Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FranticMind)
    Homeless people don't 'bid' for houses. They either go for state support, try to rent bedsits.

    Homeless people generally have very little money. Even if house prices were £10k a home they WOULDN'T HAVE ONE.

    They don't give a damn, most of them have much more significant troubles than housing.

    HOMELESSNESS IS NOT THE PROBLEM ITS THE RESULT OF A PROBLEM.

    Geez why does nobody get that...



    Lack of jobs, mental instability, drug addictions, crime.
    WHAT?

    How the @@@@ can you say that.

    Did you not hear about the report recently that alot of people are one pay cheque from being homeless?

    What makes you think you can make that judgement?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    What's wrong with being a rich person looking to get richer at the necessary expense of a considerably less wealthy person? Nothing much..
    Implying all landlords are rich.
    (Hint: mortgages, yay!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would say your average landlord ids richer than your average tenant.yes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FranticMind)
    Homeless people don't 'bid' for houses. They either go for state support, try to rent bedsits.

    Homeless people generally have very little money. Even if house prices were £10k a home they WOULDN'T HAVE ONE.

    They don't give a damn, most of them have much more significant troubles than housing.

    HOMELESSNESS IS NOT THE PROBLEM ITS THE RESULT OF A PROBLEM.

    Geez why does nobody get that...



    Lack of jobs, mental instability, drug addictions, crime.
    Homeless as in looking to own their own home, and having to rent in the meantime because landlords have driven up house prices and outbid them. There are the street homeless too, but I don't see how buying to rent is helping that either.


    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    does that not just highlight the need for people to lower their desire for convenient locations and be open to looking elsewhere?
    There are quite a few places where I wouldn't mind building my own home (it wouldn't be at all luxurious, of course), but there are laws against that sort of thing. Plus you've got resistance from rural areas against building more homes. Sure, I could probably get away with having a home in the middle of nowhere where the police don't bother going, but that wouldn't be so much inconvenient as it would be fatal. No caravans either, you need a fixed address these days.



    i made some reference to this in a previous post
    to make an arrangement with the landlord to gain some ownership of the house for an agreed upon payment scheme. im not an expert but that sounds ideal regarding long term living.

    but that doesnt necessarily mean there is something immoral regarding the plain landlord/tenant arrangement. renting is intended for short term living is it not? which i find nothing wrong with. the greyer area is long term living (which renting isnt intentionally for)
    How long do people rent for before buying their own home? Estimates of age are around 30-40 for first time buyers, and this is increasing. That's a long time to be renting, and the money you spend there would buy a big chunk of a house.

    Landlords won't agree to sign over a percentage of the property to their tenants, because they (currently) don't have to. The tenants are the ones needing places to live, and you need only look at the number of unoccupied properties to see that landlords are happy to let the property go empty than miss out on ripping off homeless people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's an unethical system that allows it to happen.

    Although not all landlords are immoral in their intentions.

    As a rent payer, I think it's a disgrace that my money is essentially going into a bottomless pit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtlasCanTakeIt)
    I think it's an unethical system that allows it to happen.

    Although not all landlords are immoral in their intentions.

    As a rent payer, I think it's a disgrace that my money is essentially going into a bottomless pit.
    But you need somewhrre to live. So you must pay it. Such assign unfair system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. It helps many people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    There are quite a few places where I wouldn't mind building my own home (it wouldn't be at all luxurious, of course), but there are laws against that sort of thing. Plus you've got resistance from rural areas against building more homes. Sure, I could probably get away with having a home in the middle of nowhere where the police don't bother going, but that wouldn't be so much inconvenient as it would be fatal. No caravans either, you need a fixed address these days.
    i was thinking of searching for cheaper rented housing elsewhere but okay. There are laws against building a your own house? I understand land permission and safety etc but prevented from building your own house?

    How long do people rent for before buying their own home? Estimates of age are around 30-40 for first time buyers, and this is increasing. That's a long time to be renting, and the money you spend there would buy a big chunk of a house.

