on the extra burden of paying thousands to commute to the areas where they can find work, just because those areas are so exclusive that the workers themselves cannot afford to live anywhere close by?
The whole way this country is run (for the benefit of those at the top) is well past its sell by date. Unfortunately we have also allowed the ruling classes (MPs, basically) to have their fingers in all the pies, and they won't vote to hurt their own interests, even if it benefit millions of low-paid workers.
My house has taken way more from society than a social housing tenant has. £150k gain in less than 10 years!
Are you also against state-subsidised healthcare? People should pull themselves up by their boot straps and pay for their own healthcare, right?
Anything other than paying 100% of the cost of services yourself is communism, right Dolph?