POLSKI Â Â 10 #25 Posted August 29, 2012 renting is dead money. why pay out for rent, to pay off your landlords mortgage?? when you can "buy" a house and pay off your OWN mortgage? Â Nail well and truly hit on the head. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
JButts   10 #26 Posted August 29, 2012 If you own a house in old age, you have a certain amount of security. With rental, you simply don't. With a drop in income you may have to move, in old age, to a smaller property, possibly in a less desirable area.  Alternatively, one may become dependant on the state "topping up" your rental payments. I, for one, would not be very comfortable with this concept. There is no certainty that the state will not change the housing benefit levels, possibly several times between now and retirement.  The other option would to be housed by the state in social housing. I really wouldn't want to get into my 60's and 70's and beyond, having worked all my life, to then become dependant on where the council wanted to deposit me. No way.  Totally agree, absolutely bang on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #27 Posted August 29, 2012 It is somewhat financially rational behaviour. There is a land monopoly. You either oppress, oppose or become oppressed.  It is much like playing the board game monopoly. Which was made to highlight the evils of land monopoly!  Unfortunately lots of people are greedy fools, and instead of opposing monopoly, they try to secure a small part of the monopoly.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game  The Landlord's Game is a board game patented in 1904 by Elizabeth Magie as U.S. Patent 748,626. It is a realty and taxation game, which is considered to be a direct inspiration for the board game Monopoly. Though many similar home-made games were played at the beginning of the 20th century and some predate The Landlord's Game, it is the first of its kind to have an attested patent. Magie designed the game to be a "practical demonstration of the present system of land grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences".[1] She based the game on the economic principles of Georgism, a system proposed by Henry George, with the object of demonstrating how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants. She knew that some people could find it hard to understand why this happened and what might be done about it, and she thought that if Georgist ideas were put into the concrete form of a game, they might be easier to demonstrate. Magie also hoped that when played by children the game would provoke their natural suspicion of unfairness, and that they might carry this awareness into adulthood.  Quite frankly, land ownership is unjust and it should be opposed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #28 Posted August 29, 2012 And is all ownership; are you Proudhon, after all? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #29 Posted August 29, 2012 And is all ownership; are you Proudhon, after all?  Proudhon didn't oppose all ownership.  If you create something, you own it.  the only legitimate source of property is labour  That is why land ownership is unjust. It is unjust, much like it would unjust to claim the air as property and charging people to breathe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #30 Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Proudhon didn't oppose all ownership. But he did opine that 'Property [ownership] is theft'. So what did he mean by that?  (See Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 1840. Qu’est-ce que le propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement. Premier mémoire. Paris: J.-F. Brocard.) Edited August 29, 2012 by Jeffrey Shaw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
partypixie   10 #31 Posted August 29, 2012 this may be quite controversial but i don't think there is any incentive in this country to buy a property at all. i have dealt with far too many people lose their homes due to redundancies and reposesssions. In a climate where there is little job security i come across people every day who have worked all their lives then find that they can only get 6 months worth of support and their mortgage insurance only lasts 12 months so the only option is to rely on support for mortgage interest which is minimal and fall into mortgage arrears if they cannot find another job. What annoys people in this situation the most is that they would be eligible to receive far more in Housing Benefit than what their potential mortgage costs are per month but because they are not renting they are stuck with the paltry sum the government has to offer.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #32 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) The incentives included MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief [from income tax] At Source)- until it was abolished in all but business cases. Edited August 30, 2012 by Jeffrey Shaw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
chem1st   10 #33 Posted August 30, 2012 There are still incentives, one being the high cost of rent which is inflated by housing benefit and a decade of above inflation rent rises to social housing, now rendering it unaffordable for many going on the definitions of affordability.  Another being that £16k of savings would render you ineligible for means tested benefits, whilst £6k of savings and a £1.6million house would make you eligible for means tested benefits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #34 Posted August 30, 2012 this may be quite controversial but i don't think there is any incentive in this country to buy a property at all. i have dealt with far too many people lose their homes due to redundancies and reposesssions. In a climate where there is little job security i come across people every day who have worked all their lives then find that they can only get 6 months worth of support and their mortgage insurance only lasts 12 months so the only option is to rely on support for mortgage interest which is minimal and fall into mortgage arrears if they cannot find another job. What annoys people in this situation the most is that they would be eligible to receive far more in Housing Benefit than what their potential mortgage costs are per month but because they are not renting they are stuck with the paltry sum the government has to offer.... Â Â But when Labour were in power they introduced a new loan scheme for people with mortgages who found themselves out of work. Â http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_mortgage_problems_ew/debt_how_to_sort_out_your_mortgage_problems_e/help_with_mortgage_costs_if_you_re_out_of_work.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mafya   243 #35 Posted August 30, 2012 renting is dead money. why pay out for rent, to pay off your landlords mortgage?? when you can "buy" a house and pay off your OWN mortgage?  I'm sure alot of people would agree but not everyone can get a mortgage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
FACEBOOK Â Â 10 #36 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) ///////////////////////// Edited January 14, 2013 by FACEBOOK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...