Mortgage for everyone

[Ferris]

This is largely how I see things, which is why I'm coming from the position of giving people long-term stability and rights should be prioritised and that the solution can possibly be provided without saddling people with lots of financialised debt.

If you could flip a switch tomorrow and give the UK rental protections similar to mainland Europe then you'd largely provide the benefits of owning to everyone.

The system as-is (and I include Canada in that) will probably never do that because mainstream neoliberal economics is "rent control is bad, owning house = middle class = good" and the brainworms on display when you try and argue otherwise become quite striking.

Unrelatedly, I had to read an economics textbook a few months ago that used a picture of a dilapidated building to illustrate the dangers of rent control ("this is what happens"). I thought "where is that tho", clipped the image and did some sleuthing on google before I found it - it was a condemned building in Kansas City, MO from the early '90s which has since been turned into a row of shops selling handbags and the like.

Look up Missouri's "renter" protection, it's bananas - landlords can do what they like and are protected even when they openly retaliate against renters. When I pointed out that a mainstream textbook was using an image of unfettered rental markets to "illustrate" the dangers of rent control and renter's rights (and maybe that's a bit fucking disingenuous), I got an "ah, nevertheless" response because that's the mindset of 'experts' you are dealing with. The guy I spoke to ran a department at a large federal housing agency, so that's who's making policy. Good luck getting any positive legislation through that.

Rant fuck it post.

[TrenterPercenter]

I reckon the "equity"/value argument is a bit of a canard. If everyone's house is worth more, then ok on paper you've gained wealth but what are you going to do, sell your house? And even if you do, anywhere you buy will be just as expensive so you're back at square one unless you plan to be a homeless millionaire. It's a zero sum game.

This isn't true, it's a market and people can buy in and out of it at the right time and different places rise and fall, people also downsize or release the equity and fuck off somewhere warm and cheap to die.  Also what obviously a lot of people do it release equity from house prices and invest it back into the house so that it is worth more than the market rate when they sell - people literally build whole businesses around flipping houses this way.  Even after all this equity is an increasing amount and debt interest is a decreasing amount, rents only really go up (despite the loan to price ratio), mortgages go down which means you pay less "rent" or have more liquidity, pay your mortgage off and you've got your entire wage going into your account to live off, pay rent and this is always coming out.

[Ferris]

I suppose you could own a house somewhere expensive if you were lucky enough to get into the market when it was affordable, then move to salford and cash-in but how feasible is that for Joe bloggs? It doesn't fluctuate up and down, it's fluctuated up at an increasing rate for decades. The best time to buy is 40 years ago and it's not going to improve if you bide your time 6 months.

Add in - most people are struggling to enter the market full stop, so what happens to them? There's no "right time" option for them, they're just fucked. Move somewhere cheap or rent forever, sorry mate should have had parents who bought a load of houses 20 years before you were born, hard cheddar.

Edit: to add, I don't disagree with you trenter that housing is a good way for people to build equity as the system exists today. I just think that's bad and morally wrong.

[Sebastian Cobb]

mate, you were going on about "having pets" and "putting a nail in the wall"?

No, as mentioned my dad lives in a council house by choice he believes in social housing and that houses shouldn't be assets because he is trenchant socialist. As am I, but I had an opportunity to buy a house because I worked my arse of didn't go on holiday and lived in cheap accommodation for well over a decade and thought why do I want to keep renting and giving my money away to a landlord? This is a failure of me to pull on the horse hair shirt of radical socialism, it's not because I am sacrificing my financial security on the wild unprofitable business of homeownership.

This has literally nothing to do with what you were originally saying.  We are now talking about housing as in the fundamental pillars socialism.  Making a personal choice to not buy a house as property is theft is a commendable position, telling people home ownership is actually financially worse than renting with the only benefits being your ability to change the wallpaper is insincere or dotty.

I essentially intended to convey several related points, and one slightly less related one:

Stability and right's to do what you like within your walls of shelter (this is what I meant by pets and nails) can be satisfied by other means than mortgages.

These can be satisfied in the immediate-term by improving renters' rights.

This is probably more beneficial to most people in the immediate term than them becoming homeowners.

If big lending is allowed and the barriers lowered then people will likely end up in mortgages they probably won't pay off so will essentially be paying forever, the benefits of these are questionable.

The last point is the one you are arguing against, however it's also the one I feel least significant. I don't really want to get sucked into defending it too much, since I don't think it's too important given the other points.

[Sebastian Cobb]

If you could flip a switch tomorrow and give the UK rental protections similar to mainland Europe then you'd largely provide the benefits of owning to everyone.

The system as-is (and I include Canada in that) will probably never do that because mainstream neoliberal economics is "rent control is bad, owning house = middle class = good" and the brainworms on display when you try and argue otherwise become quite striking.

Yes, and it feels like a collective delusion to be honest given it works quite well there. The thing is when you try to point that out people get very defensive, possibly because they've staked quite a lot of money in something and don't like being told there's working evidence of people managing fine without the whole thing.

