Not this time oh king of rightness - or should that be righteousness?! - this debate is turning out to be quite reasoned and lacking in insults (so far!)
Life is like a game of monopoly to some people the aim of the game is to acquire property and wealth ,you can play it for awhile but it all ends up back in the box.
The housing policy/economy in this country makes me ill. You turn a basic staple of life - a roof over your head - into some sort of pyramid investment scheme and then puzzle over why there is a housing shortage? Wake up! What would happen, say, if very basic housing was available throughout most of the country which people could afford? Starter homes that aren't slums and aren't ugly, ten-storey apartment blocks. If you want something nicer, say a four-bed detached with a big garden, you can cripple yourself with debt (and/or work 100 hours per week) and start splashing out on up-market, expensive property. If that's what you want. At the moment, you need to place yourself in penury just for a one-bedroom flat - assuming you can even afford to do that. Imagine if that same principle was applied to that other basic requirement of life, food? At the bottom of the housing ladder, people would be able to house themselves and then contribute to the economy in various ways - save their disposable income (allowing investment) or spend it (an economy still includes buying stuff, right?). They can even spend their money on useless toys, games, or on motorbikes, or living well via restaurants, theatres, holidays, contributing to the manufacturing, service and education industries. Quality of life. Cash flow, instead of static "assets" whose only real contribution to the economy is that of poker chips in a game of Texas Hold 'em. At the moment, a large chunk of the economy is locked into stagnant pools of home ownership. Of course, some of this ownership generates economic growth via interest payments to lenders but so what? We've seen how well that works out. An economy that is substantially based upon home ownership is hugely stagnant, completely vulnerable to crashes in property values and in my layman's opinion, doomed to eventual failure. Please, someone, shoot this full of holes. I am sickened by the approach that people, government, everyone emploiys with regard to living accommodation. It's insane. If you can persuade me that it's the only way that the concept of property can be managed in a free-market economy, I will try to get to grips with it. Who knows, I may even forgive that Thatcher creature for her part in this mess. Only joking, I'm loving the fact she is roasting in Hell.
So when I retire mortgage free with the sole aim of enjoying my "house for life" I'm then made to feel like I shouldn't be allowed to live in it as it's too big. Utter lefty tripe man.
Are you saying that the sign of a healthy economy and society is whether you personally can retire and enjoy your "house for life"? Are there any other criteria? Actually, I'm not arguing in favour of any form of bedroom tax, or "persuading" owners of properties to move into smaller accommodation. I don't agree with that kind of manipulation on the part of government. Lefty tripe indeed.
That's exactly what I was saying, Loz. An example of this is Lord Sugar. He's such a great businessman that he sold all of his businesses, I believe, and invested the money in the London property market as it's seen as a guaranteed earner. And who is taking advantage of this situation at the top of the housing ladder, thus dragging up all property prices? Russian oligarchs and other wealthy absentee owners who buy properties in London and leave them empty to appreciate, thus destroying whole communities. Four-storey houses that uses to provide four flats are returned to single homes for the very wealthy, thus reducing the housing stock - but even then left empty to appreciate. That's mad. We don't even levy a higher rate of stamp duty on foreign property investors who do that. Why not? What would we have to lose? In some roads in Kensington and Chelsea, Belgravia and Mayfair some 70% of houses are unoccupied because their owners don't want tenants potentially reducing their resale values,
Caveat emptor. When the owner passes away, the inheritor is still liable for the rental/maintenance/service part of the purchase. This can often be hundreds of £/month and is payable until the property is sold (often many months). Equity share properties for the elderly are an even bigger minefield. If you haven't already, I (respectfully) suggest you check up on care costs and funding.
There can be a problem when a whole nation sees a basic need (a home) as an investment. In France and Germany people also own homes but tend not to move as it is a home and not an investment. Not good for the government who reap taxes from stamp duty, VAT etc on every move, and that does not take into account the estate agents and solicitors who are employed due to a moving housing market. For all of the time that I lived in the UK the popular topic when it came to housing was the value of your house, whether it had increased or not, that is a concept that is not understood in continental Europe. I managed to scrape together enough money by the age of 46 to buy a house here in France without a mortgage. A small house for me and the wife with nearly 4 acres of land around it. I have no idea at all what it is worth now, 10 years on, because it is totally irrelevant to me, it is not for sale, I don't want to borrow against it and I have no need of showing off - not that any French people would be remotely interested in what my house is worth, and nor an I. I don't give a monkeys about the resale value of my bikes either as I own them for enjoyment and if they were an investment then I would never take them out and risk them on the road.
Interestingly, the proportion of people who own their own homes in Britain has fallen below that of France for the first time. And people still defend the way we Brits view housing as an investment. I despair!
But in rural France, which is most of the country, the vast majority of home owners inherited rather than bought their house.
I respectfully suggest you check up on the packages assisted homes firms offer to smooth the move into their accommodation. And though I accept that some properties may take a while to sell, in today's property market most homes will sell fairly quickly if they are priced correctly, for the reasons being discussed here.
Of course. But those inheritors would still be counted among the country's home owners. They will not figure in the renters figure for sure!
The problem with housing in this country is one of supply and demand, which comes down to greed actually. I'm guilty of stating the bleeding obvious i know. So the answer is to tip the balance back in favour of supply. If the people of this country want this changed we have the power to do so and like i said before, this is a fixable problem if the will is there. Britain is not full( have you ever flown over it ?) so the land exists. If Thatcher was to blame for this then what have any/every administration since done to correct it in 30 years?
So in essence what you are saying is: You sold your big house,(taking full advantage of the increase in value over what you paid for it)...well done you for making money out of your house! You gave the money to your kids for deposits,(which gave your kids an opportunity to jump on houses that others without generous parents can get near)....Lucky them! But you decry others who might sell their houses for more than they paid for them? Even if they do the same thing and give the cash to their kids?....man,that smacks of hypocrisy.... There would be no housing shortage if there was more building land available,and there isn't going to be....land is very expensive because no-ones making any more,(obviously),and what there is is largely tied up in the hands of people who don't want to sell... Heres a couple of questions for you,just for fun: What are you going to do about the guy that lives in a one bedroom bungalow that sits on three acres of prime building land?Is he selfish or what? And then there's a certain family living in Central London with the following: 775 rooms. These include 19 State rooms,52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms. The plot is 108 metres long across the front, 120 metres deep (including the quadrangle) and the main house is 24 metres high.You going to winkle them out? Plus all those country estates that were given to Aristocracy hundreds of years ago for being nice to Royalty? Or what if I bought a derelict and have invested £150 grand and thousands of hours of my own time in modernising and bringing up to standard,but now have three "spare",bedrooms? Where do I stand then? Of course I could possibly live in the biggest flat in London,say Eaton Square,(I wish!),but if I only have one bedroom the size of Wembley Stadium that's all right then is it? I could go on....(in fact I usually do LOL)
thatcher wanted an obedient society, by putting council houses on the market people where less likely to strike (maybe no bad thing) and earn a bit of commission for the blossoming financial service industry
