Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

It appears that the majority of people who are "OMG landlords are evil and must be eradicated" are people who can't afford a 2nd (or more home), the sooner this country gets away from the 'Everyone must own their own home' mentality the better, yes it's gone too far with the council house sell off but some people cannot or don't want to own their home, also I've lost count of how many people I know who've moved in together and then split creating an issue where both partners cannot afford to buy each other out, how do they then get their own place each?

I'm in the fortunate position to be in my own house and also only have approx 3 years left of my mortgage but when 1st looking we had to rent a place until the right one came up (and we had the deposit saved), also when working in London on a 6 month contract I rented a flat, I certainly couldn't afford to buy a place for that 6 months and the 3 hour each way commute was never going to happen.
 
Maundie said:
the sooner this country gets away from the 'Everyone must own their own home' mentality the better,
Click to expand...
We're well past that. We're now in the "rent costs are more than 50% of earnings" phase.

In London, a 1-bed flat is an average of 45% of GROSS median pay. 24% of gross in the rest of the UK.

To reiterate, that's a 1-bed flat and median (middle value) salary, before tax.

Purely coincidence I'm sure, but birth rates are the lowest they've ever been.
 
Maccy said:
I'm sure @Will Gill has an opinion on this ;)
Click to expand...

It's done to death here on a weekly basis mate.

One of the problems down here is everyone moans about second homeowners, but if delve deeper, it's the very same locals/moaners that sold their home and or land to them in the first place, so who is actually more to blame, greedy locals or rich upcountry folk? Neither is without fault but never let that get in the way of a good story/moan.
 
Will Gill said:
It's done to death here on a weekly basis mate.

One of the problems down here is everyone moans about second homeowners, but if delve deeper, it's the very same locals/moaners that sold their home and or land to them in the first place, so who is actually more to blame, greedy locals or rich upcountry folk? Neither is without fault but never let that get in the way of a good story/moan.
Click to expand...

Yup. At the end of the day people are going to want as much money for their house as possible, unless you specify "only locals" in the sales. This "local property for local people" thing is a pipe dream. It annoys me no end that people from London are repeatedly called "DFLs", muttered in the back corners of local pubs, so who sold their properties to them in the first place?
 
FoxEye said:
I know people who bought (or had parents buy) a house to live in whilst going through uni. And those houses made ridiculous gains in the 3-5 years those people were studying.

Only the paupers rent whilst they go to uni... You don't think the middle classes would have their kids renting in halls, do you? Not when there's money to be made in house price appreciation.

Also there are good reasons not to want corporations to buy residential property. As an example of that, you only need to look to the US.

In parts of the US, entire suburbs are being bought up by corporates for the rental income. They have almost unlimited capital and will literally target an area, then buy everything in that area. Then when they control entire areas, they push rents up to the absolute maximum possible and people get forced out.

There are various articles you can read about how this has become a real problem in parts of the US. Corporates literally buying entire neighbourhoods and making it so its impossible to own a property in those places, so you have to rent from them.

I really don't see what is "revenge fantasy" about desiring residential property to be owned and lived in. On the contrary, that just sounds like using it for its intended function.

Or would you argue that the function of property is to make money, rather than provide shelter and a place to live?

Anyone who would say that the function of property is to make money is a lost cause really as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

I know quite a lot of affluent people and none of them bought a house for their kid to go to uni in.

Do you have a source with verified statistics or is this just more made up nonsense?
 
Will Gill said:
It's done to death here on a weekly basis mate.

One of the problems down here is everyone moans about second homeowners, but if delve deeper, it's the very same locals/moaners that sold their home and or land to them in the first place, so who is actually more to blame, greedy locals or rich upcountry folk? Neither is without fault but never let that get in the way of a good story/moan.
Click to expand...
People buying houses to rent out or sit empty are clearly more to blame. What sort of an argument is that?

Ultimately, of course, it should be government stewarding the country's housing stock.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
I know quite a lot of affluent people and none of them bought a house for their kid to go to uni in.

Do you have a source with verified statistics or is this just more made up nonsense?
Click to expand...
The flat I rented in North Greenwich was bought by a farmer from Southampton for his daughter to reside in while at Uni as she wasn't happy being in halls, I'm sure he still owns it now as she'll have let Uni and is renting it out to someone else but the reason he bought it initially was for her to reside in.
 
