The true housing benefit scroungers

[OldNick]

With 130000 people arriving in the country needing to be housed I cannot see how any Goverment will be able to build enough houses. If people really want to buy a house they need to knuckle down and save, but our new generation think that having £100 trainers, iPhones, designer clothes , and going out on the p### are not a luxury and so don't have any money left to save .

A mate owns a nice cream business and finds that the most money he takes is on the estates where there is the social housing, they always seem to have cash to ps d there,wheras the areas with people with mortgages etc don't.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Our next door neighbour (a teacher BTW) got a job in Germany. It is a 3 year contract, so decided not to sell up, but rent out their house as they want to live round here on their return. The people who moved in, love the house and told me that they couldn't believe their luck that this became available to rent. I don't know why they rent, I didn't ask them. But she doesn't work and he drives a BMW, so presume they could afford to buy.

 

Just to add, after mortgage payments , estate agents fees for managing the property and paying rent on his place in Germany, he still comes out with a profit.

 

Is my neighbour a "scummy landlord with no soul" ?

 

Obviously not all, in fact most, landlords are above the description of scummy. Once again the sin of generalisation has been committed. Likewise the generalisation that a couple rent, he drives a BMW and she doesn't work leads to the presumption that they could afford to buy? Maybe it's a company car? So he's comfortably well off but not well off enough to buy? Maybe he has an ex with children who he supports? Each case is individual with a whole raft of permutations of circumstances.

 

As an example, one of my friend's has a daughter who rents out her flat because they cannot afford to get a 2 bed property. She in turn rents a 2 bed property. She's not rolling in it and nor is she 'scummy' as others have described. Sometimes situations are forced on people and we'd all win the lottery if we had the amount of nous and forethought to foresee all eventualities!

[solentstars]

I firmly believe that one answer is to radically increase the amount of new build whether for purchase or rent.

 

However, if consequential market forces meant the value of property dropped, many voters would be very unhappy (although a property's price is only relevant to the next property you're proposing to purchase). Some people get orgasmic about the increase in the value of their houses.

spot on and it will make people get real that a home is for living and they are not rich plus we would not have to spunk out for housing benifits either. why invest in a real business when you can make more money on bricks and mortar..one of the reasons we had one of the worst recessions is because of the housing bubble when the banks etc could see easy returns for nothing.i want a real economy where real jobs come from business and creates real wealth and jobs .

[Lord Duckhunter]

spot on and it will make people get real that a home is for living and they are not rich plus we would not have to spunk out for housing benifits either. why invest in a real business when you can make more money on bricks and mortar..one of the reasons we had one of the worst recessions is because of the housing bubble when the banks etc could see easy returns for nothing.i want a real economy where real jobs come from business and creates real wealth and jobs .

 

Since Gordon brown destroyed the final salary pensions of private company employees , the equity in peoples houses is their only form of "savings". My and Mrs Duck will use ours to buy a smaller place which we'll rent out. Once the kids leave home and the mortgage is paid off, we'll switch properties and the £1100 (based on next doors rent) a month rent we'll get in will go towards our retirement income.

 

Now clearly its in my interest for supply to be kept down, forcing rent up. Do I want the hassle, no I don't. But Brown made my final salary pension unaffordable and I've lost thousands. What is more "scummy". Funding your own retirement by providing a service, relying on the state to look after you, or decimating one of the worlds finest pension systems?

[solentstars]

Since Gordon brown destroyed the final salary pensions of private company employees , the equity in peoples houses is their only form of "savings". My and Mrs Duck will use ours to buy a smaller place which we'll rent out. Once the kids leave home and the mortgage is paid off, we'll switch properties and the £1100 (based on next doors rent) a month rent we'll get in will go towards our retirement income.

 

Now clearly its in my interest for supply to be kept down, forcing rent up. Do I want the hassle, no I don't. But Brown made my final salary pension unaffordable and I've lost thousands. What is more "scummy". Funding your own retirement by providing a service, relying on the state to look after you, or decimating one of the worlds finest pension systems?

 

No problem and don't blame you for that .I'm more interested in seeing money made from real businesses in the future rather than a false economic development of fake wealth from houses based on shortage of stock.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

With 130000 people arriving in the country needing to be housed I cannot see how any Goverment will be able to build enough houses. If people really want to buy a house they need to knuckle down and save, but our new generation think that having £100 trainers, iPhones, designer clothes , and going out on the p### are not a luxury and so don't have any money left to save .

A mate owns a nice cream business and finds that the most money he takes is on the estates where there is the social housing, they always seem to have cash to ps d there,wheras the areas with people with mortgages etc don't.

 

So according to you the reason people so many millions off ordinary working people who want to buy a house but cant afford to is because they are feckless ice cream eaters and trainer wearers? People who already own houses are often groundlessly smug - as if it was something smart they did as opposed to being fortunate to be born at the right time.

 

I first wanted buy in in 1986 but couldn't because of the stupidly high prices brought about by the Lawson boom so I spent my deposit money on travelling, motorbikes and KFC. Luckily Lawson crashed the economy so badly that by 1995 I was able to buy a three bed place for £61,000 - half what it would have been at the peak. I used a 95% mortgage and 5% deposit on credit card. Last year it sold for £390,000, nearly 6.5 times its cost in 1995. In the same period wages less than doubled. Like you I'm sitting pretty on equity despite, like you, having done nothing to earn it.

 

Since you are 'Old' Nick lets assume you bought your place around 1975 when the average house price was around £10,000, 3.5 times the average wage - about 30% less than now. You would have additionally benefited from a government tax handout in the form of MIRAS to further reduce your housing spend to about half what it would now cost somebody to buy the same house. Seems to me you're the one who wasted too much on ice cream.

 

Successive governments have screwed young people in this country by overseeing high levels of immigration and not building the housing needed to match need. Compounding that by blaming young people for the consequences of government policy and resisting the building of new homes in order to protect the countryside whilst sitting in their detached house itself built on greenfields is the height of hypocrisy.

Edited 1 March, 2014 by buctootim