Brendan

The presumptions with those both have so much wrong with them though. People are expected to need parental help in order to afford a home. This is regressive and makes property become hereditary. Or they need government help in order to afford a home. Once again regressive and a return to socialism. Or they have to move to Crewe. On the other points though this site has a lot of information: http://www.pricedout.org.uk/

A razor?

Interesting figures. Do you know how many of the 26 million who are not in employment are retired, house wives/husbands/partners/people/technicians or full time carers?

Ctrl+A Delete Ctrl+S

Get your tits out for the flags?

Yeah to a point but you can?t get a loan without a 20% deposit (at a crap interest rate) and more realistically a 30% or higher deposit. Anyway it?s beside the point (we've moved on). Many of the people I know earn a lot less than we do (and in many cases do far more important and demanding jobs) and there is no reason why they should be excluded from having homes to raise their families in. I?m not on about this just because my family has been victim to it. I don?t want to live in a place where this sort of thing happens even if I?m unaffected. Unlike our conservative wing I see myself as part of a society and regards other peoples? welfare as important as my own.

Yep, enough for a 1 bedroom flat or studio which are only suitable for single people or a couple at a push. Trust me I spent the better part of the last 3 months looking.

Articled in the Guardian today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/15/first-time-buyers-priced-out William Griffith, spokesman for PricedOut, said: "The large tax breaks that buy-to-let currently enjoys mean that they can always outbid first-time buyers. It is astonishing that the government is seeking to further entrench this disparity in the housing market. High house prices and buy-to-let speculation have been behind a large growth in wealth inequality and have caused increased financial instability." PricedOut calculates that high house prices, driven in part by the rise in buy-to-let, have displaced an estimated 1.2 million new households away from owner-occupation, and led to about 1.4m fewer first-time buyer mortgages since 1999.

A 30K deposit and almost 80K a year in income is not enough to get you a 2 bedroom home in this market and we?re lucky to earn and have what we do. Most people have much less, how they can ever be expected to afford their own homes is beyond me. My wife?s business partner (who has less actual income) was able in the same market to buy a second house backed up by the 20 years worth of equity in her house and that there will be rental income to cover the mortgage. I remember reading somewhere last year that more buy-to-let mortgages were being approved than first time buyer ones. Will try to dig it out.

Some people Jeremy, there is always a need for some rental properties but there are over 3 million properties let in this country and most of those to people who would rather own but have been priced out of the market. It is a significant issue that people have been going on a bout for years. And there are plenty of figures to back it up other than just the blatant evidence you get if you open you eyes and look around you.

Oh it?s that easy is it. Cheers for clearing that up for me. It?s good to get input from people who are so amazing in touch with what is really going on out there.

Using features of everyday local life and culture to relate to biblical teaching? Of wait that?s the missionary approach. I always get those two mixed up. It?s been the cause of some spectacular failures in my love life.

Balls. Someone who willfully uses the market situation and their superior bargaining power to take a property off the market which should have gone to a young family and then profits from renting it back to one of those families further denying them control of their own lives either doesn?t quite realise the implications of what they are doing or they do and don?t have an issue with it. If the latter is true they are the type of scumbag I make out to be and then some.

1/10 Ladymuck.

Yeah I also don?t get the knee jerk, natural good, synthetic bad bullshit. Ebola is natural. Also at which point does something go from being natural to being synthetic? If I take 2 hydrogen atoms and artificialy force them to bond to an oxygen atom does it make water synthetic?

Who is going to win this world cup ting anyway? Do they have a good flag? I would like to know as they are the team I?m going to support. I?ve never supported a world cup winning team in one of the lesser sports before and would like to give it a go.

I like carnivals and have no problem with the England flag. This is England after all. Although I think the union jack is prettier. I do have a problem with the slack-jawed, troglodytes who always seem to appear underneath the flag being generally unpleasant and murdering songs all in the name of soccer. The type of flag is pretty much interchangeable. I saw some in St James Park a few days ago. It was a bit like one of the those documentaries about chimps where the group of young males who want to be noticed and make a statement about their place in the troop run around screeching, banging on things and flinging shit. Or perhaps that?s being unfair. The chimps do have significantly more finesse.

Well you?ve certainly had the hair.

Although Highway to Hell is actually my favourite ~AC DC album. But don't tell anyone.

Bollocks! Those don?t even have proper videos let alone videos that a have a fat northern bloke in a flat cap in them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvoeeq-BH4w Where's the cheddar 'ey? (embedding disabled by request)

AC/DC are one of those wonderful rock ?n roll bands who only have one song. This is not something to be derided in fact it is the very essence of what rock ?n roll is. It all just depends on what generation you are. You will always think that the more modern versions of their song that they are playing are crap compared to the version they were paying when you were a lad. For folks who wore bell bottom jeans it was Highway to Hell, for folks who had mullets it was Who Made Who and for those of use super cool kids who wore baggy shorts and had green hair it was Thunderstruck. Everything they released after that is obviously rubbish. So what you say is true for you Mick. Everything they have released after that seminal performance on the Brighton Pier shortly after it?s opening by King George, is rubbish.

And believe me it is not welcome. -It is not welcome when your wife is 6 months pregnant and your landlord decides to kick you out of your house with 2 months notice (which is his god given legal right) because the market is right for him to sell. -Or I?m sure the couple who lived 2 houses down from me weren?t very happy when they were forced to move out with a 1 year old baby for the same reasons. -It is not welcome when you work all the hours god sends and half of what you earn goes into some bastards pocket instead of into your own investment. -It is not welcome to the millions of people in these and similar situation. -It is not welcome when you walk down a road and all the houses look like shit because the residents have no incentive to maintain them because they are all rented. And there are many many more reason. Yes there will always be a need for some rental properties but people buying second homes for profit should never get first dibs over people who need a first home for their family.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And people actually think that it?s fine to buy a > second house which would have been on the market > accessible to first time buyers and then rent it > out to one of those very families denying them a > home of their own. > > People who do this are either so entirely > concerned with themselves that they are unaware of > the social and moral implications of what they are > doing (which is forgivable on some levels I > suppose) or they are just wilfully self-serving > sub-human filth. > > What a strange stance. Renting and buying are very > different life choices. Not everyone wants to buy > a house / flat, many wish to rent: There is always the need for some private rental in the market for those reasons but not as a primary provision for people?s homes which is exactly what has been happening in the uk for the last few years. Perhaps you are unaware or unaffected by this. Buy to let landlords can almost always outbid first time buyers on the type of properties in the market that should be going to young families. So we have a situation where a young family has to either earn over ?100K a year and/or have parents who can just give them ?50K + just in order to have their own house. Otherwise they are forced to rent have no control over their tenure and spend most of their income lining someone else?s pocket. Like I said people who choose to become buy to let landlords either don?t fully realise the implications of what they are doing or they do and they choose to do it anyway, in which case my last hypothesis applies.

And people actually think that it?s fine to buy a second house which would have been on the market accessible to first time buyers and then rent it out to one of those very families denying them a home of their own. People who do this are either so entirely concerned with themselves that they are unaware of the social and moral implications of what they are doing (which is forgivable on some levels I suppose) or they are just wilfully self-serving sub-human filth.

This may sound odd but I have always found that just having a flyswatter with you seems to deter flies. I think it works on some sort of principle solidly grounded upon Sod?s Law.