    Landlords won't agree to sign over a percentage of the property to their tenants, because they (currently) don't have to. The tenants are the ones needing places to live, and you need only look at the number of unoccupied properties to see that landlords are happy to let the property go empty than miss out on ripping off homeless people.
    That is true. Though the points being raised are mainly due to the outside circumstances rather than the concept of renting in general. the first paragraph is highlighting the result of the unfortunate state first time buyers will be in, such as larger students debts etc etc. but rented housing is still intended for short term, its just that more and more people will be looking to use it for long term due to this result. I go back to my sweet analogy whereby its not bad for the shopkeep to keep selling you the single sweets, its just unfortunate that the bulk could not be afforded. the other issue raised are landlords competing with homeowners regarding buying a (one of many) house, which is an issue with the landlord/company rather than with renting itself. there are various ways landlords can rip people off, this is another way.


    True. Perhaps with increasing issues with housing, there will be procedures in place to help resolve this in the future.
    I am not too sure about the last line however. remember the landlord is paying off he house after all, unless they have a huge chain/rich, they need tenants as much as the tenant needs the landlords house
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    i was thinking of searching for cheaper rented housing elsewhere but okay. There are laws against building a your own house? I understand land permission and safety etc but prevented from building your own house?
    But whatever you rent, it'd be cheaper paying the mortgage on the same property in an environment where fewer people are competing to buy it.

    And yes, those planning permissions are what I'm talking about, I can't just pick a bit of space in a field somewhere and build me my own home. It isn't that just everywhere convenient has been bought, but everywhere legal has been bought and 'indigenous' populations resist further building. I'm not saying you're prohibited from building your own house, but you can't get anywhere you're allowed to build it.



    That is true. Though the points being raised are mainly due to the outside circumstances rather than the concept of renting in general. the first paragraph is highlighting the result of the unfortunate state first time buyers will be in, such as larger students debts etc etc. but rented housing is still intended for short term, its just that more and more people will be looking to use it for long term due to this result.
    I don't follow what you're saying. It's a clear problem, with living becoming more and more expensive, and a group of people are acting in a way where they will try to maximise the cost of living, specifically affecting those who are short of money.

    I go back to my sweet analogy whereby its not bad for the shopkeep to keep selling you the single sweets, its just unfortunate that the bulk could not be afforded.
    Sweets are optional, having a place to live isn't. If I feel a sweetshop owner is ripping me off, I can just walk out, see if I can find somewhere cheaper, and if I can't then I'll do without. If I feel a landlord is ripping me off, and I know that landlords set their demands at the 'market rate', and they know that too, then there's nowhere else for me to go

    the other issue raised are landlords competing with homeowners regarding buying a (one of many) house, which is an issue with the landlord/company rather than with renting itself. there are various ways landlords can rip people off, this is another way.
    What is the distinction you're making? A landlord and renting (in their current forms) are inextricably linked.


    True. Perhaps with increasing issues with housing, there will be procedures in place to help resolve this in the future.
    I am not too sure about the last line however. remember the landlord is paying off he house after all, unless they have a huge chain/rich, they need tenants as much as the tenant needs the landlords house
    The landlord will generally be rich. At least, they'll be richer than the typical first time buyer who will be 30-40, who are the people they're outbidding then taking the rent money from.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannydoy)
    For you to buy a property to make money when another person is going to live there and pay you money (into a black hole, paying off the owners mortgage in many instances) Then when that tenant leaves they have nothing, but the owner might have half a house paid off. How is that fair?
    The same applies to any service-providing business. The person who has a lot of capital to start off with sets up a business (e.g. Virgin Media), and provides a service to someone who pays a regular amount for use of that service (e.g. £50 per month for internet, phone and TV). Eventually, when the customer stops paying, the service will end, and they won't have anything physical in their hand to show for it. By that point, the business owner will have collected money to cover some of his start-up costs.

    Buying a house to rent is no different to investing your money into setting up a service-providing business, in principle. The only difference is that in this case, the service is putting a roof over someone's head, rather than providing them with internet, phone and TV.


