| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
noticed not just in the uk house prices are so out of reach of normal people I notice new Zealand now plan to ban foreign home buyers for the same reason . I read somewhere last week that Russian and chineese millionaires have bought up lost of stock in London and the south east of England over the last few years but now a lot of these properties are lying idle with no one in them .
do you think the uk should ban foreign home owners too to help the housing crisis on a day when it's been announced that our population is likely to hit 70 million in 10 years time ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41745129
If they have no intention of living in them and just banking them for profit then yes. Housing as a commodity isn't helpful when faced with a housing crisis. We don't build the right type of houses when we do occasionally get around to building them either.
Good idea, and introduce penalties for unoccupied properties too.
The rich are investing if material assets in preparation for the big crash. Very nice if you had access to cheap money.
Democracy and freedom gone mad
It's not really mad to try and stop outside interests from screwing up your housing market is it?
Making the rich pay an extra 50% council tax for un occupied houses isn't working. I believe this is what happens in London, other areas as well. Whats an extra grand to a millionaire.
With the pound dropping so much it will only increase foreign investment in London. I was talking to a guy last autumn who was in various parts of Eastern Asia selling property just because of the sterling situation. It made me feel pretty uncomfortable but someone will always be there to profit, no matter what happens.
We need a massive council house building programme in this country with no ****ing right to buy which is the cause of much of our housing problem in the first place !! Only a true socialist Labour party will do this
Not responsible for the white goods as in Fridge, Oven, etc. That's what I understand by white goods.Originally Posted by Mambo
Compared to some things the government spends money on I would put housing pretty much up there. Not everyone aspires to own a home some want good quality rented ones.
Perhaps any shortfall in money for upkeep could come from the savings on ludicrously high housing benefit charged by private landlords faced with more competition and maybe adjusting the rents accordingly.
See above
20 odd years of paying rent in private rented housing means you have just bought some ones house for them in effect. That house is no more available to the next generation than a council house if at all and at massively inflated cost I would wager.
I should imagine a fair to high amount of council/social tenants wouldn't be able to get a mortgage let alone a deposit. Not trying to stereotype mind.
I don't care if a housing assosciation puts a block floor in a flat why not/ Fridges? cookers? even better if the people who live there need them. They are not allowed to run at a massive loss anyway are they so it must be do able. It is most definitely not the norm and certainly not in council houses.
Subject to circumstances , yes
I studied housing policy after my first degree and worked in housing for several years
For an up to date on what's really going on under this Tory government speak to jon1959 , he works in the housing sector and will tell you the damage the right to buy scheme caused
What's the difference between council properties and the private sector? If people meet their rental obligations why can't they stay in the same property? The incentive to downsize would be in paying cheaper rents.
If people want to buy a home they can move into the private sector.
Duplicate post
Build more council houses, and the smart people will downsize for the cheaper rents when their kids leave home. Problem solved! Only the idiots will be paying for the extra 3 rooms that they don't use
The right to buy was a mirage. If only a couple of people on a rough council estate bought their houses
then when they wanted to sell them potential buyers said " no thanks - why would I want to live in that
dump ?"
Someone further up the thread can't tell the difference between council houses and housing associations.
Remember the bedroom tax to force people into this situation ?Build more council houses, and the smart people will downsize for the cheaper rents when their kids leave home. Problem solved! Only the idiots will be paying for the extra 3 rooms that they don't use
Some people like the extra space so they can have the family to stay.
Luckily I own my own 5 bedroom house so can do what I like.
Maybe one spare room is fair, and then hike the rent for two?
I saw a program about housing in London and part of it focussed on developments where half are sold at the market rate and half sold at a multiplier of the local average wage (value of property is then tied to this calculation forever). Seemed like a positive initiative although I got the impression that the couple being shown around didn't really understand the concept.
How you going to save up for a deposit when you work minimum or average wage? You amaze me sometimes Mambo mate. Banging on about Council looking after white goods, They don't mate. You are just misinformed there. Whoever you rent off has to look after the boiler it's why you pay them rent cause it's not your house same goes for the roof.
Why Let private Landlords rule the market. They don't always do the repairs and are pursuing 'no fault eviction laws' so that if you would only dare to complain about the boiler 'so long tenancy' in some cases. They charge over market rents in many cases. You don't feel secure in the tenancy so maybe less likely to take a chance on improving your lot cause you worried that in 28 days from now you going to be black bagged.
What is the matter with social housing really Mambo?
Is it cause it might need some government money spent on it? It should. It's a necessary just like the nhs. Not all people who live in Council/social housing claim benefit and as pointed out by previous poster. If they want to pay more rent for rooms they don't use, good, bully for them. Bedroom tax will squeeze the pips out of the ones who refuse to downsize that claim benefits and eventually make them do so. If moving them on or it being temporary is purely about money then that's that covered. If it's about the fact they should want to save up for a place, get a better job then I'm sure most would. Some obviously cant and some wont. Whats the matter with just having a decent standard of living in social housing feeling a bit more secure in a tenancy.
Average UK house price is £226K (gulp), average UK annual wage is £27K. Historically a typical UK home cost three times a typical yearly wage, now it's almost times nine. Youngsters today have a lifetime of debt servitude ahead of them just to keep a roof over their head.
You quoted me but ignored everything I said.
First ten minutes of this latest episode of the Keiser Report discusses the bubble in UK house prices, the scandal of the right-to-buy social housing scheme and who profits from help-to-buy. I think it's fair to say Max and Stacy agree with Sludge's views on these issues.
And that is before you take their student loan debt into account.
Fortunately for the government, the head down, nose three inches from the mobile young uns appear to be in the majority.
Not at all. Renters are only ever likely to own their home if their financial situation improves to the state where they arguably don't have a need for social housing.
Social housing stock should either be replaced 1-for-1 for every one sold or they shouldn't be sold at all as it removes the stock for people needing to add themselves to ever lengthening waiting lists for one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote