I would be buying in an open market, like a first time buyer. I wouldnt be paying over the odds, in fact I would be looking to oay under. I think there are better ways of giving first time buyers a leg up than saying to someone like me I cant buy a 3rd house to be my pension pot.
David Cameron......there has never been a more self-interested,cowardly,treasonous wretch who has ever held the highest office. I hope history will record his true place in British politics....the gutter!
My daughter and son in law own three houses and rent two of them out. They are self employed and it's exactly as you say, a pension pot. The thing I don't get is, people are willing to pay £700+ a month rent in our village but can't raise the deposit to buy there own property
I will hopefully be a first time buyer sometime in the next 18 months, we have a reasonable deposit saved now but the market is extortionate when compared to wages, especially when compared to people who bought their first property 30 or even 20 years ago. The average age of a first time buyer is now 37. This country is fast becoming deeply uneven in terms of wealth, if you want to live in a nice country with nice people, people have to have a chance to become nice and they will do that by seeing a future for themselves by having a home and a family. Forgo your third property and actually have a heart, you already have two (or can have, under the term I have outlined), care about the young people in this country.
Oh I care deeply about the young people. I have two sons starting out in adult life. I understand the challenges well enough. For the record, I have 1 house, I was trying to understand the logic of stopping people buying more than 2 properties. If it is solely to give first time buyers a better deal, and I am all for it, that doesnt seem the way to me, at least not in the narrow way you have described it. It will drive down property values and builders wont build them. It will likely leave houses empty because either first time buyers cant afford them, or they dont want them. There is too much nuance for a blanket rule like that to be appropriate, in my opinion.
I had a second property that I bought with a mate about 10 years ago to rent out . . . . it worked and lots of people do this instead of (or in addition to) a pension because it has been worthwhile historically, but I would have been better off financially by investing my money because my forte as a Financial Advisor is investment (I know how to make money 'work' - including via pension plans). Having said that, I wanted to do this and don't regret it, and most landlords do Buy to Lets because it works for them and it has been almost literally 'as safe as houses' in the past whilst providing an income at the time and funds for retirement purposes from sales in the future. I would never do it again 'cos investment is considerably more beneficial if done correctly, but I enjoyed the experience. People shouldn't be restricted about how many houses they are allowed to buy 'cos those who can't afford deposits (which are becoming bigger & harder to find/accumulate) still need somewhere to live and landlords provide a much needed service, and a 'restriction of trade' would be unfair.
Mate,the economics of it is that housebuilders like Persimmon,Barratt,Bovis et al have been buying land for decades and sitting on it. They know that in a small country like ours,where land is at a premium,and which is permitting almost unlimited immigration over time, demand is certain to grow. So,when they do decide to build,they construct the houses that will sell easily at the value they want.....the ones attractive to the older generation who are looking to downsize. Nothing for the younger people who are looking to get on the ladder. It's a criminal farce.....let's see what this new administration does about it.
Nothing wrong in building more UK homes but have we got the staff.? Government policy was to increase the numbers going to university and millions of young have done just that. What about bricklayers and joiners etc ? There's a shortage of houses and it's been a problem for decades . Target has been 300,000 a year since year 2000. New homes: What's happened to the government's housebuilding target? - BBC News The number of private rented houses, not council, has gone up from 2 million to 5.5 million. Around 29 million houses in UK. So even less for sale. I honestly can't see this problem being solved in this parliament . I hope so but it's a big ask. Number of homes available for rent hits almost 40% below average - Zoopla
It's not Capitalism though marra.....it's Govt of all persuasions,over decades,abdicating the responsiilty they have to ensure every citizen has a safe,warm and healthy place in which to live.
It's late stage capitalism. Well off people's wealth and profit comes before the basic human right of shelter for poor people. To my knowledge there hasn't been a government in the western world for decades that has been uncomfortable with capitalism. They ****ing love it.
I don't think the problem is with free enterprise and the idea of working for yourself, it is oligarchy and the sucking of funds up and up with no regard for the welfare of the nation, that's why i railed against international elements earlier, the problem is when rich people don't care about the nation, and if they're from elsewhere, why would they care? At least in principle our own should feel some guilt and obligation.
Does free enterprise not inevitably create a whole lot of rich people, or rather a smaller number of ultra rich people who simply don't care about the welfare of people other than themselves. If they did care, I would suggest they wouldn't have profited to such an extent off the labour and lives of others.
Mind your language! He is getting far too much media attention at the minute for my liking. I would rather he kept his trap shut to be honest.
It's not inevitable in a moral society, America had an incredibly prosperous middle class for many decades where a sizable percentage of the populous were doing very well, you can complain that it's not nirvana, but it was better than just about any other modern society. I can't state this enough, when the elite internationalises (in the US this started to happen in the 60's and 70's, they ended up selling off industry and exporting manufacture abroad as it was cheaper for the elites) they do not feel kinship with the population and will more readily exploit it, it's about having a moral upper class, a sense of noblesse oblige which is now lacking. This is why I don't view things through a materialist lens (I used to be a communist in my teens), we actually need smart, industrious and creative people, we just need to parse out who is moral and who isn't.
This government isn't off to a great start ... ... almost a week and no statement about the pork markets
Just been watching them on the TV. They are now swearing in the 650 MP's. My heads going to be battered, it doesn't finish until Thursday
