If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Welcome, wonderful debating method you have there. Don't argue the point, just abuse everyone who disagrees with you.
I guessed that, hence why you added more
Erm... you need a trip to my home town mate, it's already happened. It's partly why we only have brand names in our high streets these days...
Yeah. Laughed my ass off.
It was hilarious.
Fingers crossed it happens again.
Where homeowners are in negative equity? I think that would be scary tbh.
The first sentence: How can something "generally always" be true? Doesn't make sense. The second sentence: obviously untrue, on this issue and the others. For instance something can be done about people producing and selling cocaine, through criminalization etc. In this specific case Kermit has already offered several things we can do about it, which to me would seem pretty effective.
The last sentence is laughable considering the two that proceeded it!
I guess it doesn`t.
But then I didn`t interpret it that way.
Despite the "bad" grammar, I read it as "people generally".
In the case of cocaine (or perhaps anything) those actions just make it easier for SOME to make MOST of the money.(e.g. the people doing business as the CIA appear to find the criminalization of cocaine VERY profitable).
It made me smile too.
Personally I'd be more worried if a recession accompanied any housing market crash.
Whereas I'd not want to see friends and family in the shit, by the same token, I have no desire to be stuck renting and worrying about where I'm living every 6 months/year (even more so with a family).
Stagnation would be OK, as it gives people time to save for a deposit and doesn't drop people in it.
When prices are growing at 10% each year, I've got no chance of saving enough up, when even the shitholes are going for a hundred grand.
I think tenancies should be regulated as they are in Europe (or certain countries) that still have assured tenancies.
Why do you think that is? They could afford mortgages ten years ago, before BTL "investment" sent property prices going through the roof.
The fact that most people don't earn enough to be able to afford mortgages is exactly my point- BTL thieves have sent property prices so high that everyone has to rent on insecure short-term tenancies (where the landlord can boot you out to make more money, and often will).
My wife and I have a combined income which is a fair way above the average household income, yet all we can afford to buy is a two-bed terrace eight miles out of the city centre. Even if I pay off all my debt, accrued because of the changes to university tuition fees, the top lender will barely lend me enough to buy a family house. Which is great when our incomes halves because my wife's on maternity leave.
I blame BTL landlords for the fact that house prices in the student areas of this city have gone up sevenfold in a little over five years. There isn't anyone else to blame.
There's a baby on the way?
Was referring to Equifax etc with that comment - 1 in 4 people (apparently) wouldn't be allowed one due to past credit history.
BTL landlords are certainly a factor in house price rises, but there are many other factors as well that have driven prices up.
No. We can't fucking afford one.
Such as?
People earning more, a reduction in the amount of new developments, etc.
People aren't earning that much more, the cost of housing has gone up way beyond wage inflation.
There are more new developments, not less. The developments tend to be creating poncy apartments for the BTL market, though, which is the problem.
But I agree wholeheartedly that buy to let is a major issue.
As for new developments, there are a lot of new laws that make it much harder to develop. For example, you used to be able to take an old property, knock it over, flatten the ground and start again. Now you need to knock it over, excavate all the rubbish and lay new foundations. Greenfield land is practically undevelopable now.
Or those shityspace ones that are the size of a cupboard that noone wants to rent or buy and are a waste of space that could be used for building something decent. I dunno if you're classing them as poncy, because they really are just shit.
These people are in a minority.
Most people aren't earning more, even in London.
You have a small minority of city people who are earning big bonuses, but they always have done. They aren't the problem as a general rule, although they do cause problems in the Chilterns and the Cotswolds.
Green field land is protected, which is how it should be. There's more than enough brownfield land to be getting on with.
Development laws have only changed in that developments must be structually sound now. People who propose changing planning law basically want builders to be allowed to throw up any old shite without any social responsibility or sensitivity.
Another absolutely absurd generalization.
(In fact, its not even a generalization, because its not even generally true)
A relaxation of planning laws will result in more insensitive greenbelt development, and more development which infringes on the rights of current property owners.
A quick look at any council building built in the last 50 years shows what lax planning laws provide you with.
You have a completely screwed up vision of the south east dude. Within a 30 miles radious of my house we have three of the most deprived areas in the country.
As it should be with so much brownfield laying fallow.