|
U-Know! Forum » two homes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
pooley 501 posts |
Edited Mar 30, 2009, 10:45
Mar 30, 2009, 09:48
|
||
|
Is it wrong to own two homes in this current climate (or ever) I bought my second as a pension, and decided that If I owned something I felt morally dubious ( a bit ) about I would do something good with it. A friend lived there (small rent just covering mortgage) for a few years just after his divorce. Meant he could save some cash and buy somewhere himself. Another friend lived their rent free for 18 months after being made redundant - i was in a financial purple patch at the time and could just about afford to cover it. I have also rented it out at the market price, and made a few quid off it for the last year. I may (yet again) be opening myself up to attack - but am really interested in opinions on this.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Mar 30, 2009, 10:18
Mar 30, 2009, 10:17
|
||
|
I don't think it's wrong to own 12 or 112 houses, so long as it isn't to the 'detriment of others'. As I said in the other thread, it's the death of social housing that's caused most of the problems. It's been one of the most socially destructive policies ever, and the minute we get a party with the balls to rescind it I'll vote for them. I know people who got caught up in the whirl of buying their home and mortgaged and remortgaged and though it was great having all these nice new things and they had their very own boom and bust as a result. You can blame the banks or their own stupidity, whaterver, but it happened. No such thing as boom is there? It's all borrowed time, mostly. x
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 30, 2009, 10:22
|
||
|
I think your helping out of friends in need is really laudable, and that's an excellent use of a second property. Essentially, you were providing social housing, like what councils do (or at least, did do) but with a lot more of a friendly face (and in one case total abolition of rent). Doing that for no benefit to yourself is a truly noble thing. To see this issue clearly I think we need to consider what housing is there for. When there are people without homes it makes me feel uneasy that some people have more than one. Such people tilt the 'people:available homes' ratio and make it harder for poorer people to get a home. As George Monbiot notes in a piece about holiday homes, "In England and Wales there are 250,000 second homes. In England there are 221,000 people classed as single homeless or living in hostels or temporary accommodation (these desperate cases comprise about 24% of those in need of social housing)". The holiday home owners have houses sat empty most of the time whilst people are in need (I've seen people living in caravans through Hebridean winters in sight of houses used for 4 weeks a year). The other kind, the buy-to-let people, may fill their property but in charging the cost of the house plus the cost of their dividend for being rich enough to front the mortgage, they force housing costs up. Personally, I agree with George Orwell: "the ground-landlord in a town area has no function and no excuse for existence. He is merely a person who has found a way of milking the public while giving nothing in return. He causes rents to be higher, he makes town planning more difficult, and he excludes children from green spaces: that is literally all he does, except to draw his income" ('As I Please', Tribune, 18 August 1944) Now I understand that you're not Rachmann here and you've used your second property well for a time. But renting it out at market rate still puts you in that bracket Orwell speaks of. I do understand that some people like (I'm assuming) yourself end up with a chunk of money that's surplus to requirements now, but they're still not millionaires and want some wise, simple and reliable thing to do with it for a rainy day or when they retire. I know several people who've been in that position who've invested in housing co-operatives. This enables people to buy houses collectively, to be owned and controlled by those who live in them. For Radical Routes, the network of co-operatives of people with a social change agenda, the repayment rate to their Rootstock investors is 100% - not a single defaulter ever! Mystifies the banks, that one.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Mar 30, 2009, 10:49
|
||
|
Yeah, I agree with you on pretty much all that. I am fairly uncomfortable with my second property, but figure that if I, when I can afford it, let people I know that need it stay I aint doing a completley bad thing. Hopefully!
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Mar 30, 2009, 12:01
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: I know several people who've been in that position who've invested in housing co-operatives. This enables people to buy houses collectively, to be owned and controlled by those who live in them. For Radical Routes, the network of co-operatives of people with a social change agenda, the repayment rate to their Rootstock investors is 100% - not a single defaulter ever! Mystifies the banks, that one. This sounds fine but is it a realistic prospect for families? x
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 30, 2009, 12:27
|
||
|
shanshee_allures wrote: This sounds fine but is it a realistic prospect for families? Do you mean the investment, or the co-ops themselves? Either way, the answer's yes. If you mean the investment, there's a far better guarantee of returns than most other investments. If you mean to live, many co-ops get a large house, and people with kids often find it's really helpful to have a number of responsible and concerned adults in their children's lives. It's often a big improvement on the pressure and stress of being the only ones responsible. Other co-ops have a number of properties, with people living in their own flat/house but the owner being the co-op. Essentially, everyone who lives there is part of the company that owns the property. When you move in, you join the ownership company, when you leave the property, you also quit the co-op. You pay rent to the ownership company; the property is owned and controlled by whoever lives in it. It gives the best of ownership and the best of renting. It means you don't have the weight of a personal mortgage round your neck but you're able to treat the place as your own and - subject to the others on the co-op - to make whatever changes to the property you see fit. But then you don't have some shonky fast-buck landlord leaving you in a leaky dump, and if you end up jobless you can claim housing benefit so don't lose your home. Eventually, the mortgage is paid off and you get to decide whether to have nominal rent, to buy more properties, or to lend a load of money to help other people start up new ones. With every rent payment you liberate solid bricks and mortar from the capitalist buy-and-sell!
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Mar 30, 2009, 12:37
Mar 30, 2009, 12:36
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: . If you mean to live, many co-ops get a large house, and people with kids often find it's really helpful to have a number of responsible and concerned adults in their children's lives. It's often a big improvement on the pressure and stress of being the only ones responsible. Ah that's a sticky one. If anything's going to make people fall out like nothing else on earth it's disagreement over the kiddies. One person's little angel is another's little bastard, it's just a fact. And no one can be 'responsible' for your children in the way you can, ever, and no good parent would even expect them to. As an idea it sounds good but I think practically murder may just be commited at some point! Many families don't even have the money to gamble on something *maybe* working out, but as a stop gap it may work. To get back to my point of council homes, a mate of mine's dad has lived in his for over 40 years now, and he refuses to buy, and he's got the money to a few times over. Kept his principles sweet old dude that he is. x
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
Mar 30, 2009, 12:41
|
||
Merrick's answer suggests to me that the sticky issues you highlight have been overcome in housing co-ops. They must have been, or houisng co-ops would purely exist for single people/childless couples and they don't.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Mar 30, 2009, 12:47
Mar 30, 2009, 12:46
|
||
|
Yes, maybe some parents can be aloof enough to cope with strangers being so close to their children (I take it some have met only through the scheme) but I know for a fact I couldn't do that and ask some of those realted to you who have kids and they'll probably say the same. It's stressful enough when those related to you interefere at times!! You always appreciate their help, but being forced to LIVE with them? One size never fits all and if it fits some then fair enough, but perhaps too it's early days for some of them:-) x
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Mar 30, 2009, 12:50
|
||
|
Robert Tressell wrote: These people seemed to think that the children were
the property of their parents. They did not have sense enough to see that the children are not the property of their parents at all, but the property of the community. When they attain to manhood and womanhood they will be, if mentally or physically inefficient, a burden on the community; if they become criminals, they will prey upon the community, and if they are healthy, educated and brought up in good surroundings, they will become useful citizens, able to render valuable service, not merely to their parents, but to the community. Therefore the children are the property of the community, and it is the business and to the interest of the community to see that their constitutions are not undermined by starvation.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
