Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Multiple Home Owners Are Redesignated By The Telegraph As:


Recommended Posts

Total poo!

If your logic were correct, then all who pay tax have blood on their hands (think govs funding wars using your money).

Total poo eh. So where do you draw the line between those that took advantage of a system through no fault of their own, and those who contributed to its ability to happen. Lets not forget that anyone who buys a property mostly does it with anothers money. Its ok to say its not ethical 20 years later. I suppose you had your cash under the matress. And yes, taking it all to its logical conclusions the whole country has the blood of the countries crash on their hands, not just BTL and second home owners. It was a human instinct, not a criminal activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Total poo eh. So where do you draw the line between those that took advantage of a system through no fault of their own, and those who contributed to its ability to happen. Lets not forget that anyone who buys a property mostly does it with anothers money. Its ok to say its not ethical 20 years later. I suppose you had your cash under the matress. And yes, taking it all to its logical conclusions the whole country has the blood of the countries crash on their hands, not just BTL and second home owners. It was a human instinct, not a criminal activity.

You leap like superman from one point to another in a single bound and I am unable to follow your flight of fancy.

If I can extract from your mumbo jumbo the premiss, however, that every individual is as guilty as the next fellow (of what I am not sure??) then equal harm was suffered by all. That means we are at an equilibrium and no-one has cause for complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't really blame people for choosing a 2nd home as a pension though given that it costs 20-30K for to buy a pension of 1K per year. To me that means pensions are a total con - do they expect everyone to live till they are 95? And given monetary policy its understandable. Just 2 months rent for a year's pension costing 30K!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, silly me! :rolleyes:

I'll market my properties tomorrow for a pound, to increase supply, to push prices down, to make it easy for you to buy.

Better still, as you're a nice person, come and live for free, and I'll pay all your outgoings too. :lol::lol::lol:

How disingenuous of you. You asked, how you were blocking others by owning multiple properties

The question was answered - and your response to that answer is, it doesn't matter anyway, it is in my interests to block people

At least try to maintain some intellectual dignity, you self serving toad.

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess we must agree on how to walk before we try to run.

Open primer, chapter 1: Where do I find the law that says I must curb/modify my buying/ownership behaviour so as to benefit you?

The start is where we started this discussion from - with my statement

The law has nothing to do with it because i never claimed it was ilegal.

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, silly me! :rolleyes:

I'll market my properties tomorrow for a pound, to increase supply, to push prices down, to make it easy for you to buy.

Better still, as you're a nice person, come and live for free, and I'll pay all your outgoings too. :lol::lol::lol:

So one one hand you are disputing the effect that people owning numerous properties has on others abilities to own. Then on the other you are dismissing the very valid argument that is said against you.

The point is that without investors, prices would be set by peoples ability to obtain mortgages based on salaries. But with the increased demand from investors most potentials buyers on averageish salaries simply cannot compete, particularily if (god forbid) one of a couple has to stop work to look after kids. Regardless or not if you think this is a good thing you should be at least be able to accept that part of the argument and be thankful that you are on the 'winning' side of it. Based on salaries houseprices are simply unaffordable.

Shame about all the 'hardworking British familes' who right now are not having the kids that would be looking after you in your dotage as they simply cannot afford it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The start is where we started this discussion from - with my statement

The law has nothing to do with it because i never claimed it was ilegal.

Let me take it from the start:

Your statement was, in summary, that a person who holds/buys properties A, B, C & D prevents you (the aspiring home owner) from buying property A, B, C & D.

Of itself that is the equivalent of saying "it is day, so it is not night" :ph34r: (unless you are a complete and utter moron).

What you are actually saying to us is once a person has bought property A, that same person should not buy property B, C & D, so you can buy it at a price that is more affordable than it otherwise would have been (owing to competition from investors).

In other words you are asking the investor to refrain from buying, so you can buy cheaper.

So, I'll ask my question again: where does it say (which law in other words, natural law, human law, cultural law? I was not referring exclusively to Acts of parliament) that you are entitled to expect another person to behave in such a way so as to benefit you by housing you? (whether by refraining from buying "your" house, or why not even to build you a house? Who is to say where your imaginary entitlement ends?)

Show me the source of your position, other than your own self-interest of course!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You leap like superman from one point to another in a single bound and I am unable to follow your flight of fancy.

If I can extract from your mumbo jumbo the premiss, however, that every individual is as guilty as the next fellow (of what I am not sure??) then equal harm was suffered by all. That means we are at an equilibrium and no-one has cause for complaint.

So why are you complaining about BTL and secondhomeowners then. Why is anybody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take it from the start:

Your statement was, in summary, that a person who holds/buys properties A, B, C & D prevents you (the aspiring home owner) from buying property A, B, C & D.

Of itself that is the equivalent of saying "it is day, so it is not night" :ph34r: (unless you are a complete and utter moron).

No, this is a strawman representation of my position and I think this is the second time you have attempted to wheel him out, though this time you are blowing a few trumpets to try and draw attention to your distortion

My position is not that buying something is wrong because another is blocked from buying that thing and this was illustrated in the conversation you responded to. If you recall, corevalue used the comparison of buying strawberries and I pointed out that people can get strawberries for themselves simply by growing them. The point and distinction being that the ownership of strawberries doesnt act as a barrier to prevent people from growing strawberries and therefore competing freely with the strawberries I hold. Then I pointed out that a portion of a house (land/ location) is part of a fixed, non produced supply and when this is taken there is no means to replace what is taken. The reason the two examples are morally different is that the ownership of strawberries doesnt prevent the creation of new strawberries but the ownership of land is a barrier which prevents the creation of houses by others .

This land property implied constriction of others is why you can be paid by others for doing nothing , simply by holding a house. It is in a very real sense, a form of government welfare embedded into the tenure system.

This more or less completely answers your original question, which was already answered in the post you responded to:

By owning multiple houses, how do I prevent you from housing yourself??

What you are actually saying to us is once a person has bought property A, that same person should not buy property B, C & D, so you can buy it at a price that is more affordable than it otherwise would have been (owing to competition from investors).

In other words you are asking the investor to refrain from buying, so you can buy cheaper.

I have not asked people to refrain from buying houses. I am pointing out that this behaviour is a form of damaging economic parasitism; an attempt to collect production from others that the owner had no hand in helping create and our land tenure system is enabling this legalised theft.

So, I'll ask my question again: where does it say (which law in other words, natural law, human law, cultural law? I was not referring exclusively to Acts of parliament) that you are entitled to expect another person to behave in such a way so as to benefit you by housing you? (whether by refraining from buying "your" house, or why not even to build you a house? Who is to say where your imaginary entitlement ends?)

Show me the source of your position, other than your own self-interest of course!

This is another curious distortion.

Im not claiming that you are failing to house others by buying houses and land; Im claiming that by doing so you form part of a barrier that prevents people housing themselves.

The principle of natural law broken by your behaviour is the principle of not interfering with or constricting others.

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this could and should have been neatly sidestepped if hpi had been left inthe basket of inflation (rpi & cpi) just proving how politics has a cloven hoof. It just proves two maxims one is that you get who you vote for and that the english welsh and scottish are the most selfish people in the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point that is coming out of the woodwork more and more is that these people bought property to protect themselves from inflation.

And who can blame them, in a way they did the right thing.

Yeah, but they didn't put their savings into property as a simple inflation hedge. They geared up and spent more than they could afford, then 'bubbleomics' took over and we all know the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.