Sir, – I have a question for Geoff Scargill (February 26th), who queries the compassion of a renter (Adrian Mulryan, February 25th). Where is the compassion for the people who did everything right and are now trying to “provide a long-term housing solution for themselves and their families”? The ones who are caught in a rental trap due to the refusal to free up property that others aren’t paying for?
Where is the compassion for those who will be on the wrong end of public sector cuts forced on us due to the small number of mortgage-holders who continue to live beyond their means?
Mr Scargill inadvertently makes an excellent suggestion which should suit both sides of the argument. Those who can no longer afford their current home should be afforded the opportunity to buy a house in a council estate. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – “We have to recognise that in the midst of Celtic tiger property hysteria most buyers acted not of out greed or stupidity, but out of a desire to provide a long-term housing solution for themselves and their families” writes Geoff Scargill (February 26th) in reply to my earlier letter.
We also need to recognise the all-too-silent majority of taxpayers, who put the long-term financial security of their family ahead of equity release for that new jeep, the premium house or the leveraged property portfolio. When one tries to have a rational debate on housing (pre or post bubble) one is generally met with a wall of emotion or debate driven by delusions of enlightenment.
Debt forgiveness requires consequences. This is a matter of equity for those who sat out the bubble in council accommodation, emigrated or bought/rented within their means (possibly at the expense of a two-hour commute), are now told their path to better housing is blocked.
Not only is it blocked but prudent taxpayers, having bailed out the banks, are now paying to keep others in a standard of lifestyle they themselves cannot afford.
I am a compassionate man. I have supported efforts to allow time for people to get their affairs in order – five years now and running. However, enough – the needs of the many are being held back by an emotive debate on continued forbearance for the reckless or unfortunate few. – Yours, etc,