I should have the right to buy from my my to let landlord after 6 years here

[chocolatekatie]

No government will ever do it as loads of them are into buy to let hence why they do all they can to prop up the bubble.

My landlord thinks he's some businessman doing me a favour by letting me live here. Actually he's the problem, he just had money so can afford to buy up property - push up the price and force people like me to rent.

Yes, the Bank of England's view is our biggest issue is low productivity, basically a nation of slackers who are keen to work a few hours a day only.

I am a huge fan of free speech. If I wanted a yes man club I'd post elsewhere.

I think these threads tend to give loads of good advice to people trying to get that deposit together, take second jobs, negotiate higher pay, take shorter maternity leaves, work harder and have a great life so bring them on. I am not against a basic welfare state even though I am a net giver not taker from the system - 25% of us give more than we take out and the other 75% take out more.

As we've all been saying though there is a shortage of starter homes in the cities where there are jobs so if we gave citizens rights to buy unused land from the state for house building and conversion in cities that would certainly help. I applied to buy a London lavatory and the council turned me down and it's lain empty for about 10 years - such a waste.

In fairness to the thread Arsenic it was with the odd exception quite an interesting thread, despite the ridiculous op, with some good discussion about the state of housing in the UK, and the odd generalisation from both sides.

Then it became merailed.

And it's quite nice now to see the leftists and rightists are now coming together to try and curtail the muppetry apprent upon this thread.

Could well be the beginnings of a Mnet utopia.

To be scrupulously fair, I arrived late and read backwards and only got about halfway through.

Maybe I'm too grumpy for MN this week. Maybe MN is in a snarky/snidey spell that is too unpleasant for me. Who knows?

Yes, the Bank of England's view is our biggest issue is low productivity, basically a nation of slackers who are keen to work a few hours a day only.

actually, doesn't mean the opposite? Low productivity means per hour worked, our output is low. so while GDP is slowly raising, we are working far more hours to produce it.

If you're actually interested in what the BoE says about productivity, I'd suggest reading what they've written, both in the recent quarterly update and in particular last year's Productivity Puzzle report, which focuses on labour productivity.

You may also wish to do some research on productivity in general.

Hint: the BoE don't agree with your assessment of the workforce. Their concern is about recovery in productivity and its relationship to the financial crisis, not an inherent issue with the UK workforce.

Do you have an objection to informing yourself before making sweeping statements, or is it more a series of unfortunate accidents?

Hmm.... Think very carefully about societies that have allowed the state to appropriate private property at will. Is that really what you want?

Think about it... It's much more extreme than compulsory purchase, which should be for the public good. You're effectively saying that one private person's property can be taken with no legal redress by any other private person for their use.

Disclaimer: the state of the rental market in the UK is an absolute disgrace, I'm not arguing with that ;)

Nota said "I had no idea that they had such sentimental attachments to properties that they didn't live in. but there you go."

I do! We took a risk in buying it, have spent hours working on it before the first tenancy and in brief gaps between tenancies ever since. I also am a director of the management company that owns the freehold and jointly manage the block because our previous managing agents were so useless. I put quite a lot of effort in, all told. It will either be a part of my pension, a vehicle to repay my own interest only mortgage, or a means for my four children to buy properties in years to come. Or I could even move in myself one day and rent out the family home instead. We bought a great flat and I feel almost as sentimental about it as I do my own home because of the choices it gives me. Sorry if that makes me sound smug but it was one of the best decisions we have made.

Yes, the Bank of England's view is our biggest issue is low productivity, basically a nation of slackers who are keen to work a few hours a day only.
The BOE does not say that productivity has fallen so we are a "low productivity" state, just that productivity is not increasing like it used to.

That does not imply that the nation is full of slackers, any more than if you replace 100 staff with 1 machine with a single operator that the 99 who were sacked were slackers since the last remaining 1 can produce the same amount as the previous 100 did.

I think that this is probably indicative of the problem here.
you think that you're great, and you think that you're hard working and that practically nobody can hold a candle to you. whilst at the same time to shun any notion that you may have had some luck in your life, that the welfare state has helped you just as much.

basic comprehension seems to pass you by! (e.g. the BOE did not say that the country was full of slackers)

there are 0.7 million jobs available in this country, and 1.8 million applicants, but they all must be slackers according to you? if they wanted to they could just work a full day, with the right attitude, ethic and jam saved for tomorrow etc.

