Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35788062)

More profit is what's got us in this housing mess, you keep banging on about the market but who in their right mind would use our current housing bubble as a guide to anything, we have buy to leave investors snapping up vast swathes of property just to sit on, not to rent but sell on empty in a few years at a profit due to cutting an already limited supply, estate agents literally making rents up as they go along in an attempt to screw a few more quid out of people and the biggest subsidy of all that people should be moaning about that actually costs us all real money is the land lord subsidy of housing benefit.

Beside which i don't even think this is new policy, not with housing associations anyway, my pal's tenancy is reviewed every five years and one of the things they look at is how much he earns. Extending it to council housing is quite logical and I'll have to check this but iirc the earning limit they have set is actually higher than his housing association set. Also imo the reason people like housing association and council property isn't because there a bit cheaper, it's because the tenancy is more secure, you aren't beholden to the whim of a landlord.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------



Exactly the cost of building them was subsidised and in most cases has been repaid many times over. The grants were actually scrapped for a time, hence why some housing doesn't have a right to buy attached

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35788062)

More profit is what's got us in this housing mess, we have buy to leave investors snapping up vast swathes of property just to sit on, not to rent but sell on empty in a few years at a profit due to cutting an already limited supply

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35788078)

It makes no sense for btl investors to buy and not rent out the property. We borrow the money that we use to buy the property so we have to pay interest on that money. Why on earth do you think that we don't rent the property out? We are paying out money for the privilege of owning it. We want to recoup our outgoings. Why would you think that we don't rent the property out? What planet are you living on? Estate agents don't let properties. You really don't have a clue. Please have a read of this. It's a very good read :)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35788065)

How can you say it's in the past, when the subsidies/grants are still in place to this very day. Something built last century, decade, year, or week has been subsidised.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35788062)

More profit is what's got us in this housing mess, you keep banging on about the market but who in their right mind would use our current housing bubble as a guide to anything, we have buy to leave investors snapping up vast swathes of property just to sit on, not to rent but sell on empty in a few years at a profit due to cutting an already limited supply, estate agents literally making rents up as they go along in an attempt to screw a few more quid out of people and the biggest subsidy of all that people should be moaning about that actually costs us all real money is the land lord subsidy of housing benefit.

Beside which i don't even think this is new policy, not with housing associations anyway, my pal's tenancy is reviewed every five years and one of the things they look at is how much he earns. Extending it to council housing is quite logical and I'll have to check this but iirc the earning limit they have set is actually higher than his housing association set. Also imo the reason people like housing association and council property isn't because there a bit cheaper, it's because the tenancy is more secure, you aren't beholden to the whim of a landlord.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------



Exactly the cost of building them was subsidised and in most cases has been repaid many times over. The grants were actually scrapped for a time, hence why some housing doesn't have a right to buy attached

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35788088)

and there was i thinking that it was too many holding out the begging bowl for nanny state handouts but it seems that it was wanting a fair return on investment that was the problem ,maybe we should just give them the house for free along with all the other state handouts .

Originally Posted by DJSADERS (Post 35788127)

I live in a council house in the area that i grew up in, i could not possibly afford to live anywhere around here on the private market as the rents are double what i pay now before bills.

As for buying this is out of the option as getting the deposit together with kids is impossible!

With the tories once again only helping the rich the hard working people like myself are screwed over, as if i get effected by this its my kids that would suffer the most.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35788130)

They voted for them because they were seen as the best of a bad bunch.....

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35788132)

Why would they be the best of a bad bunch to anyone who believes they only look after the rich?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35788134)

l never said they looked after the rich only but they were seen as the safest and best option by many due to a variety of different reasons and factors.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35788086)

What's this we, you're not one of them, you're not in their league, you're not even playing the same game as them. why don't you have a look at the link below and open your eyes

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ors-uk-housing

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35788147)

Ah, your talking about arabs and oligarchs there. Different kettle of fish but surely that accounts for a tiny percentage of investment properties in this country? :confused:
btw, I'm obviously not in that league but my properties have passed the 1.5 million mark by a fair way, and I'm doing my best to make them all earn their keep :)

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35788089)

Do you begrudge those in council houses or housing association or something? You really are showing yourself up here.

The rents are cheaper in social housing, but it doesn't mean it's subsidised, just market rates are higher because they are privately run. I don't see what the problem is here.

What kind of idiot would give up their social housing even though they could afford privately owned rented accommodation, just because of the ethics. It's the terms and agreements that come with social housing that offers the security that people need. Also for some that could afford to rent private probably wouldn't be able to get a mortgage or do not want to go down that road for giving up the security they have. Sounds like sour grapes to me.