    If you don't want your money "going into a bottomless pit", then the solution to that is to only ever buy physical objects, and never pay for ongoing services. Of course, that's not really feasible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The same applies to any service-providing business. The person who has a lot of capital to start off with sets up a business (e.g. Virgin Media), and provides a service to someone who pays a regular amount for use of that service (e.g. £50 per month for internet, phone and TV). Eventually, when the customer stops paying, the service will end, and they won't have anything physical in their hand to show for it. By that point, the business owner will have collected money to cover some of his start-up costs.

    Buying a house to rent is no different to investing your money into setting up a service-providing business, in principle. The only difference is that in this case, the service is putting a roof over someone's head, rather than providing them with internet, phone and TV.


    If you don't want your money "going into a bottomless pit", then the solution to that is to only ever buy physical objects, and never pay for ongoing services. Of course, that's not really feasible.
    There's a huge difference between housing and services, for a start you don't need phone, internet and TV to the extent that you need a home. On top of that, £50pm is nothing compared to what one has to pay in rent. Finally, the landlord gets to keep the house that their tenants have paid for at the end of it all, and continue to take money from them when the house is fully paid for - there isn't a start up cost because you can always sell it to get your cash back, and now we know there isn't even a risk because the government will step in to prop up the banks and house prices. The landlord can then take up more properties and profit from even more homeless people at a time.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to rent most of my life, may buy a house one day, but I prefer to rent.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    But whatever you rent, it'd be cheaper paying the mortgage on the same property in an environment where fewer people are competing to buy it.

    And yes, those planning permissions are what I'm talking about, I can't just pick a bit of space in a field somewhere and build me my own home. It isn't that just everywhere convenient has been bought, but everywhere legal has been bought and 'indigenous' populations resist further building. I'm not saying you're prohibited from building your own house, but you can't get anywhere you're allowed to build it.
    how can you be so sure? houses are still expensive things even with minimal competition. dont you also need to have a downpayment on top of the mortgage? whether something is cheap depends on the period of stay. to use rented housing as it is intended would mean it should be cheaper to rent.

    I don't follow what you're saying. It's a clear problem, with living becoming more and more expensive, and a group of people are acting in a way where they will try to maximise the cost of living, specifically affecting those who are short of money.

    Sweets are optional, having a place to live isn't. If I feel a sweetshop owner is ripping me off, I can just walk out, see if I can find somewhere cheaper, and if I can't then I'll do without. If I feel a landlord is ripping me off, and I know that landlords set their demands at the 'market rate', and they know that too, then there's nowhere else for me to go

    What is the distinction you're making? A landlord and renting (in their current forms) are inextricably linked.
    renting itself is not the immoral thing here. landlords taking advantage of the tenants is immoral, you could argue landlords creating a chain of houses by buying all the remaining houses is immoral, but system of letting others live in your house for a charge is not immoral.

    firstly, the item itself is irrelevant....the point was that they were not ripping you off, you just couldnt afford the more expensive bulk at the time (despite it technically being cheaper e.g. £5 for 10 sweets) but you could afford the £1 for 1 sweet at the time. theyre happy to give sell you the '£1 for 1' sweets but they arent obliged to give you 5 for free after your bought the 5th one for example. if you come in everyday with £1.50, youre not getting that bulk. they arent obliged to do anything. secondly, not all houses have the same rent, you could look for cheaper while you live in your current house. this doesnt necessarily make it more dangerous or mean living in the middle of nowhere.


    The landlord will generally be rich. At least, they'll be richer than the typical first time buyer who will be 30-40, who are the people they're outbidding then taking the rent money from.
    to some respect sure, but that doesnt mean most are 'cash burning a hole in their wallets' rich like that monopoly guy... imagine a location where there is minimal competition, where there is a house (still fairly expensive), you cant assume that the first time buyer can automatically get the house. they wouldnt be able to live in it if they couldnt, but they could if a person just starting out to become a landlord bought it (their first rented house) and charged a reasonable rent. this would most likely be cheaper than paying down payment/mortgage wouldnt it?