I'm always wary of conversations about the welfare state and what people "deserve", however, according to this: www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

I'm also a net contributor.
(given that you claim to have been a home owner in the 90's and suffered through interest rates that were massive I'd hazard a guess that you're getting towards the end of your career, whilst I'm apparently earning inside at least the same 40% (maybe even inside the same quintile) at the start of my career. - apparently whilst being a slacker with a sloppy work ethic)

So Lotus, you are a lawyer who lacks basic comprehension and starts work at 6am, presumably so that you can fit in some time to slag off those who you see as beneath you. I'm glad that I'm not wasting money on your services.

Lotus - I know people in London who are having to do two jobs to pay the rent, let alone save up for a deposit.

Rents have risen so much in relation to wages that, with the HB cap, they can't afford to make up the shortfall. The state is effectively subsidising landlords. One reason why rents have risen is that people who used to be able to save up to buy - teachers, nurses - are now renting, so traditional renters have been squeezed out.

Where would you have them live? These are people like bus-drivers, cleaners, night workers in various industries. They're not slackers and they contribute just as much to society as those who earn more.

As I said up thread, I get only a slight amount more now than I did 14 years ago (4%) for my BTL in a very desirable bit of zone 4. So is it a reasonable conclusion that rents have sky rocketed in perhaps what were cheaper less desirable areas because of housing benefit creating demand that a free market without government subsidy would not sustain?

Perhaps in the same way that other working benefits create an artificial demand for low wage jobs, that otherwise people could not afford to accept?

So lotus s POV is basically that highly paid people in the legal profession can still effort something in London so its all fine and most people just can be bothered to work

In my outer London borough, the rents in my Victorian terrace have gone up by 12% in the last couple of years. Probably among the most desirable of the Southern suburbs.

The Coalition said that the HB cap would result in lower rents. No sign that that has happened.

Friends got notice to quit a one bed, Victorian conversion in Brixton, for which they were paying £1,200 p.m. The landlord used the 'family' break clause. 6 months later it was on the market at £1,600.

Again...without H/B/ where would low-paid workers live in London? I wouldn't notice the absence of a city lawyer or two or ten, but I'd sure as hell notice if there were no binmen.

HB only helps those with children though, is that right?

It is actually pushing rents up, as it used to pay the middle amount, that became the new floor. This repeated over years is a huge influence.

Would be better if people were just paid enough to live on and remove it all together.

notauniquename basic comprehension seems to pass you by! (e.g. the BOE did not say that the country was full of slackers)

Jassy And if I were one of the 'moaners' I'd be very wary of any offers of 'help' from people like you and thechandler, given your very shaky grasp of statistics and economics.

Not meaning to be hurtful, but do the pair of you come out with comments like that at work? I mean, are you actually employable, if you treat other people with such disdain? Or presumably you look down on people (particularly those more successful than yourselves) but are careful to keep your somewhat narcissistic views to yourselves? Do you ever find canteens emptying when you enter them? Or do you work alongside saints?

And I certainly don't give "advice" on here - I'm not an economist, and I had no idea that one had to be an economist or a statistician to post on mumsnet. I wouldn't actually take economic advice from either of you, probably because if I wanted advice on something I would go to a proper paid adviser, but I also can't help noticing that you have a very rigid view of economics which seems to take little account of the competition law regime that applies to it.

Thechandler, you've treated people - individually and collectively - rudely and with utter disdain throughout this thread. As well as making numerous assertions that have no basis in fact, but not willing to engage when challenged, instead responding with what I assume you intend as insults.

I tend to find that when one treats people with respect, respect is returned. Sadly, that's often been a bit scant on this thread as many posters have been too busy enjoying their sense of financial and moral superiority.

But ta for your concern about my employability and social wellbeing. According to my performance reviews, I'm exemplary. But I do appreciate the concern.

Out of interest - which bit of my view of economics do you think is particularly rigid? The link between 'hard work' and pay (or lack thereof) or the BoE's view of productivity issues?

Oh, and triple post - but not wanting to be clear. I'm neither an economist nor a statistician (should be obvious I think!) but I do think it's important to inform myself before I make statements of 'fact'. So I read about the issue.

And if someone provides me with evidence that my opinion isn't based on facts, I hope I'm gracious enough to admit I may have been working from flawed assumptions.

notauniquename Buy to let mortgages are easier to service as they can be interest repayment only, and tend to be at a better rate of interest than a first time buyer might be able to afford. As another "thought experiment"

I wish someone would tell me where on earth all these cheaper than main residence btl mortgages are available from. Any btl mortgage I've ever had was at a higher rate of interest (and for one of them I got the deposit by borrowing a "car loan" from the bank).

Btw, keep your "thought experiments" to yourself.

You may think that I don't deserve a partner because I whine too much that if you were my partner that you'd have left me. but truth be told you wouldn't have had the chance, I'd have left you long before because frankly I find what you're doing in this thread (denying that you've had any luck and acting like you're somehow better than those with a better set of ethics etc) is repulsive.

