They rent their cars, they rent their phones, they rent their music. They don't have that same concept of ownership

[PeanutButter]

1 hour ago, DonJop12 said:

What a load of tosh. I’d love to be able to engage in discretionary spending on vinyl and have a spare room full of music.  

The reason I am not is because I am competing with BTL property-is-my-pension boomers for the first rung on the ladder. My savings/deposit fund will be up to £20,762.36 by the end of the month. I feel like I need to push on to 25k and then 30k. It has got to the point where it is just numbers on a screen.

This is bit OCD but I actually have a spreadsheet of the CD collection I would like to own . My taste is actually quite boomer-ish [Springsteen, McCartney, Pink Floyd]. One day…

Perhaps it is the time of year but I’m feeling the frustration of trying to save a monster deposit more than usual this week. Perhaps I’m just an entitled Millennial. ?  

Well done so far. No avocado tastes as good as home ownership feels. 

[Bear Hug]

On 29/01/2019 at 13:32, jimmy2x3 said:

people wouldnt rent cars if they could afford to pay 2-3k for a second hand one. its the very poor that are first in line for a new car as its just a monthly contract, in my street its all those on the crappiest wages that have the new cars. compounding their poverty and no diffrent from mobile phone contracts instead of sim only ones, provident cheques and 69% interest rate credit cards you cant get out of cause you missed a few payments and no-one will let you transfer to a cheaper one. 

 

people who rent stuff are just poor and kept poor in a loop of poverty. 

That old chestnut!  Any old car will cost you at least £100/month whether it's in depreciation, repairs, service etc.  Some choose and can afford to pay double or triple that for comfort, safety, not worrying about breakdown etc

[jimmy2x3]

1 hour ago, Bear Hug said:

That old chestnut!  Any old car will cost you at least £100/month whether it's in depreciation, repairs, service etc.  Some choose and can afford to pay double or triple that for comfort, safety, not worrying about breakdown etc

if you say so, but i find much better value in a car that i own for a year of pcp payments than one that i hand back in 4. the old chestnt," nothing is for free" comes to mind. 

 

[24gray24]

11 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Labour Party housing policies include building one million affordable homes over the next ten years mostly for social rent. 

What is there not to like?

1. Developers make big profits on government contracts. 

2. Anything the government does costs twice as much because 

3. No one round the negotiating table is paying for it themselves. 

4. So you end up with 1m houses for the price of 2m. The developers all get rich. And the tenants all turn out to have connections to the council.  

Labour is feckless. Corbyn is a nice man with no economic common sense. And no one has forgotten 2008 yet. How do they think they're going to get elected? Why, with more pics it up the wall schemes, like the one above! 

Stupid, and never learn; that's labour.

[simvastatin]

13 hours ago, chronyx said:

Estates full of Tony's Finest ruining nearby communities, as is already the case on a smaller scale throughout the country?

We can be assured that imports of that nature will carry on regardless of hell, highwater, or Brexit.

 

So true 

[Dorkins]

On 30/01/2019 at 05:14, nome said:

The goverbankment has pretty much achieved it's aims from what I can see.... a nation of lifelong obedient, compliant, disenfranchised, debt slave worker drones. 

Doesn't look like that to me at all. The under 45s are angry and keep voting against the status quo: the Blairites lost Labour to Corbyn, the Lib Dems are back to single taxi MP numbers after the tuition fee betrayal, the Tories are still on the road thanks to first past the post and getting 70% of the vote from comfortably housed over-65s but half of those voters will be dead in 10 years' time. Improvements in living standards vanished 10+ years ago. Looks like the death throes of Thatcherism to me.

[bear.getting.old]

On 30/01/2019 at 20:14, zugzwang said:

Labour Party housing policies include building one million affordable homes over the next ten years mostly for social rent. Not quite a program of general needs social housing, some would be delivered by private housing associations, but pretty close. The last time the UK govt did anything on a similar scale was the 1970s. Councils will be given new powers to acquire land and encouraged to borrow to build. New capital assets will mean new revenue streams ensuring these developments are partially self-funded. Tackling the housing crisis locally will reduce demand for other social services especially those involving the provision of temporary accommodation. Right To Buy will be ended which will curtail the flow of former council homes into the hands of private landlords. A new definition of affordability will be made that's linked to local incomes rather than average rents. Affordability will no longer be a moving target.

What is there not to like?

http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Housing-for-the-Many-final.pdf

Yes this is ok if you want a HPC but its everything else that's the problem. The tax and spend, the socialist policies of a loony left wing leader from the 70s with his mathematically challenged lover on the front bench.

To original post. Helen Gordon makes me sick saying such utter tosh about people renting everything, what do you expect from a scummy BTL empire landlord

Edited January 31, 2019 by bear.getting.old

[EnglishinWales]

Labour is for private housing associations?

Waste of time anyway. The associations seem to be focusing on supported accommodation for over 55s, lots of 1 and 2 bedroom flats. I think the current government's plan is to free up family homes for Hard-Working Families so that they can move in and become Tory voters. Problem is the 55+ group doesn't want to leave the 3 or 4 bedroom house and large garden that they've spent years working on and paying off and young people can't afford the £200K+ asking price neither.

[bear.getting.old]

Sounds like only one solution then. Falling house prices. They need to build more family homes. Who says if you have no family you need a flat. Balls to that I want spare rooms for guests, office and hobbies etc

Edited February 1, 2019 by bear.getting.old

[EnglishinWales]

On 30/01/2019 at 10:19, The Spaniard said:

Collectively we rent our medium of exchange (broad money supply) from the cartel of commercial banks.

We must borrow it into existence at interest, loan by loan. The loans are rolled over indefinitely.

We pay enormous interest for the very existence of electronic numbers sufficient to run our economy.

Most of us are too stupid to understand this.

Yep. And every so soften they force the government of the land to stage a terrorist attack for multiple reasons including distracting us from who our real enemy is.

[zugzwang]

13 hours ago, bear.getting.old said:

Yes this is ok if you want a HPC but its everything else that's the problem. The tax and spend, the socialist policies of a loony left wing leader from the 70s with his mathematically challenged lover on the front bench.

To original post. Helen Gordon makes me sick saying such utter tosh about people renting everything, what do you expect from a scummy BTL empire landlord

You're not making any sense. We haven't had a genuinely left-wing govt for more than forty years and yet inexplicably the national debt is now £2 trillion, while the private sector is still as hopelessly underwater today as it was ten years ago at the height of the Great Recession.

And somehow this is Diane Abbott's fault? If she's mathematically challenged, what the f**k does that make you?

 

Edited February 1, 2019 by zugzwang