The argument/complete nonsense thread...
- Thread starter Cityzen
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The original post said you could buy a house on Kingswood when it was built for less than council rentYou coudn’t.
Early 90s?????
Bought a house on Sutton Park late 80s and in 3 years the price doubled, I was lucky.
Those buying at the high price were often newly weds and given huge mortgages (125%) based on 2 wages fine until wifey got pregnant or one lost a job. By then the house values had dropped by 25% so we're in big negative equity for years.
Last edited:
You could with the incentives they gave to shift houses .
Early nineties was dreadful for house builders they subsidised your mortgage for 2 years
Mortgage rates were 15%. You couldn’t buy them cheaper. Why didn’t you buy one?
“The mortgage interest rates in 1990 were significantly higher compared to previous years, with the Bank of England’s base rate averaging around 14.87%. These high rates, coupled with the economic downturn, impacted property buyers and sellers in London, making it more challenging to afford homes and limiting access to financing.”
You could get a brand new home for £30,000 from Shepard homes on Kingswood in 1993 .
Where did you buy your house? How much was it?
30% mortgage at 7% would have been around £60 per week at a rough guess. Council house rents were not £60 a week in 1993.
Taking this post seriously, if you followed through with your threat/warning, there would end up being a lot of families and children homeless and living on the streets. Everyone wants the equivalent of private healthcare and low tax rates, but if you're stepping over starving children, it's hard to enjoy it. Or you then have to fund a huge number of children's homes, which comes with all the problems.
Unfortunately I think it's too ingrained in many and the solution is to retrain their kids/the new generation to break free but as I wrote earlier, no government wants to invest twenty years ahead. Or to just accept that in a modern society, there will be a percentage who don't/can't work ever and to fund them to survive.
I didn't pay £18,000 for a 1 bed apartment with help I bought a house off Lambwath rd because I dint want to live on Kingswood which would have been a lot cheaper for me if I'd bought in 1993.
I also didn't pay £28,000 for a 2 Bedroomed semi so I would have been paying more than Kingswood
I suppose the issue with that is more and more people might become incentivised to not work and just live off the state. It’s pretty demoralising for working-class people who have jobs and pay taxes to just tolerate a permanent underclass of people who refuse to work and be functioning members of society and we collectively say ‘yeah but it’s just how it is’.
You are not listening as usual are you this is my last attempted .
In the early 90s House builders offered lots of incentives including help with the first 2 years of your mortgage which would have made some new homes cheaper than renting ( private rent happened then you know) but if you bought a second hand third hand etc it wouldn't have been .
After that initial 2 years subsidy it wouldnt have been .
End off !!
We do it with pensioners - what they paid in via tax, for 90%, as ni payments aren't ringfenced, no way covers their healthcare needs or pensions for 20 years once retired.
But we accept that without it, they'd either die or be on the streets, so we contribute, hoping our kids and grandkids do the same for us, otherwise many of us are ****ed, but there's no divine right that all get to stop work at 67 and be paid for by those currently working... This is a decision made, which would be no different to making a decision to cover the costs of those incapable to work.