the very simple reason is that the house price to wages ratio has doubled, making house purchase far more difficult than when the oldies were young.
Some of the oldies refuse to admit this simple truth.
Taking possession of something you own.
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
the very simple reason is that the house price to wages ratio has doubled, making house purchase far more difficult than when the oldies were young.
Some of the oldies refuse to admit this simple truth.
Sponsored Links
Through taxation and redistribution, I believe there should be a mechanism to provide people with decent accommodation if they cannot afford to pay for it themselves. To me, that is part of a civlized society.
I wonder if the working poor ought to pay heavy taxes to keep prosperous retired people in bigger, more comfortable houses than the taxpayers can ever hope to afford. With increasingly expensive healthcare and social care.
that fits motorbiking's question.
he seems to think not.
that fits motorbiking's question.
he seems to think not.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 9,089
- Reaction score
- 689
- Country
Our first house was 22,500. Our wages gave us a maximum mortgage of 24,000 as long as we had 10% deposit
Not many people can afford 10% deposit, even though an actual mortgage repayment is less than a rental payment.
Getting onto the ladder is harder now than it was
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 9,089
- Reaction score
- 689
- Country
Wasn't that part of the reason for council houses too
Make them too comfortable, in return for doing nowt, and naturally - that is the choice they will make!
Large number of the council houses near me are given to recently arrived third worlders, yet locals languish on the list. Politicians = traitors.
When I started the process to get tenants evicted (bear in mind I'm in Scotland) I received acknowledgment of my application from the toothless First Tier Tribunal (FTT) who are supposed to be impartial but are in reality quite heavily weighted in favour of tenants.
One of their suggestions to me was to 'consider writing off the arrears' and it was in that communication they also advised me, even if eviction was granted, it wouldn't be enforceable for up to 6 months. This was due to the SNP/Greens temp legislation during covid that essentially banned evictions and limited rent rises. So as I said earlier in this thread, theoretically the tenants could have remained in the property for up to 16 months or so paying feck all.
Luckily, around the same time I received the above from FTT, the tenants contacted me to advise they were moving out.
One of their suggestions to me was to 'consider writing off the arrears' and it was in that communication they also advised me, even if eviction was granted, it wouldn't be enforceable for up to 6 months. This was due to the SNP/Greens temp legislation during covid that essentially banned evictions and limited rent rises. So as I said earlier in this thread, theoretically the tenants could have remained in the property for up to 16 months or so paying feck all.
Luckily, around the same time I received the above from FTT, the tenants contacted me to advise they were moving out.
How would a policy like that be administered/managed though?
Take two people, earning the same living in the same area. Person A lives very frugally and just manages to get themselves on the property ladder, buying a small one bed apartment. They find things very tight financially month to month but make it work.
Person B isn't quite as frugal, they don't splash the cash as such however they buy more and spend more than person A. This just puts person B into the bracket meaning they are eligible for a government funded apartment.
Fair?
This is where supporting the unemployed and low paid is a tricky balancing act for whoever's in power. Give people too little and yes, they struggle. Give them enough to be genuinely comfortable and where is the incentive to find work?
Let's say your proposed policy came to be. There would have to be a clause stating the accommodation is only available for x period of time. And then, with such a clause, it would be frowned upon if the local council actually tried to get someone out when x period of time was reached. So you'd have people staying in these publicly funded properties month in month out, maybe year in year out.
it's very noticable that there are people attracted by the idea of keeping the poor in terrible living conditions.
where should these shanty towns be set up, where homeless people shelter in cardboard boxes, scavenging for plastic bags to keep some of the rain out?
where should these shanty towns be set up, where homeless people shelter in cardboard boxes, scavenging for plastic bags to keep some of the rain out?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,583
- Reaction score
- 2,183
- Country
Oh the homeless poor, are the only ones getting cheap housing at the expense of others? righto.
Perhaps you can think of a less extreme narrative, to engage in sensible debate..
You are very fond of commenting on how good it was 50+ years ago.. when for example people shared houses with strangers and got on just fine, because they could not afford to rent a whole house.
That will always be the case, but that must not be used as a reason to not have a safety net for the vast majority.
Which is what the - predominantly older, already had a lot of advantages no longer available to the young now - posters on here are advocating.
Nothing at all, it’s because there isn’t enough social housing.
you're hallucinating again
your habit of making things up is very strange
have you been reading your imaginary press releases?
Sponsored Links
