you can have my 1/3 of an acre for 150k, i will then move to Canada's west coast and never come back.
Now if that had been part of the SNP manifesto there would have been a swing to the 'Aye's. Oh btw Fin, its even drizzlier on Canada's west coast. Northern California/ South Oregon border would be my choice. But not Eugene its a dump. (bit like Paisley)
it's not the weather that bothers me, although bet the weather has been better up here the last year or two. it's the company i keep that pisses me aff. :Angelic:
If I had to live in the USA I would choose San Fransisco. Best city ive visited in the USA by a country mile. Although I did like Vancouver. Its like America for the cultured and civilised. Hmm. You'd be better suited to the deep south Fin. Alabama maybe. What with you love of banjo's and all.
It was brought to my attention that if you live in rented accommodation and claim benefits, you are not allowed to have a partner stay over for more than four nights a week?? This apparently, is called co-habiting and successive govt's take a very dim view of this. Also, personal benefits are cut if you live together in the same dwelling, regardless of entitlement, whilst claiming housing benefit. Subsequently, people on benefits are forced to rent their own places thus draining the housing system of resources, and the unemployment office (dole) of the increased single person allowance. Would it not be easier, more practical perhaps to allow couples the opportunity to live together with no reduction in personal benefits. Thus freeing up the housing system and a reduction in housing benefit costs. Ha ha ha
No. Two people can live together for less than they can individually. To use the phrase "regardless of entitlement" misses the point that entitlement is based upon circumstances. `
The real truth is that all the landlords/owners would have a fit if there was an abundance of property available. Supply and demand dear boy, don't you know. Same old same old.
If you are saying there are too many people with a vested interest in keeping housing expensive and in short supply I would agree with you.
Whilst I agree from a personal viewpoint, making properties larger is adding to the shortage of availability of smaller houses. Around here many houses built in the '30s as 3-bed semi-detached are now 4/5 bedroom with loft conversions/extensions. Now the 2-beds are becoming 3/4 beds as there's a shortage to buy. So how to you buy a 2 bed? What really needs to happen to both kick-start building and release smaller housing is that moving needs to be made easier, cheaper and more sensible than extending. It's ridiculous that stamp duty is £2,500 on a £250,000 house and £7,500 on a £250,001 house for one example of the lunacy.
A mate of mine lives in a 14th century manor house all on his own. It only has 10 bedrooms, I think I will move in with him to ease his burden.
House prices are neither too high nor too low. They are dictated by the market,i.e they are worth as much as someone will pay for them. Some people,(myself included),put a good deal of my income into buying/extending my house. Others choose to spend their dough on foreign holidays and beer after work on Fridays. I do not see why I,and others like me, should suffer or be vilified because I invested my money in my home. This crap ties in nicely with the new middle class moaning about "why can't my brat,who has spent his whole life so far in a classroom or a lecture hall,walk into a really well paid job and still not be able to afford a house when he's almost 24?..unfair"!!! Yeah,no one ever points out that we,(!),had to work f*cking hard to get these things,and an awful lot of us had to save bloody hard to get our first property and that was until well into our thirties.(our first house I was earning £200 a week,we had a £68k mortgage and the interest rate rose daily at the time....I think it peaked at 17% for a day,and our arses were definitely scorched...bread and jam that week...) Typical socialist bullshit,try to penalise those who graft and take care of themselves,and then they wonder why people are voting UKIP... Yes build more council houses,and when the tenants earn enough turf them out and give the council house to people just starting out or those who choose to stay in low income jobs...
No-one is saying what you post Lightning so I guess you misread. Your parting paragraph is also daft. Socialist bullshit? Gimme a break. Last sentence I agree with. I'm a socialist. Nor do I want hard working people penalized. But there has to be a balance made between affordability and profiteering at the expense of the young. You cannot take it with you into whatever afterlife you believe in. Why should a young family have to pay through the nose to buy a home and remain in heavy debt just to keep you happy in profit? They work hard too, yet they cannot afford a proper home for their families. But you just sit on your UKIP high horse like the profiteer you are and watch the young struggle. Some people care. I guess you only care about yourself.
To answer the OP, the real luxury in the world is space - peace and quiet. If you've got a big house, why would you throw that away? If the finally need the money for an old people's home, then fine. But the best way of paying for that is to hang on to the house until the time comes if it ever does. I'd be more planning on upsizing than downsizing, although I'm perfectly happy with the current size.
Difference is lightening you could work hard and afford a house, somehow, before 30. You can earn more than the national wage andnot afford a home to buy of your own. Fact. Oh and have to pay a rent which is greater than a mortgage may be on a small property, like the one being rented, so not a great deal left to save a deposit So rant way off the mark there fella
