OT: Job creation at the jobcentre?

[Adrian]

Except it isn't.

[Andy Cap]

Well one major difference is that prospective owners take MUCH better care of their property.

Is there also more security with continental renting agreements? There is much to be said for knowing you can remain in your home until YOU decide to leave.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In practice, the title of the house belongs to the mortgage company until it is paid off. And if you owe more than the house can be sold for, that's still your problem.

[Adrian]

Really?

Did you watch Phil Spencer on TV last night? Couple who couldn't sell their perfectly sound two-bed semi for £68k, on the edge of one of the major cities of the UK?

A quick prod of a mortgage calculator says that a 95% mortgage on that would be just over £300/mo - repayment, 25yr. That's only 2.5x annual pay for a couple, both working full time on minimum wage.

[whisky-dave]

Have to define normal people here, and the definition of nothing.

[Tim Watts]

On Tuesday 01 October 2013 11:55 Adrian wrote in uk.d-i-y:

No - residential property as opposed to commercial property.

Maybe I phrased it badly.

[RJH]

I wouldn't mind seeing your figures. 'Operating costs' cover a multitude of sins. Besides, energy companies are supposedly regulated - they're going to make a special effort to keep declared profits low.

Frankly, yes - if the state is a properly representative body.

After all, that

The Soviet Union was a dictatorship, propped up by fear and genocide - what's your point?

Cheers, Rob

[Tim Watts]

On Tuesday 01 October 2013 11:46 Huge wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Did you not see the bit where it said "optional"?

What I'm saying is make a carrot that's attractive for both parties and if it works, it works...

[whisky-dave]

It's quite differnt if you're buying to rent a place out you have to make a profit otherwise why do it. if you can make a profit you can afford to pay more for the property than someone who wants it for a home, this increases house prices.

[Andy Cap]

I didn't think 95% mortgages were available and it's saving the deposit that's the problem and which the government is trying to address. True purchase is less of a problem in the north than down here in the south, where there's little under £200,000, even my original 2 bed starter terraced house is approaching that these days and a 3 bed semi closer to £300,000.

[Adrian]

All the figures are public, via annual reports.

Ever heard of an auditor?

I see two basic options here.

1. You're suggesting that the energy companies are making excessive profits whilst simultaneously actually making low profits. Which suggests you didn't actually understand the question, merely leapt on the bandwagon with a knee-jerk.
2. You're accusing the energy companies of deliberately mis-reporting their results, committing various criminal offences along the lines of false accounting and fraud.

Any bets? The inclusion of the word "declared" suggests the latter.

[Adrian]

Well, no, tbh. But let's assume it was in there. Government can merely "optionally" attempt to distort the markets. That'll work well.

[whisky-dave]

Not quite as most things don;t increase in value with time cars and TVs ten d not to anyway. Last week was a sad occasion I dumpted my 24" CRT brought for £400 in 198

1. my 2 bed flat however brought in 1987 for £53K is worth about £200k is my TV now worth almost 4 times what I paid for it ?

That depends I have a leashold flat lots of flats are so after you've paid the mortgage the place still isn;t really yours.

depends on the freehold or leasehold terms.

[Adrian]

Why wouldn't they just sell the place, if renting it out didn't make financial sense?

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss.

[Adrian]

That's the whole point of the gov'ts scheme.

If somebody's dream of home ownership doesn't actually extend as far as saving up for a £3.5k deposit, then they're going to be royally f***ed when it comes to paying the solicitor's bill - or, even, paying for any maintenance the house might need once they own it.

Nearly 800 properties in Kent between £50k and £100k. Over 700 in Essex. Nearly 600 in Hampshire. Just over 500 in Sussex.

That's just the first four counties I checked - and ignoring retirement properties and shared ownership.

Sure, they might not be the most wonderful properties in the most wonderful locations, but that's why they're at the bottom end of the market. They exist.

[Adrian]

So what? You're still borrowing money to buy a _thing_. The only difference depreciation makes is that you run a far higher risk of -ve equity on a car loan than on a house loan.

Oh, yes - and people seem to regard -ve equity on a house loan as FAR more serious than on a car loan. Gawd knows why, because the likelihood of the house needing to be replaced because it's reached the end of the usable life or been damaged beyond repair is considerably smaller.

A separate issue from the funding.

No, not really. Are you suggesting that owning a property leasehold isn't "owning" it? Because, if so, most of the most expensive properties in the country aren't "owned".

[Adrian]

Even 100 or so in London...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The only justification for making the long term unemployed report to the job centre every day would be if:-

a) they are shiftless worms who spend all their day in bed. b) they have a job which they're not declaring. c) you simply want to make things awkward for them.

If a) there is almost certainly something else as the root cause. If b), wouldn't it be a better use of resources to simply prove this? With the numbers being so small in relative terms? And a few choice prosecutions would get the message across... If c) you are a Mail reader/believer and I claim my 5 pounds.

[Jethro_uk]

A bit simplistic, no ? Sort of thing a politician might say.

You can not make a profit, and simultaneously not make a loss. Although I concede that eventually you will own the property which you didn't at the start which is profit, but certainly not over weeks or months.

[Tim Watts]

On Tuesday 01 October 2013 13:44 Adrian wrote in uk.d-i-y:

It was in there ^^ - no assumption necessary.

I do not follow your last sentence - and specifically what is wrong with what I proposed?