I see house prices are on the way up again. (Greeted as great government triumph). What a load of bollix. It's one of the things that caused the last f**k up. Not to mention affordability for first timers.
- posted
10 years ago
Road the disaster- Resumed
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
I think you'll find that it was the irresponsible mortgage lending by the banks & building societies, rather than high house prices that caused a lot of the problems.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
It's people investing in Buy-to-let because other returns are so poor. As you say, making life even more difficult for those starting out. Houses used to homes for families, now they're more often promoted as investment vehicles.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
One drives the other. House prices fall when mortgages aren't to be had.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
You do realise how hard it is to get a mortgage now, don't you?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Families don't matter. That's the cornerstone of government policy.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
And it's only a few years ago those going into buy to let lost lots of money...
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
its 'good' because a lot of repo houses on the banks books can be 'written up' this rendering the banks a bit better on capital asset ratios.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Dave Plowman (News) scribbled...
People are being forced into renting from the private sector. Rachmann is being revived by the lava-tories.
With people shit scared of being unable to pay their rents, they'll be more than happy to accept shit wages from companies only offering zero hours jobs.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Oh come ON. buy to let was Labours way of making a fortune for Rachmans by paying the rent directly to them in the guise of 'social housing'
nah they just go on the sosh and get the rent paid for them.
Beats working.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
I didn't notice Lay bore building many new council houses when they were last in power.
As most people on benefits get the vast majority of their rent paid by the government, as against a much reduced level of help when working, why should they want to take a cut in income?
Politics....
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Is the private rental sector absolutely and inextricably inseparable from Rachmann in your opinion?
There is, iyo, no private landlord in the country who is anything but an extortionist, thug and wholesale breaker of laws and moral decency?
Because, unless that's the case, then your statement above is complete and utter bollocks. Whereas, if that IS the case, then you are completely and utterly clueless. Which is it?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
And paying it to the claimant simply means more of a possibility of rent arrears. And when they get chucked out of their privately owned house due to rent arrears, are still the council's responsibility. Except it will now cost them more for bed and breakfast, etc.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Which begs the question of exactly how far should the welfare system become a "nanny state" protecting people from the consequences of their own stupidity?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
It shows that more money is circulating in the economy, which is an indicator of a recovery from recession.
No. That was lending money to people who had no realistic prospect of being able to repay it.
Colin Bignell
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
In the case of paying rent direct to the landlord, it's a money-saving measure, not the "Nanny State". Paying rent to a landlord direct saves the costs associated with re-housing people who are evicted due to rent arrears. These include finding a new landlord wiling to accept people with a known problem paying rent, and in the meantime, as they're homeless, the council have to find and provide temporary accommodation, which is often in a B&B or hostel at a cost rather higher than the original rent was.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
John Williamson scribbled...
There are millions on low wages receiving benefits to make their piss poor wages into something they can live on.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
The current government incentives, insofar as they do incentivise, are in the main a form of deferred payment. So now it's the government directly causing at least part of the future problems.
Not as easy as it was, granted.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Highly unlikely in London. In fact, highly unlikely in any case.
Based on personal experience and anecdote, no doubt
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
They shouldn't because it just encourages further abuse. There was couple on Daybreak the other morning, seven children, neither working, demanding a larger house and promising to have further children as soon as that was sorted out!
When did it become the accepted norm by these people, that paying for your family was someone else's responsibility? They have no concept of the cost of confinement, housing, clothing feeding, nursery care, schooling, healthcare etc. It's incredible that they think they can inflict these costs on society with impunity, but no one is prepared to tell them otherwise, well apart from Jeremy Kyle and look at the grief he gets for doing so.
They know all about their rights and nothing about their responsibilities but that's hardly surprising as no one talks about them any more. No vote in it I guess.
Andy C