premium bonds.

[Asian Boss]

Premium Bonds are for queers and nonces. "I've got my money in the Post Office because it's safe and I'm mummy's little bender".

Grow some balls and get yourself some Etherium.

I'm full queer, but I bought Etherium ages ago so that rules me out of the nonce bit.

I didn't win anything on t'bonds this month.

Good call. I wish I had.

I bought Northern Rock as it plummeted. Clawed most of it back on Barclays. Then ran away and didn't play any more.

[Count Steer]

I think they're having difficulty squeezing the £1M into my account, the win money hasn't arrived yet.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I occasionally play about with money that I can afford to lose, but my primary means of achieving financial security is the old fashioned thing of working for a living and getting paid.

Although I've 'made' quite a bit in investments (compared to how much I've put in) strictly speaking I haven't actually made any money! I'm not actually sure how much I'm "up" off the top of my head, but I've also not sold anything, so in a very real sense I've not made anything at all yet.

For me its all about the long term, just a better way of saving for retirement or whatever. As I've said before I have zero plans to retire early or anything like that, but if you get to 55 and you decide that's what you want, you can't go BACK and start making provision can you?

Worst case I'll just buy a couple of Ferraris or something

[Yorick]

I fundamentally disagree with property as a money making venture when working people can't afford houses, so that's out for me.

All my tenants liked me. I gave them a nice house at an affordable price. I made my money on the property appreciation.

[Taipan]

Spread betting FTW!

[Mussels]

All my tenants liked me. I gave them a nice house at an affordable price. I made my money on the property appreciation.

It's only my personal viewpoint.

If landlords weren't buying up houses and inflating prices then tenants could buy their own house, and surely that's a pretty fundamental thing that a country would want it's citizens to have, their own home without a lead weight around their neck.

You don't build a happy and thriving country by getting people to sink up to their eyes in debt for food and shelter.
I'm no socialist but I'm entirely opposed to the Tory dream of a debt to keep the working man always one step away from security.

What's the alternative, everyone renting council owned houses?

[v8-powered]

All my tenants liked me. I gave them a nice house at an affordable price. I made my money on the property appreciation.

It's only my personal viewpoint.

If landlords weren't buying up houses and inflating prices then tenants could buy their own house, and surely that's a pretty fundamental thing that a country would want it's citizens to have, their own home without a lead weight around their neck.

You don't build a happy and thriving country by getting people to sink up to their eyes in debt for food and shelter.
I'm no socialist but I'm entirely opposed to the Tory dream of a debt to keep the working man always one step away from security.

I have a 2nd home that I rent out but in my defense I owned it before met my wife so wasn't purchased as a buy-to-rent.
I don't feel any greed in taking the income - its a big house in a pretty decent area, the family that rent it couldn't afford to buy anything near it. I have also left it open for then to purchase from me if/when their circumstances change.
By the time I've paid tax etc on the rental yield it really doesn't make me an awful lot at the end of year...

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

What's the alternative, everyone renting council owned houses?

Why not a return to the 1970s system of the people that want to and can afford to buy houses and other people can rent private or council, my family lived in a council house from 1974 to the mid 90s, nearly everyone on the estate worked, people looked after the houses, it's in the 80s that council estates became bad, when you had to have a sob story to get one, and they became sink holes for the work avoiding scum who were encouraged by the system to breed children they couldn't afford that no one needed.

Went off on a bit of a rant there, but you get the idea.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Does living in a council house improve or harm your chances of winning on the bonds?

[Mussels]

What's the alternative, everyone renting council owned houses?

Why not a return to the 1970s system of the people that want to and can afford to buy houses and other people can rent private or council, my family lived in a council house from 1974 to the mid 90s, nearly everyone on the estate worked, people looked after the houses, it's in the 80s that council estates became bad, when you had to have a sob story to get one, and they became sink holes for the work avoiding scum who were encouraged by the system to breed children they couldn't afford that no one needed.

Went off on a bit of a rant there, but you get the idea.

I think they started off well but councils ruined them by flooding them with bad neighbours* meaning decent people didn't want to live there.
* I'm thinking of the London slum clearances when city councils moved their worst people out to the suburbs and turned nice places into sink estates.

[slowsider]

What's the alternative, everyone renting council owned houses?

Why not a return to the 1970s system of the people that want to and can afford to buy houses and other people can rent private or council, my family lived in a council house from 1974 to the mid 90s, nearly everyone on the estate worked, people looked after the houses, it's in the 80s that council estates became bad, when you had to have a sob story to get one, and they became sink holes for the work avoiding scum who were encouraged by the system to breed children they couldn't afford that no one needed.

Went off on a bit of a rant there, but you get the idea.

I think they started off well but councils ruined them by flooding them with bad neighbours* meaning decent people didn't want to live there.
* I'm thinking of the London slum clearances when city councils moved their worst people out to the suburbs and turned nice places into sink estates.

Slum clearances in the 70s??

I put it down to the right to buy - anyone with a bit of aspiration bought at a discount and moved out. Sort of a 'bright flight'.

[Scotsrich]

My parents were brought up in a council house as were most folk I knew.

My ex and I thought we had won the lottery when we got ours (she still lives there)

It seemed such a simple and straightforward way back then. Get your house, pay rent and live in it for the rest of your life if that’s what you wanted to.

For the less financially endowed it should still be the default option. The rent may be subsidised by the council but that’s the same council that will be paying out housing benefit to the exact same people.

