Obelix Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Off topic (slightly) I saw an interesting statistic last night that said the country with the highest home ownership in Europe was Bulgaria with 97%. I know this was an old communist country but I'd be intrigued to know how they got to that level i.e did they give the houses away (it would stop landlords making millions) When the communist regime collapsed the people living in them just took ownership and basically stuck 2 fingers up at the state. The same happened in Romania where the figure is probably getting on for that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 The intention would be to convert tenants into home owners. ---------- Post added 05-06-2017 at 12:19 ---------- I'm talking about really taxing landlords to make it financially not viable to buy to rent. I hear what you're saying regarding fair landlords however they are still depriving first time buyers from getting onto the bottom rung of the housing ladder. Houses for rent aren't always on the "bottom rung"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Off topic (slightly) I saw an interesting statistic last night that said the country with the highest home ownership in Europe was Bulgaria with 97%. I know this was an old communist country but I'd be intrigued to know how they got to that level i.e did they give the houses away (it would stop landlords making millions) Something like it in the 90s:Indeed, less than 10 % of the population lived in an owner-occupied household with a mortgage or loan in Slovenia, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Bulgaria or Romania; this could be contrasted with the situation in Sweden and the Netherlands, where 61.4 % and 60.0 % of the population were owner-occupants with a mortgage or housing loan. These high rates of owner-occupancy in the eastern EU Member States reflect, to a large degree, privatisation policies during the early 1990s that resulted in the transfer of property rights and the widespread sale of formerly state-owned housing stock.(source, and another). The above, coupled with relatively recent housing park (50% of properties built between 1945 and 1986) followed by a long period of very low construction activity (from 1986 to 2012, when the state prohibition on foreigners owning any land (incl. houses) of any sort was lifted, and prompted a 'Costa' boom along the coast). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Can you believe that I am now the only person in my dept at work that owns their own home? There used to be 3 of us, but 2 left. Now all my colleagues are forced to rent.....and each and everyone totally hates it!! How unfair and unjust is that! I have 2 younger brothers that have also been forced to rent. Then the viscous cycle begins. They are trapped, never will they be able to save thanks to the downright greedy landlords. The Gov't should sort this problem out. Whichever party pledged to scrap buy to let would get my vote. I hate the parasitic leeches. Most have either inherited, bought prior to the property boom or had some other good fortune to start them off....and then they just assume they should have a surplus pot of money rolling in each month, plus the poor sod is paying the property mortgage off for them. They then walk off into the sunset on the sheer misery and unhappiness of the wretched souls who are forced to bow to their demands. About time the whole 2nd home ownership was taxed 90%....to hell with them!! Who is going to provide housing if private landlords dont ? Council housing is in short supply ,and private landlords provide a vital service. Without us millions of people would be homeless. The is not ,and never will be enough council housing stock to cover the demend . Thats a fact . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) <...> I hear what you're saying regarding fair landlords however they are still depriving first time buyers from getting onto the bottom rung of the housing ladder. That's not a right. It's just aspirational. Same with 2nd home ownership. Tons of very decent-looking £50k (and less!) properties available in Sheffield. Newsflash: the 'bottom rung' is not a £200k 3-bed detached with integral garage, garden and top-of-the-range fixtures and fittings in an executive development in a nice part of town. I've had several occasions to remind kidults of a few acquaintances over the years. Edited June 5, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 This is a complex question that has no simple answer. In an ideal world, yes, I would support such a policy as it only helps to push up the costs of having a roof over your head. It is distasteful to me that people profit directly from people need to have a safe place to live and raise a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 That's not a right. It's just aspirational. Same with 2nd home ownership. Tons of very decent-looking £50k (and less!) properties available in Sheffield. Newsflash: the 'bottom rung' is not a £200k 3-bed detached with integral garage, garden and top-of-the-range fixtures and fittings in an executive development in a nice part of town. I've had several occasions to remind kidults of a few acquaintances over the years. I have to agree here, just from my circle of friends I know only about half actually started on the 'bottom rung', the rest went straight for a new build on a tidy new estate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Sorry, I honestly don't know. Maybe their employer/contractor could get large tax rebates to fund hotel lodgings?? More likely the employee would get slapped a tax bill for receiving "benefits in kind"! There's loads of people who prefer to rent for all sorts of reasons -getting Housing Benefit and avoiding the hassle of maintenance, repairs, insurance. Immigrants on short term contracts, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I'm talking about really taxing landlords to make it financially not viable to buy to rent. I hear what you're saying regarding fair landlords however they are still depriving first time buyers from getting onto the bottom rung of the housing ladder. What about the millions of people who cannot get a mortgage ? They have no choice but to rent ? Ban private landlords and many of them will become homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny_Boy Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 That's not a right. It's just aspirational. Same with 2nd home ownership. Tons of very decent-looking £50k (and less!) properties available in Sheffield. Newsflash: the 'bottom rung' is not a £200k 3-bed detached with integral garage, garden and top-of-the-range fixtures and fittings in an executive development in a nice part of town. I've had several occasions to remind kidults of a few acquaintances over the years. This is part of the problem, my first house was a tiny two up two down, it's taken 10 years to get to the level you mention above. When people say they cannot afford housing, if you question them further what they mean is that they cannot afford a perfect home in the perfect area. Like you say you can buy a £50k home with a £2500 deposit and your mortgage would be about £150 a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now