Live in the UK? Want to have a family? Go for it but only if you are old, have family money or are irresponsible. #RentTrap

About 30 years ago a trend started. 

Banks started lending larger income multiples. As they did amount people were able to pay for their properties went up. So property prices went up.

With property prices going up the banks had the confidence to lend higher multiples so property went up more.

You do not have to be clever to buy an asset that is going up in value. You just have to have the money to get started.

The next step it the buy to let market. Re-mortgage a house that has gone up in value and then use that money as deposit on another house.

The above required no education. Just opportunity and inclination. And has produced many millionaires. The risk they took was that the housing market could crash and they would loose everything. If your 40-50 and had some money back when it was a sure thing you were a fool for not doing it.

'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction' by securing a continuous income owning someone else's  home, you secure a continuous drain on theirs.

How do you set a rent price?
Anyone in sales knows you set the price according to what the market will pay. With not enough properties available for sale at income multiples which have been at least partially reigned in people have no choice but to pay, in many cases their entire full time take home salary on the rent of their family home. That is at these artificially low interest rates, so to purchase right now introduces a massive risk and needs a large deposit. Do we wait for the crash or pay extortionate rents?

Why didn't property prices come down?


Take into account that many people bought their actual home at these inflated rates and were perhaps paying interest only, and add that the banks have less than 10% of the capital they lend out and most is lent against property,  If the market were to drop to where it should, it would make sense for the new home-owners to become bankrupt and start fresh. Then the banks would become insolvent. A house price reduction of 20% would trigger an historic economic event in the UK. One we would ALL feel, unlike the 2008 version.


How do young couples without family money get  out of the #RentTrap?


Couples on average - 50k incomes trying not to be a burden.
If they are able to get the deposit and multiples together when they both work 40 hour weeks, praying that interest rates do not go up.

While getting a roof over their head is phase 1 of the path of life they now do not have the spare £1000 / month for childcare and can not afford to take maternity past 3 months let let alone move into a property with a another box room. At 35 they bite the bullet and try for a baby anyway unless there is an inheritance

Family money
Varying levels of help but a 30% deposit without interest fixes a lot of problems.


Couples on low - average incomes
The sums will never add up. If they do not want to share a room in a shared house then they will have a better quality of life with children on the scene. Healthier to have them young anyway. Have a family on benefits and then have the right to buy your council house at 25% of value when the kids grow up. #RentTrap is the responsible option, but why be responsible when people are voting for those who profit from your societies injustice?

Can't we cut out the middle man. Self build?

My in-laws were once invited to purchase plots for a new community. They then commissioned the builders and build a home according to certain specifications.

Our new build development market is all tied up. 

In the UK land with planning permission is costs 10x or more what is is costs without, and even that is more than land is worth as going concern, the value is there just in case it gets planning permission. Just keep applying.

So either you speculatively purchase a small holding you can not live on, so you have to have wealth already, or you are still going to be paying over the odds.

Even then in the UK we like to have large development companies building 100s of houses. The reason is it simplifies the infrastructure part of the equation  Who pays for the new schools and bridges.

The developers mission is to make as much money for themselves as possible. And I do not blame them for that. They are a business after all. They also have the wealth to make the development happen. Taking the council's to appeal or having the time to maintain a good relations, or fill the council with your brethren.

So property prices are artificially inflated because of landlords, rents are high because shelter is a necessity. Developers and land speculators can realise obscene profits on land value changes because of the market price to build cost ratio to they agressivly purchase any bit of land they can, run it down and apply for planning permission while lobbying government. These costs and their excessive profit saddles another generation with additional mortgage debt which, over 30 years of interest or rent, will be more like triple that figure not being disposable income, retirement float or first step for their grand kids. What is the solution?

Make sure surplus developer profits go into affordable housing.

I was at a council meeting last night where the council told me that they negotiated the terms of the planning permission with a large developer to meet their infrastructure needs and wants.

They did not look at the profitability of the scheme at all. 

They do these days include 'affordable housing'. This can can take takes several routes for the developer but in this case was for sale to the council's representative at 60% of the sale value which is widely accepted to represent cost.

For a development of this size the on green field the amount of affordable housing would be 40%. Because the developer is being called a strategic partner this is 35%. And for reasons unknown they were allowed to negotiate a special deal to make this 27% with another 8% being built off site. When where? Surely that would have it's own AH quota too.

I do not have all the numbers to make sure that the developers are likely to make a healthy 10-20% profit at best and use the surplus to fund affordable housing. But it would appear the council do not either. According to my sums if there were 50% affordable housing the development would still be a go.

I think developers are having a tougher time of it, but they did grow fat having an easy time of it. The council who represent the community give the planning permission and support the hyper indebted families. Either strike a competitive deal or say no. And if we have to build houses because of government policy then compulsory purchase the farms. Grant yourself planning permission and sell the plots to developers at market value. Much simpler. The sales money going to infrastructure and affordable homes.

Affordable housing is not fair. Free ride for the lazy what about me, I paid for my house.

No it is not fair as it is. But it can be.

We want professional people in their mid 20's without family money to have a couple of children if they want to. Lets make affordable housing assist young families cash flow at this point. Not a gift. Well a little one.

Lets put the affordable homes value in an asset pool. It's purpose to encourage responsible families facing the impossible to stay responsible.