Why pay hundreds of pounds a month to a single parent to live in private accommodation when you can build a council house and house them for the same money.

[Mussels]

Why not a return to the 1970s system of the people that want to and can afford to buy houses and other people can rent private or council, my family lived in a council house from 1974 to the mid 90s, nearly everyone on the estate worked, people looked after the houses, it's in the 80s that council estates became bad, when you had to have a sob story to get one, and they became sink holes for the work avoiding scum who were encouraged by the system to breed children they couldn't afford that no one needed.

Went off on a bit of a rant there, but you get the idea.

I think they started off well but councils ruined them by flooding them with bad neighbours* meaning decent people didn't want to live there.
* I'm thinking of the London slum clearances when city councils moved their worst people out to the suburbs and turned nice places into sink estates.

Slum clearances in the 70s??

I put it down to the right to buy - anyone with a bit of aspiration bought at a discount and moved out. Sort of a 'bright flight'.

It might be different in parts of the country, I remember in the early 80s council estates were looked down on and nobody wanted to live there. Some I remember have become much nicer places since right to buy drove the welfare tenants elsewhere.

My parents were brought up in a council house as were most folk I knew.

My ex and I thought we had won the lottery when we got ours (she still lives there)

It seemed such a simple and straightforward way back then. Get your house, pay rent and live in it for the rest of your life if that’s what you wanted to.

For the less financially endowed it should still be the default option. The rent may be subsidised by the council but that’s the same council that will be paying out housing benefit to the exact same people.

Why pay hundreds of pounds a month to a single parent to live in private accommodation when you can build a council house and house them for the same money.

Ignoring councils selling off their land for quick money I expect private landlords cost the council a lot less than owning their own stock.

[Count Steer]

Been having a dig around home ownership/tenancy stats. I thought France had higher tenancy rates than here but they're about the same at 63-64% owned. Highest is Romania at 96% Lowest (obvs) is N Korea at 0% but the other low ones are Fiji (10), Nigeria (25) and UAE (28).

Germany is roughly 50/50 but I know they have a lot of protected rents which keeps the market sensible. Here the whole economy seems to be built on rising house prices which means rising rents.

Wonder why Romania is so high. Anyone got any ideas?

[Count Steer]

Been having a dig around home ownership/tenancy stats. I thought France had higher tenancy rates than here but they're about the same at 63-64% owned. Highest is Romania at 96% Lowest (obvs) is N Korea at 0% but the other low ones are Fiji (10), Nigeria (25) and UAE (28).

Germany is roughly 50/50 but I know they have a lot of protected rents which keeps the market sensible. Here the whole economy seems to be built on rising house prices which means rising rents.

Wonder why Romania is so high. Anyone got any ideas?

My stab in the dark is housing is more affordable in Romania? Lack of outside 'investors' perhaps means local homes for local people?
UAE because most of the population are on work visas, no work visa and you have to leave, so many people don't want to own a home if they have no right to permanent residency. Fiji? I'm not sure, maybe because it's still very tribal and the Chiefs probably own a lot of the land, when I was there I had to ask permission from a local Chief to go spear fishing in the sea off the front of his lands, otherwise I'd be in big trouble, same in Samoa.

It's fair to say that the top 4 are likely to be quite cheap (Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia) but then there are a few surprises not much further down the list ie Singapore 88%, Oman 83% (I suppose those 2 have something in common).

Home ownership is generally high in communist or former communist states which is a surprise at first but I suspect, if homes weren't state owned, individuals profiting from them was not looked upon favourably (China, Cuba, Vietnam 90%, Russia and former USSR states are generally high).

PS My PB win arrived. £25 so the forum Panigale will have to wait until next month.

[Cousin Jack]

What's the alternative, everyone renting council owned houses?

Back in the 50s that was a realistic dream. The local-to-me council estate was superb when compared to most of the houses in the village, including the one I lived in. My parents would have had one in a flash, but our rented house wasn't bad enough to be demolished.

Poor management by Councils, together with no money from Government to maintain them have totally killed that dream.

[slowsider]

Don't forget the ideological imperative behind selling them off. People with mortgages are more compliant to economic policies that affect interest rates than rent-payers.

[Horse]

Don't forget the ideological imperative behind selling them off. People with mortgages are more compliant to economic policies that affect interest rates than rent-payers.

There was interesting sequence of events:
- sell off council houses to owners
- remove joint mortgage tax relief
- remove / reduce tax relief

So the government had a short-term initial increase in cash, with long-term increase from tax payments too.

Then councils had limited housing stock to rent.

[Cousin Jack]

Don't forget the ideological imperative behind selling them off. People with mortgages are more compliant to economic policies that affect interest rates than rent-payers.

Everyone likes to blame Maggie, but I believe it was much more complex than that, and the problems started long before Maggie arrived on the scene. Her rather dogmatic assumption that privatisation of everything was good didn't solve the problems, and created some new ones.

[Count Steer]

Don't forget the ideological imperative behind selling them off. People with mortgages are more compliant to economic policies that affect interest rates than rent-payers.

There was interesting sequence of events:
- sell off council houses to owners
- remove joint mortgage tax relief
- remove / reduce tax relief

So the government had a short-term initial increase in cash, with long-term increase from tax payments too.

Then councils had limited housing stock to rent.

...and couldn't raise cash ie borrow to build more and, of course, it was the best ones that sold leaving them with the ones no-one wanted to buy (or live in except in extremis) so we end up where we are today.