One that really bugged me when being told I should buy was the fact I didn't really feel settled enough to. One overlooked advantage of renting is the relative freedom to fuck off, this is countered with "you can always sell", but it's me that has to shoulder all the administrative stress and hassle of doing so which is a hard thing to put into money however if we forced everyone to, I reckon I'd rate it at an order of magnitude more than the average person, because I find so totally unappealing. As it happens the arse fell out of where I lived and I know several people who have moved away and have begrudgingly become landlords because the alternative is negative equity.

[Buelligan]

As laudable as training yourself not to depend on hot running water is, it's not as universally enjoyed as one might imagine.

Training yourself to install a water-heater is possibly more laudable and certainly more enjoyable, that is certain.

[The Ombudsman]

FWIW, I rent and would love at some stage to be able to buy (unlikely). The only reason for this is the stability factor. I can then do what I want to and in the house without constantly wondering if the landlady is going to have to sell or if she's waiting for her son to want to move in or if she's going to need to move back in or just sell up. I've been given a no-fault 30 day notice and it's hell, absolute hell.

If we had better rights where this wasn't a possibility, then wanting to own would be far less important to me.

[TrenterPercenter]

Edit: to add, I don't disagree with you trenter that housing is a good way for people to build equity as the system exists today. I just think that's bad and morally wrong.

I think it is bad and morally wrong also.

Yes my dad as does a lot of my family live in council rented accommodation - this is a related but different matter you don't improve renters lot by telling people buying houses is terrible and worse than renting; it's the opposite that is the problem, homeownership is too financially beneficial.

My friend has just up-sticks from Cambridge where she was living in a tiny 2 bedroom house to move to a much nicer and cheaper house in Sheffield she has made herself some cash in the process.  This what is happening a lot in Birmingham now too London folk realising they can have much better quality of life buying a property in Birmingham on the negative side this pushes up house prices (a particular problem when you factor in London waiting) but on positive brings in money to the local economy.

People want to buy their own homes I don't think that is going anywhere soon, Corbyn owns his own house even, no one has come up with feasible solution to a complete social housing system, I mean how would it even work in reality? It is one of those things where complete efficiency might actually impact quite negatively on people.

[Zero Gravitas]

Training yourself to install a water-heater is possibly more laudable and certainly more enjoyable, that is certain.

Why don't I just primitively install an electric shower and fill the cafetiere from that?

Sadly I have so little time what with my night classes in shoemaking.

[Buelligan]

If it makes you more comfortable to think of it like that.  If that makes you feel closer to understanding other people and their lives, enjoy it.

The people who do plumbing, wiring, fixing computers and making cheese are real people too.

[TrenterPercenter]

These can be satisfied in the immediate-term by improving renters' rights.

yes but these are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things lots of renters have these rights already and renters can seek properties that allow these things.  I pales in comparison to having your rent increased out of the blue, not having your utilities fixed or being evicted (and the many financial benefits of equity).

If big lending is allowed and the barriers lowered then people will likely end up in mortgages they probably won't pay off so will essentially be paying forever, the benefits of these are questionable.

I'm arguing against the banality of your framing of homeownership, but also what you are saying doesn't make any sense to what the article is about.  They have got rid of a stress test incase interests rates rise.  This was put in place after the GFC as a means of being a shock absorber to home foreclosures it just means people that couldn't afford to pay £179 pcm extra per month can now obtain the same amount of loan as those that could before the article literally says this effects about 35k people; these people will be at an increased risk of foreclosure, that is all there is no extensions of term that is what happened before to reduce the monthly payment and meet the threshold for the stress test.

[bgmnts]

Why don't I just primitively install an electric shower and fill the cafetiere from that?

Sadly I have so little time what with my night classes in shoemaking.

When the world ends I reckon cobblers will be the new premier league footballers, but with a useful skill.

[Sebastian Cobb]

yes but these are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things lots of renters have these rights already and renters can seek properties that allow these things.  I pales in comparison to having your rent increased out of the blue, not having your utilities fixed or being evicted (and the many financial benefits of equity).

I consider preventing these things an extension of "renters' rights".

[Sebastian Cobb]

When the world ends I reckon cobblers will be the new premier league footballers, but with a useful skill.

Travelling knife-sharpeners.

[Zetetic]

I consider preventing these things an extension of "renters' rights".

That's not very nice to landlords, is it?

[TrenterPercenter]

I consider preventing these things an extension of "renters' rights".

Yes so do I.  You seem to be ignoring the fact I am saying these things not you, you were going on about pets and painting, these are things that I was pointing out are real benefits of home ownership.

YOU'VE LOST THE NEWS SEB!

[Ferris]

That's not very nice to landlords, is it?

Googling "German rental laws" gives the top result as a landlord forum with the thread title "Germany is depressingly pro-tenant".

Loved that. Why can't we just grind them into dust under our heels, like everywhere else the ungrateful bastards?

[Ferris]

I think it is bad and morally wrong also.