    this is one exception and im sure there are some others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    There's a huge difference between housing and services, for a start you don't need phone, internet and TV to the extent that you need a home. On top of that, £50pm is nothing compared to what one has to pay in rent. Finally, the landlord gets to keep the house that their tenants have paid for at the end of it all, and continue to take money from them when the house is fully paid for - there isn't a start up cost because you can always sell it to get your cash back, and now we know there isn't even a risk because the government will step in to prop up the banks and house prices. The landlord can then take up more properties and profit from even more homeless people at a time.
    my last bill (combining everything) was about 90 quid... my rent is 64...regardless, this is an irrelevant counter reply as the point is about paying for something which you wont get anything physical from... you can talk about what is needed more but the main difference is that the money you shell out happens to be going towards the very thing that is keeping a roof over your head. this is still the same as paying for a service like broadband, where with rent, its the same but you can touch what youre paying for (which is NOT the house but to LIVE in the house)...

    whether you spend one day in my rented house or 1 decade is irrelevant. if you were to rent a room for a day it would be inappropriate for you to demand a proportional fraction of the house just because you paid a days rent. the same if it were for a week. if you did this next year too,(living for a week) it would still be inappropriate... if you lived in the house two weeks in a row (where the weeks are adjacent to each other) , again it would still be inappropriate to demand for a proportional amount of ownership of the house.... by this reasoning it should stem that even if you continue to live in the house for week after week in a row for 10 years, it is still inappropriate....

    the fact that there is a possibility that the landlord can pay off their mortgage using your combined rent is irrelevant.the fact is that it is intended for a short term living period (that is where rented living is most ideal), you deciding to live in there for a long term does not change the fact that this is still a rented property, not your house.

    if you want the house you have to discuss with the landlord (which is possible), but even if that does not follow through, you are not homeless, you can choose to buy a house, live somewhere cheaper, live with your parents, or perhaps continue living in the rented house... the fact that they managed to pay the mortgage is nothing but an irrational justification. its not your property after a week of living there, its not your property after a decade of living there. you did not discuss with the landlord that you would be staying there for a decade and would then want a portion of house ownership... as a result, the landlord doesnt have any obligation to give you said portion of the house. he can treat you no differently to a person living there for a week.

    paying rent for long term living =/= landlord ripping you off
    paying rent for long term living = you ripping yourself off because thats not the point of rent. you dont treat a rented house like a home. you should be saving up for a home

    the rent is the price you pay to live in the house for x period of time. this is not to be confused with paying for x percentage of house ownership

    dont know if it is easy to misunderstand my views so i tried to be as clear as i could (ended up making this boring essay sorry )
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather rent my own place than be living with my parents as an adult, as many people seem to be doing now. Money down the drain? Hardly, you're paying for somewhere to live. Which is what is meant to happen, yes some people have a mortgage but if you can't afford it then you rent or leech off your parents. People these days want everything for nothing, that's the problem. When you rent a car for a week, is that money 'down the drain' because you don't keep the car after? Of course not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    how can you be so sure? houses are still expensive things even with minimal competition. dont you also need to have a downpayment on top of the mortgage? whether something is cheap depends on the period of stay. to use rented housing as it is intended would mean it should be cheaper to rent.
    I'm not sure, but it makes sense that if something is for sale, and you remove some people from the bidding who also happen to be the richest, the thing will sell for less. Could someone who can pay current rates of rent instead pay a mortgage at the lower rate? I very much think so.



    renting itself is not the immoral thing here. landlords taking advantage of the tenants is immoral, you could argue landlords creating a chain of houses by buying all the remaining houses is immoral, but system of letting others live in your house for a charge is not immoral.
    Individually there's little effect, yes, but collectively it's a huge problem. One person avoiding tax doesn't have much effect, but when a whole load of people do it we do have a problem.

    firstly, the item itself is irrelevant....the point was that they were not ripping you off, you just couldnt afford the more expensive bulk at the time (despite it technically being cheaper e.g. £5 for 10 sweets) but you could afford the £1 for 1 sweet at the time. theyre happy to give sell you the '£1 for 1' sweets but they arent obliged to give you 5 for free after your bought the 5th one for example. if you come in everyday with £1.50, youre not getting that bulk. they arent obliged to do anything.
    The item is relevant because of its use. Houses have special laws applicable to them, special loans available for buying them and so on, not least the importance of having a secure, fixed address. You can't just compare any old thing to a home.
    secondly, not all houses have the same rent, you could look for cheaper while you live in your current house. this doesnt necessarily make it more dangerous or mean living in the middle of nowhere.
    What am I doing living in my current house whilst looking? I'm still paying off my landlord's mortgage, helping him to buy another property that I could have bought otherwise. As for your main point, even if I turn down a property, there's someone else desperate who will pay the price - people need housing, there isn't enough of it, so those in control of the housing call the shots.