No, you misunderstand. I meant that I wouldn't go near someone like you in the first place - you've got so many awful traits that are all too obvious. You simply don't come across as a very nice person, but manipulative and controlling, with a history of leaving the women who have had your children and running up debt. You need to face up to the truth.

No - it's people on a low income. Bedroom tax applies. Pensioners exempt from the cap.

Yes - I agree re pushing rents up - but capping it doesn't seem to have stopped them rising, in London, anyway, so other factors must be involved.

It is more difficult now for HB tenants to find a home. The money used to go straight to the landlord, but now it goes to the tenant. And with more people renting, landlords can pick and choose their tenants. It's also more difficult for couples with children to find accommodation.

Half of Londoners now rent. Nationally, it's 64% owned, 36% rent.

I think it's more social housing we need evenly distributed, or we'll end up like Paris, with a wealthy centre and outer ring of dodgy estates. Definitely an end to RTB. Wages are unlikely to rise enough for low-paid workers to be able to afford private rentals without help.

Sorry - that was in reply to agentEgypt.

Jassy Out of interest - which bit of my view of economics do you think is particularly rigid? The link between 'hard work' and pay (or lack thereof) or the BoE's view of productivity issues?

Do you really think that someone is going to go through all your posts, check them for you and write opinions on them?

I am sure there is some think tank somewhere awaiting your admittedly non-specifically qualified input on economics. Perhaps you could give them the benefit your immense wisdom (which seems hitherto to have been missed by the rest of the world) and start with lecturing at conferences or something? If you really think you are that good?

I'm sure if you simply write in the way that you do here, reminding the organisers of how inferior they are likely to be to you, they will snap you up!

No, I thought if you were going to comment on another person's view of economics, you might have something to back up the statement?

Having tried to engage politely and constructively numerous times on this thread, backing up my posts with evidence, I'll admit I lost patience as people were just ignoring facts in favour of frankly ignorant and unfounded statements. I'll apologise for that, sure. Born of the fact that it does frustrate me when people won't engage with an issue in favour of pontificating and presenting assertion as fact.

However, it's notable that you're still playing the person, not the ball. Insult me all you like - I'm pretty tough and have done research to know that there are facts being what I'm saying. Do let me know if you're willing to discuss the issues, though.

Jassy OK, whats your view of applying standard economic theories, such as the SSNIP test, to the housing market (each sector)? A few posters above have made useful comments which hint at lack of competitive constraints, no effective competition, higher margins and small scale limiting entry to the market, limited countervailing buying power and so on - all standard indications of a relatively static market which lacks competition.

You seem to indicate that you would tackle this with greater state control, but that would seem likely to result in more market dominance and lack of plasticity, not less. I think some useful comments have been made by others with regards to releasing more brownfield sites, I also think that increasing self build by making a planning rule that for example 20% of all new builds have to be self build. I also think red tape could be cut down, reducing additional costs on FTBs - too much of what is required in terms of surveys, EPCs etc is poor implementation by the State of passing costs onto individuals of services which are already paid for in terms of general taxation. Personally, I think we are too London-centric and that developing better infrastructure so that the rest of the country could be more effectively energised would be a good idea.

But since you claim to be very knowledgable about economics and statistics, whats your suggestions? And why have they not been adopted, if they are so good? Because I can't help noticing that what you have suggested so far tends to have some basic mistakes, such as ignoring the application of the ECHR or Charter, competition law constraints and public procurement rules, as well as being far too simplistic.

I also can't help noticing, despite my evident lack of economic knowledge, that you have made no attempt to define a relevant market, nor what the abuse is - dominance by one or more parties, excessive pricing, etc.. Are there are any examples of countries with regimes you could point to who have either avoided or cured these problems?

Actually thechandler I left my ex because she was abusive.

Not because I think it's great to break up families.
I ran up debt paying for my child to go to nursery so that my ex was still able to keep something of her life, you expectation seems to be what? That people should stay in bad relationships? Or that people should not provide fairly and equally for their kids.

As it happens I am both employable and employed. I work in a technical job, where very black and white thinking actually helps, there fore, yes, if I see someone so wildly off the mark of what makes sense I will tell them, and yes, if someone appears to have deliberately misinterpreted a statement to suit their own argument that I should point that out. (As others have -perhaps more politely than I did)

This comes up in my reviews as a very positive thing.

Feel free to keep insulting me on a personal level. It seems a good way to derail a thread.
So far in this thread I've had my needs, lifestyle, money, education, work ethic, past relationship all questioned.

All because I dare to point out that if some people around here would do some research they'd see quite a lot of pointers that they (as well as having worked hard) were quite lucky to have bought when they did.