Sorry yeah, I didn't mean to imply you didn't.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Yes so do I.  You seem to be ignoring the fact I am saying these things not you, you were going on about pets and painting, these are things that I was pointing out are real benefits of home ownership.

YOU'VE LOST THE NEWS SEB!

My main intended argument was "a lot of the perceived benefits of home ownership can be provided in a well controlled rental market but for some reason a lot of brits don't seem willing to accept this, pushing ownership as the only solution". I feel you're illustrating it.

[TrenterPercenter]

Sorry yeah, I didn't mean to imply you didn't.

No worries I think it's all got confused and there is one person, as usual, to blame here....

...the fucking Guardian.

[Zero Gravitas]

The people who do plumbing, wiring, fixing computers and making cheese are real people too.

They're WHAT!?

Seriously though, even the whey separators? They're shit on my turd's shoe.

[Ferris]

I'm amazed there's any back and forth at all considering everyone here basically agrees this system is bad and wants fixing.

[Ferris]

They're WHAT!?

Seriously though, even the whey separators? They're shit on my turd's shoe.

I got big into cheese-making about 6 months ago, I can make a mozzarella that'll knock your socks off (not literally). Make some 58% hydration dough the night before with 00 flour, add crushed tomatoes from the garden, and chunks of the home-made mozz, pop it in the barry-homeowner-tier gas pizza oven and make all your friends hate what you've become. Can't put a price on that.

[Blumf]

Googling "German rental laws" gives the top result as a landlord forum with the thread title "Germany is depressingly pro-tenant".

Germany has a weird thing with having to pay the estate agent to view a property you're thinking of renting.

[Zero Gravitas]

I got big into cheese-making about 6 months ago, I can make a mozzarella that'll knock your socks off (not literally). Make some 58% hydration dough the night before with 00 flour, add crushed tomatoes from the garden, and chunks of the home-made mozz, pop it in the barry-homeowner-tier gas pizza oven and make all your friends hate what you've become. Can't put a price on that.

Are you okay? Sounds like a very advanced situation.

Germany has a weird thing with having to pay the estate agent to view a property you're thinking of renting.

And you've got to bring your own kitchen, not worth it.

[TrenterPercenter]

My whole argument was "a lot of the perceived benefits of home ownership can be provided in a well controlled rental market but for some reason a lot of brits don't seem willing to accept this, pushing ownership as the only solution". I feel you're illustrating it.

The advantages of homeownership in this system are not the same as the advantages of renting in your imagined one.  I'm talking about the reality that we live in, no one has said ownership was the only solution, just that in this system is, whilst bad and morally wrong, financially beneficial (which is not a controversial correlation to find).

I think if you want people make a moral choice about something then you shouldn't a) lie to them about the advantages of not making that moral choice and b) not diminish that moral choice by making out it is as beneficial as not making that choice.

Right put that aside, you've worn me down here and your edging toward this exaggerating stuff people slip into (no one has said ownership is the only solution), we all know the solution here is to build more council houses, impose rent controls and create incentives for landlords to provide longterm tenancies.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I think if you want people make a moral choice about something then you shouldn't a) lie to them about the advantages of not making that moral choice and b) not diminish that moral choice by making out it is as beneficial as not making that choice.

I take umbrage with this, I never told people they shouldn't be owning houses, I certainly don't believe I presented it as a moral choice, more that people should not believe that ownership is the only solution to what is chiefly a shortfall of rights and regulation, because this means people can rightly, ask for these rights NOW (while still saving if they wish) which will benefit people who probably will have no chance of owning, or younger people who won't be in the position to own yet, or people who move around a lot etc etc.

[TrenterPercenter]

I take umbrage with this, I never told people they shouldn't be owning houses, I certainly don't believe I presented it as a moral choice, more people should  not believe that ownership is the only solution to what is chiefly a shortfall of rights and regulation, because this means people can rightly, ask for these rights which will benefit people who probably will have no chance of owning, or younger people who won't be in the position to own yet, or people who move around a lot etc etc.

See you are confused.  You never said people shouldn't be owning houses and I never said homeownership is the only solution.  You made some dodgy arguments about the personal financial benefits of homeownership specifically.

Your house going up doesn't really make much difference because nearly all the other houses in the country have gone up as well. What it does mean that someone today in a similar position to you when you bought it will now find it harder to buy a similar house though and their time paying mortgages will be longer. Eventually we'll be at the point where lending periods approach life-expectancy diminishing the benefit of paying off a mortgage and living rent free, do you see?

You then took the line that people (me) were saying home ownership shouldn't be the only option which is not something anyone (me include) has said.  They are related arguments in that obviously the reason most people want to own their home is because of these benefits.

[Zetetic]

I think it's basically fine not to spend your time telling people about the financial benefits of unethical and cognitively hazardous investments.

(Of course, all unethical and financially beneficial investments are cognitively hazardous.)

[Ferris]

I think it's basically fine not to spend your time telling people about the financial benefits of unethical and cognitively hazardous investments.

(Of course, all unethical and financially beneficial investments are cognitively hazardous.)

That's why I put it all in Bitcoin.