Maundie said:
The flat I rented in North Greenwich was bought by a farmer from Southampton for his daughter to reside in while at Uni as she wasn't happy being in halls, I'm sure he still owns it now as she'll have let Uni and is renting it out to someone else but the reason he bought it initially was for her to reside in.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a spoilt bint. Halls was the best time of my life. There was a girl in halls who sounds similar to that who you mention. Spoilt and prissy [even though she was Brummie] and whenever she whinged about anything her dad would drive down, wrap her in cotton wool and she'd disappear for a bit up there.

She had me set up the phone line for her [even though she was the only one who wanted it because she "didn't want to talk to strangers"] and she refused to pay the gas bill because she thought it was "boring".
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
If you want to holiday somewhere, then stay in a hotel (however many stars you want), a health spa, holiday park chalet, outdoor centre, campsite or stay at family or friends, but not in a 2nd home!
Click to expand...

What an awful idea :(

I don't want to stay in a hotel where I'm confined to a single small room with no way of cooking for myself and have to deal with the noise of other guests throughout the day and night.
Not sure how a health spa is any different to the above.
I can't think of anything worse than being stuck in a tacky holiday park.
Outdoor centre/campsite aren't exactly "relaxing" (fine if you want an "outdoorsy" type holiday, but not exactly ideal for a romantic getaway with the other half)
What if I want to go somewhere I don't have any family or friends living?
 
Maundie said:
The flat I rented in North Greenwich was bought by a farmer from Southampton for his daughter to reside in while at Uni as she wasn't happy being in halls, I'm sure he still owns it now as she'll have let Uni and is renting it out to someone else but the reason he bought it initially was for her to reside in.
Click to expand...

No offence but a single individual case doesn't mean it's endemic
 
cheesyboy said:
People buying houses to rent out or sit empty are clearly more to blame. What sort of an argument is that?
Click to expand...

Argument? it's not, it was a comment :p but it's perfectly relevant. The lure to existing homeowners for a vast cashout is just too tempting, regardless of what the new owners have in mind for the property, even if they rent it out or leave it empty they are doing nothing wrong in the eyes of Cornwall Council. I wish that was different but sadly that's just not the case.

There sadly aren't enough section 105/106 properties to provide local families with a viable cost effective property.
 
My solution would be to allow local authorities to charge significantly more council tax (maybe up to 5x) on second homes. This would discourage second home ownership in areas where it's a problem, and the money could be used to subsidise local services and businesses that would otherwise be unsustainable. Homes rented out to a full time occupant on a 1 year or longer contract could be exempt from this, meaning permanent rental accommodation would still be available for people that want to live in the area.

I personally don't think short term lets are as big a problem as empty houses (as the houses are still being used rather than just sitting empty), so if I could add some more complexity to the policy then I might add in a sliding scale based on occupancy (assuming someone can come up with a good way to gather the data reliably). The time period it's unoccupied for could scale the increase in tax, so maybe 3 months is just normal council tax (after all that's a feasible normal occupancy rate for a 1st house), 6 months is 5x.
 
Will Gill said:
Argument? it's not, it was a comment :p but it's perfectly relevant. The lure to existing homeowners for a vast cashout is just too tempting, regardless of what the new owners have in mind for the property, even if they rent it out or leave it empty they are doing nothing wrong in the eyes of Cornwall Council. I wish that was different but sadly that's just not the case.

There sadly aren't enough section 105/106 properties to provide local families with a viable cost effective property.
Click to expand...
People selling their house have to then buy in a market where they compete with landlords for their purchase. Their target house sells to the highest bidder, so they aren't being greedy to sell to the highest bidder: they're essentially forced to.
 
cheesyboy said:
People selling their house have to then buy in a market where they compete with landlords for their purchase. Their target house sells to the highest bidder, so they aren't being greedy to sell to the highest bidder: they're essentially forced to.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree, the folks I know locally that have sold up certainly weren't forced to do so, they just moved away from the coast to more affordable housing inland and have a chunk of cash to play with.
 
Cleisthenes said:
What about if someone can't afford to buy a property, who will they rent off of? Surely letting agents can't own all rented properties.
Click to expand...
Many more people can afford to buy in a world where we cut out the millions of landlords pushing up the prices of property.

And we continue to offer social housing for those who can't afford to buy. Give them home security knowing they won't be kicked out if the landlord decides to sell, so they can build a life/family.

And have councils manage licencing for a limited number, and managed-quality portfolio, of rentals to allow those who need shorter term accommodation (contractors, students etc) to have that flexibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom