Parklife Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 i must be more nationalist than you are.. The only way they will not get my vote is if they Drop indy, and probably if they drop nae nuclear... Other than that 1st vote 100% , 2nd vote 90% of the time.. I have yet to decide on my 2nd vote next year.. Indy for me over all else... others are different, thats cool... Lines on a map and flags aren't all that important to me. So i'd say you are more of a "Nationalist" than me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I'm not sure that many folk think that the SNP are that much different from the other parties They do on this messageboard. Some of their following is cult like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The issue is that people (in particular young, working class first time buyers cannot afford to get on the property ladder. In part, due to wealthy middle-aged people (like Ms Thomson) buying up properties as buy-to-lets and driving up prices. I think that's more than a bit disingenuous tbf. The biggest problem for people getting on the property ladder is due to the need for higher deposits (% wise) due to lenders no longer offering 100% (and very few 95%) mortgages. The fact this happened when the generation coming through had never had to save for anything & pretty much anything they wanted could be done on fairly cheap credit (whether that be cars, properties, clothes or even a social life) was a bad combination. I would think in most areas landlords do not actually push prices up as they are generally looking for a bargain these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I don't think the SNP are ever going to renounce capitalism. About a third of all households in the UK are rented. They have to rent their houses from somebody. Not everyone wants to be an owner occupier. I understand the need for a rental market but it is disgusting that people hoover up properties and stop the young getting their own place. If you own 17 houses you need a punch in the . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I understand the need for a rental market but it is disgusting that people hoover up properties and stop the young getting their own place. If you own 17 houses you need a punch in the . Not the way i'd have put it but i echo your sentiments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I think that's more than a bit disingenuous tbf. The biggest problem for people getting on the property ladder is due to the need for higher deposits (% wise) due to lenders no longer offering 100% (and very few 95%) mortgages. The fact this happened when the generation coming through had never had to save for anything & pretty much anything they wanted could be done on fairly cheap credit (whether that be cars, properties, clothes or even a social life) was a bad combination. I would think in most areas landlords do not actually push prices up as they are generally looking for a bargain these days. Pretty sure first time buyers are also looking for these same bargains. It's also impossible to save up a deposit if you have to spend all your money on rent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I think that's more than a bit disingenuous tbf. The biggest problem for people getting on the property ladder is due to the need for higher deposits (% wise) due to lenders no longer offering 100% (and very few 95%) mortgages. The fact this happened when the generation coming through had never had to save for anything & pretty much anything they wanted could be done on fairly cheap credit (whether that be cars, properties, clothes or even a social life) was a bad combination. I would think in most areas landlords do not actually push prices up as they are generally looking for a bargain these days. I disagree. My parents bought their house 28 years ago and had to pay a 10% deposit on the house value. I bought my house 4 years ago and again had to pay a 10% deposit. The only differences between the two generations is that the average house price to average salary ratio is different now with house prices rising much more quickly than wages. The house prices are rising quickly for a few reasons but a couple of easy ones: council houses being bought and not replaced thereby pushing renters into the private market, people buying houses to rent out rather than live in. From the info available it allegedly seems than Michelle Thomson has been buying property at inflated prices from associates and getting the difference as a "cash back". Regardless of legalities, this is immoral as it artificially inflates her own house prices allowing her a tidy profit if she sells on and allows her to charge a higher rent as the property is apparently worth more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 At least when Nicola Sturgeons Lord Provost mum needs to sell the council house she bought she knows who to consult. Didn't realise Mrs Sturgeon had been elevated to such a high office... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted September 30, 2015 Author Share Posted September 30, 2015 Didn't realise Mrs Sturgeon had been elevated to such a high office... http://north-ayrshire.cmis.uk.com/north-ayrshire/Councillors/CurrentCouncillors/tabid/98/ctl/ViewCMIS_Person/mid/437/id/16/Default.aspx The terraced former council house, on a quiet street a few miles from the Firth of Clyde, was bought by Robert and Joan Sturgeon in May 1984 for a knockdown £8,400 and is now worth around £150,000 – a near 20-fold rise in value Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilScotsman Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Social Justice http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/09/nat-mp-boasted-about-selling-scots-social-housing-to-english-at-knock-down-prices/ At least when Nicola Sturgeons Lord Provost mum needs to sell the council house she bought she knows who to consult. The council house she bought 28 years prior to becoming Lord Provost? I'm failing to see your point, to be honest - should she sell it for £8400 (or whatever that is in today's terms)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 http://north-ayrshire.cmis.uk.com/north-ayrshire/Councillors/CurrentCouncillors/tabid/98/ctl/ViewCMIS_Person/mid/437/id/16/Default.aspx The terraced former council house, on a quiet street a few miles from the Firth of Clyde, was bought by Robert and Joan Sturgeon in May 1984 for a knockdown £8,400 and is now worth around £150,000 – a near 20-fold rise in value Are you really using something maw and paw Sturgeon did when she was a kid as a point scoring exercise? Do they still live in that house? Have they sold it on for a profit? Do they rent it out at high rates? The right-to-buy scheme has resulted in big problems in the housing source but I don't blame any of the people who bought their council houses to live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 http://north-ayrshire.cmis.uk.com/north-ayrshire/Councillors/CurrentCouncillors/tabid/98/ctl/ViewCMIS_Person/mid/437/id/16/Default.aspx The terraced former council house, on a quiet street a few miles from the Firth of Clyde, was bought by Robert and Joan Sturgeon in May 1984 for a knockdown £8,400 and is now worth around £150,000 a near 20-fold rise in value What's that got to do with Michelle Thomsons situation? I disagree vehemently with the Right to Buy scheme but hardly think you can blame folk who used it to buy their homes and continued living there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 http://north-ayrshire.cmis.uk.com/north-ayrshire/Councillors/CurrentCouncillors/tabid/98/ctl/ViewCMIS_Person/mid/437/id/16/Default.aspx The terraced former council house, on a quiet street a few miles from the Firth of Clyde, was bought by Robert and Joan Sturgeon in May 1984 for a knockdown £8,400 and is now worth around £150,000 – a near 20-fold rise in value Not that this is in the least bit relevant to Michelle Thomson but I seriously doubt that an ex-council house in Dreghorn is worth anything close to £150k. A quick look at Rightmove shows that similar properties are listed in the 60-70k range. North Ayrshire also has a provost not a lord Provost. Facts aren't your strongpoint are they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Absolutely. Totally nonsensical argument no matter what political party the ex-council house dwellers support. Btw she's not a Lord Provost, there's only 4 of them in Scotland I believe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I disagree. My parents bought their house 28 years ago and had to pay a 10% deposit on the house value. I bought my house 4 years ago and again had to pay a 10% deposit. The only differences between the two generations is that the average house price to average salary ratio is different now with house prices rising much more quickly than wages. The house prices are rising quickly for a few reasons but a couple of easy ones: council houses being bought and not replaced thereby pushing renters into the private market, people buying houses to rent out rather than live in. Do you not think that 28 years ago there was more (rightly so) of a savings mentality which meant people found it easier (mentally) to save up a deposit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Pretty sure first time buyers are also looking for these same bargains. It's also impossible to save up a deposit if you have to spend all your money on rent. I'm sure they are & I agree about the rent - in my experience though landlords are generally buying properties that have been on the market a while & where the price has dropped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Do you not think that 28 years ago there was more (rightly so) of a savings mentality which meant people found it easier (mentally) to save up a deposit? That may be the case but house price increases have far outstripped wage increases. Edited September 30, 2015 by Parklife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 That may be the case but house price increases have far outstripped wage increases. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/02/263B994B00000578-2975356-image-m-7_1425285921506.jpg Totally, which is the main reason I agree in principle with 95% - 100% mortgages - but they have to be checked well which is where a lot of the problems came from, lenders weren't doing robust checks on people - that, as far as I know now, has changed which can only be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 From the info available it allegedly seems than Michelle Thomson has been buying property at inflated prices from associates and getting the difference as a "cash back". Regardless of legalities, this is immoral as it artificially inflates her own house prices allowing her a tidy profit if she sells on and allows her to charge a higher rent as the property is apparently worth more. Ah right, now we might be getting somewhere. I was wondering what this "cashback" thing was about. It didn't seem to make any sense and I couldn't see how she was making money out of it. Starting to sound a wee bit dodgy right enough. But, are rents really based on property value? I would have thought that rents were based on what folk were willing to pay. Not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Ah right, now we might be getting somewhere. I was wondering what this "cashback" thing was about. It didn't seem to make any sense and I couldn't see how she was making money out of it. Starting to sound a wee bit dodgy right enough. But, are rents really based on property value? I would have thought that rents were based on what folk were willing to pay. Not sure. Bit of both. A landlord renting out a property will want to cover their costs (mortgage, insurance, factors etc.) and make a profit on top. If they can show the property is worth x amount, that gives a back-up that the rent is "fair" by telling potential tenants what a mortgage rate would be on a property of that price. If a tenant is willing to pay then the landlord will probably make the rent as high as they can get away with in order to max out their income, especially if the tenant is entitled to housing benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The council house she bought 28 years prior to becoming Lord Provost? I'm failing to see your point, to be honest - should she sell it for £8400 (or whatever that is in today's terms)? I think his point is - SNP BAD - SNP MUM EVEN BADDER.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Bit of both. A landlord renting out a property will want to cover their costs (mortgage, insurance, factors etc.) and make a profit on top. If they can show the property is worth x amount, that gives a back-up that the rent is "fair" by telling potential tenants what a mortgage rate would be on a property of that price. If a tenant is willing to pay then the landlord will probably make the rent as high as they can get away with in order to max out their income, especially if the tenant is entitled to housing benefit. Aye, it sounds like there could something dodgy about this "cashback" thing. I wonder of she rents out her properties to the cooncil who have to find places for homeless folk? Is the rent they are willing to pay based on property value maybe? We'll just have to wait and see I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Social Justice http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/09/nat-mp-boasted-about-selling-scots-social-housing-to-english-at-knock-down-prices/ At least when Nicola Sturgeons Lord Provost mum needs to sell the council house she bought she knows who to consult. good to see Alan against the Tory policy of right to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 From the info available it allegedly seems than Michelle Thomson has been buying property at inflated prices from associates and getting the difference as a "cash back". Regardless of legalities, this is immoral as it artificially inflates her own house prices allowing her a tidy profit if she sells on and allows her to charge a higher rent as the property is apparently worth more. That's really scummy behaviour if true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Bit of both. A landlord renting out a property will want to cover their costs (mortgage, insurance, factors etc.) and make a profit on top. If they can show the property is worth x amount, that gives a back-up that the rent is "fair" by telling potential tenants what a mortgage rate would be on a property of that price. If a tenant is willing to pay then the landlord will probably make the rent as high as they can get away with in order to max out their income, especially if the tenant is entitled to housing benefit. It's years since I rented but while there is undoubtedly a link between how much property sells for and the rental price, I'd say that it's more at a market level than an individual property. For example, if you've a block of six flats, three are rented, three are owner occupied, the rental cost of each flat is likely to be the same and not dependent on what was paid for the property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.