Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

We live in a low wage long hours economy, with the unrealistic expectation that owning one's own home is a given for virtually everyone... which is nothing short of nuts.

Wake up middle Englanders.

Cynic,

Not a vested interest then.

I see the need of allegiance.


Hays,



Then they can get on their bikes and move or doss in a doorway, they don't have to be bailed out or secured by the state.

We were a nation that had low expectation of home ownership. It was expected that people would save for Yeats for a deposit. That has changed and now people expect to buy a property much sooner. The reason why it matters is that rented property is so expensive. In the rest of Europe, renting is far more common.

Expectancy, is often followed by disappointment and rentals returns can be returned by market forces to realistic levels.

The UK is now a shit hole full immigrant beggars

The UK is now a shit hole full immigrant beggars

fred - on that basis, you would have thought i would be against house ownership :-)
by the way, there's an awful lot of downside to being a landlord, but that has no relevance here

David Cameron: 95 per cent mortgages will make 'dream of home ownership a reality'

Tens of thousands of home buyers will today be offered 95 per cent mortgages by state-owned banks in a move which David Cameron says will make the “dream of home ownership a reality”.


By Steven Swinford, Senior Political Correspondent

12:01AM BST 08 Oct 2013


George Osborne, the Chancellor, will unveil details of the £12 billion Help to Buy scheme which the government hopes will give people the “same chance to get on the property ladder as their parents”.


Royal Bank of Scotland/ Natwest said that from Tuesday it will offer the mortgages to 25,500 home buyers over the next three years, although loans will be more expensive than those already available on the market.


Halifax will also offer the mortgages from this week, while Virgin Money and Aldermore Bank are expected to join the scheme in the New Year.


Mr Cameron said: “From today, thousands of people will be able to get a foot on the housing ladder by applying for the new Help to Buy mortgage guarantee. If you've got 5 per cent of the funds for a mortgage deposit, we’re providing a guarantee to the banks to help you get the rest.


“Help to Buy is going to make the dream of home ownership a reality for many who would otherwise have been shut out. This goes right to the heart of my vision for Britain – a country where everyone who works hard can get on in life."


"The latest phase is designed to allow first time buyers and existing property owners with a minimum 5 per cent deposit to buy a property worth up to £600,000. The Government guarantees up to 15 per cent of the loan."



More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/10362285/David-Cameron-95-per-cent-mortgages-will-make-dream-of-home-ownership-a-reality.html

Cynic,

Not against home ownership and part own another property, managed by an agent.

But think rent for accommodation appears extortionate is some areas.

Also, wonder if those with multiple property ownerships are all paying tax on the earnings.

--------

One of the things I feel sorry for a lot of younger generation is the amount of short term contracts that many have, especially if are postgraduate jobs and working in, or out of university.

Many lack an ability to plan for the future and are often thinking of the next move 3-4 months before the end of one contract about the next.

Getting on your bike to the next job is easy when in 20-30s, but less so afterwards and the majority would hope to have rooted down by their 30s rather than having constant upheavals.

fred - a forlorn hope that others will not follow down this alleyway that you have created!

rental rates are effectively a reflection of the underlying market value of the property and yield perhaps 5% - you may have a more accurate figure

i own 2 buy-to-let properties, one of which is distinctly high end in central london and the other, very much lower, in medway

with regard to the first
i was flabbergasted by the site's market value and also the AST rental level that was not only deemed fair and reasonable, but was also readily achieved

the second property is of a much lower value, and this is reflected in the AST rental even though the place has been decorated and set out to a very nice standard.

in both instances, the deposit against dilaps and similar is the standard 6 weeks rental.

for the first property, this is a substantial sum, and thank goodness it was as most of it was required to return the place to the proper standard when my first tenants vacated.

the deposit on the second property would actually cover very little and it is fortunate that the tenants not only act responsibly but have a prior history of so doing

like i said previously, being a landlord is not the bed of roses many perceive, even ignoring potential bad debt and periods of vacancy

Is that return including the increased value of the property?

What do people here think about tattoos and employing people with visible and large ones?

no - 5% is the gross return on the value of the property at the time of assessing rental
however, as you may have noticed, not only have property values fallen (20%?) over the last 3/4 years, but many would be landlords have gone belly up

in any case, don't forget that, like selling a house or anything else, it is a matter of supply and demand ..... you can always ask any price you like, but if the market won't wear it, then it won't buy

tattoos
personally, i hate them, but unless the prospective employee has to sit in front of clients or similar, it would not prevent me from employing them

Tattoos are a 'fashion' and fashion is a 'false cause'.

Thus anyone who is wanting a tattoo is wanting to spend money on something presently fashionable.

Because this need it is governed by a false cause reason, there is no sensible logic to it. Therefore, it is probably likely, that in a few years time they (the tattoo(s)) will become 'unfashionable'.

And also very hard and expensive to remove.

Although I would have a go at Cheryl Cole's for free. I think a lick or two (of body paint) might easily sort it. :-)

Perhaps the best types of people to make excellent employees, are those who are fairly 'mystic' in nature and fairly easily influenced by 'false causes'.

On the one hand you have the false cause of say, "the need to be fashionable and have a tattoo."

On the other, you have the possible false causes of:

Working hard for a good day's pay.
Getting to work on time.
Not stealing from the company.
Not stealing from the company's customers.

Perhaps you might say, that these are actually 'real causes' not 'false ones'?

Well, the very best false causes , that are used by employers, are the causes that are actually false but no one can tell because the employers are so damned good at disguising which is which.

Anyhow, whatever! They just need their employees not to question any of them and get on with their work for the benefit of the company.

Update: Labour lead at 4
by YouGov in Politics
Tue October 8, 6 a.m. BST

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 7th October - Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 10%;

England's young people near bottom of global league table for basic skills

OECD finds 16-24-year-olds have literacy and numeracy levels no better than those of their grandparents' generation


Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor

theguardian.com, Tuesday 8 October 2013 10.34 BST


England is the only country in the developed world where the generation approaching retirement is more literate and numerate than the youngest, according to the first skills survey by the OECD.


In a stark assessment of the success and failure of 720 million-strong adult workforce across the wealthier economies, the economic thinktank warns that in England, adults aged 55 to 65 perform better than 16-24-year-olds in both foundation levels of literacy and numeracy. The survey did not include people from Scotland or Wales.


When the results within age groups are compared across participating countries, older adults in England score higher in literacy and numeracy than the average among their peers, while younger adults show some of the lowest scores for their age group.


The survey shows that out of 24 nations, young adults in England (aged 16-24) rank 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy. England is behind Estonia, Australia, Poland and Slovakia in both areas.


more: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/08/england-young-people-league-table-basic-skills-oecd

The bulk of those in that age range were educated under a Labour government. Their ages when Labour left office would have been 13-21. That's quite a severe comment on Labour's handling of education. When Labour came to power those young people would have been in the age range 0-5. That means they would have spent almost all their years of schooling under Labour's education policies.

it's totally academic (or not!) under which gov't these children emerged from school with almost no chance of employment

though there are plenty of bad schools and teachers, there's far more bad parents who abdicate their role and will not accept that it is THEIR prime responsibility to teach their children the simple basics of numeracy and literacy as well as instilling aspirations and decency