The council can sell some of their affordable homes at full price to purchase not only other properties to help distribute people who need affordable homes, they can use the money purchase stakes in properties that  young couples expecting a baby currently own. The young couples will benefit from a very low interest rate on that stake that the community still have an asset that may, hopefully not for 15 years, appreciate.

This should be means tested and the offer extended to a family home up to 3 bedrooms the family wishes to purchase  then, once the second child is in primary school and the young family has been supported in it's desire to have two children but should now be able to supplement it's income by at least £400 / month the facility can be passed on to others.

Now if we had a nationalised bank this would be a lot easier. We guarantee against our own part owned properties.


At the same time private home owners sell the family home with the memories etc and downscale into a property that meets their needs often to free up cash, we have to expect the same of those we are supporting, but not the cash.

Ideally everyone would have some cash from downscaling. With a bigger affordable homes scheme using means tested part ownership there would be lots more people taking pride in an appreciating asset.

If I were a wealthy land owner I would not be saying this.

I'd like to think I would. I say this because I actually speak to people on middle incomes about their finances. I did have some family money. I do not think I could be where I am today without it 

This would be fine were there no hardship caused by property wealth. It has been allowed to go too far. Average earners living in the UK, born since 1989 trying to stay near their family and friends have no hope.

Opportunists who had a spare £50k in 1998 need do nothing to earn more than any nurse or teacher.

Do not get me wrong. If I had a spare £1m I would be buying farm land on the outskirts of an expanding town or flats in one getting a new rail link with a view to renting them out indefinitely  Packaged in an offshore trust so that my children will not incur inheritance tax. It is a easy way to stay rich. In fact it is the only guaranteed way.

But since each one of my £1m will cause 6 families to struggle I would also campaign for and vote for these revenues to be taxed aggressively and tenants to have the '#RightToBuyPrivate'

Right to Buy Private would be where by after two years the tenant has the right to purchase the property at the midway value between the value when they moved in and the value now. Any fun and games the landlords use to avoid / manipulate it should be quashed.

This should be the equation we use for the Right to Buy council houses too. It's simply not a good way to run a society with a vested interest to be irresponsible.

The cost of shelter in the UK has become a private blackmail by deed. Caused not by cruel individuals but by market forces. It is the role of government to resolve this with legislation.

With the above in place my £1m might not be best placed in speculative land or homes near a new school or railway. They would stand a comparable chance of growing if invested in a business servicing people who confidence of a nest egg, disposable incomes, and the time to enjoy it offline. They might grow if I provided a service, making a modest profit while getting 4 year tenants on the housing ladder, rather than being my serfs for life.

Will this make the general uk work force work less hard. Possibly. With the threat of homelessness attached to a shorter working week needed to pay for necessities. But energy is going to have to cost more, so we need the slack.

The Camerons of this world see only busy ants who would be unhappy or mischievous if they we do not have a rod up their back. Are they mistaken?

Improved quality of life should be the end goal.

'Quality Of Life' is a balance. It includes work, play, family and a good dose of bugger all.

The GDP speculative banking land renting economy comes at the expense of Quality of Life, the most important metric there is.


Most MP's are Landlords. They earn more than most without doing ANY work. Be a SMART-voter.org and ignore their lies.

Why MPs are paid so little and why something must change

An MP was never supposed to be a full time role. They are supposed to be a trusted working member of a local community who have offered themselves up for the privilege of helping those around them not someone who lives there as part of a political strategy.

Like with the hours families work in the economy. The role of an MP has raced to the bottom.

If a family is willing to work 100 hours / week for a modest lifestyle and it is allowed to then that is what low earners will have to do to compete.

If a political candidate is able to work 40 MP hours / week and has financial backing then that is what all political candidates must do to compete.

This excludes them from being what they are supposed to be, in touch members of the local community.

It also requires that they have a conflict of interest. A duty of care to the people who financed them or the other profit making organisations they are a part of.

So it is time to accept that the role of an MP has been allowed to change and as we learn from our mistakes we must change the game rules.

There seems to be only 3 options.

1. Pay rise so that an MP is a well paid full time, time tracked executive job. Lets match it to a head teacher. £140k for example. But with allowances no different than a school head teacher. No second home, modest accommodation provided. They can pay their own travel in and out of London and visit less frequently seeking council from their constituents.The further from London you are the more £140k means so it ballences out.

I'd like to see more MPs voting from home with their constituents giving them last minute encouragement not a whip. Public speaking opportunities should be part of their ideology and freely given, not something for sale commanding figures that could justify loyalty in parliament. Non-executive positions and directorships are not only areas of conflict but provide unfair competitive advantage as they have access to MP sentiment and were serving us when they got it.

2. Regulations are put in place so that money factors little in political success. 
Some ideas. Limit political campaigning to state funded circulations and events that give each candidate equal exposure. No door stepping or personal fliers.

3. Random. Yes a jury of 260 people deliberating. Can we pass laws without parties? Much easier to get a majority of 260 people to eventually agree democratically on one colour than three people who are disagreeing on principle.

Will there be some people obviously not suited to the roll? Yes. But they will do less harm than a clever crony.

My personal preference is in order is 321. But it can not continue like this.

If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics put in your calendar 28th August to visit www.GoodEgg.org.uk.