    to some respect sure, but that doesnt mean most are 'cash burning a hole in their wallets' rich like that monopoly guy... imagine a location where there is minimal competition, where there is a house (still fairly expensive), you cant assume that the first time buyer can automatically get the house. they wouldnt be able to live in it if they couldnt, but they could if a person just starting out to become a landlord bought it (their first rented house) and charged a reasonable rent. this would most likely be cheaper than paying down payment/mortgage wouldnt it?

    this is one exception and im sure there are some others.
    Think about why someone would choose to buy to let, it's all about profit. They might be able to argue that they're being charitable compared to other landlords, but in the end, they're intending to make a tidy profit and have the power to do so. Overall, the landlord has done better financially, meaning the people they took the money from have lost out financially.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    my last bill (combining everything) was about 90 quid... my rent is 64...regardless, this is an irrelevant counter reply as the point is about paying for something which you wont get anything physical from... you can talk about what is needed more but the main difference is that the money you shell out happens to be going towards the very thing that is keeping a roof over your head. this is still the same as paying for a service like broadband, where with rent, its the same but you can touch what youre paying for (which is NOT the house but to LIVE in the house)...

    whether you spend one day in my rented house or 1 decade is irrelevant. if you were to rent a room for a day it would be inappropriate for you to demand a proportional fraction of the house just because you paid a days rent. the same if it were for a week. if you did this next year too,(living for a week) it would still be inappropriate... if you lived in the house two weeks in a row (where the weeks are adjacent to each other) , again it would still be inappropriate to demand for a proportional amount of ownership of the house.... by this reasoning it should stem that even if you continue to live in the house for week after week in a row for 10 years, it is still inappropriate....

    the fact that there is a possibility that the landlord can pay off their mortgage using your combined rent is irrelevant.the fact is that it is intended for a short term living period (that is where rented living is most ideal), you deciding to live in there for a long term does not change the fact that this is still a rented property, not your house.

    if you want the house you have to discuss with the landlord (which is possible), but even if that does not follow through, you are not homeless, you can choose to buy a house, live somewhere cheaper, live with your parents, or perhaps continue living in the rented house... the fact that they managed to pay the mortgage is nothing but an irrational justification. its not your property after a week of living there, its not your property after a decade of living there. you did not discuss with the landlord that you would be staying there for a decade and would then want a portion of house ownership... as a result, the landlord doesnt have any obligation to give you said portion of the house. he can treat you no differently to a person living there for a week.

    paying rent for long term living =/= landlord ripping you off
    paying rent for long term living = you ripping yourself off because thats not the point of rent. you dont treat a rented house like a home. you should be saving up for a home

    the rent is the price you pay to live in the house for x period of time. this is not to be confused with paying for x percentage of house ownership

    dont know if it is easy to misunderstand my views so i tried to be as clear as i could (ended up making this boring essay sorry )
    I understand what you're saying, and legally you're right. Morally, and practically, it is wrong. Take a step back and look at what's happening in the big picture rather than on each 'transaction'.


    (Original post by infairverona)
    I'd rather rent my own place than be living with my parents as an adult, as many people seem to be doing now. Money down the drain? Hardly, you're paying for somewhere to live. Which is what is meant to happen, yes some people have a mortgage but if you can't afford it then you rent or leech off your parents. People these days want everything for nothing, that's the problem. When you rent a car for a week, is that money 'down the drain' because you don't keep the car after? Of course not.
    More cars are being built, so someone else buying them doesn't stop you from having one. The same is not true for housing, plus there's clearly a greater need for a home than a car.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)

    More cars are being built, so someone else buying them doesn't stop you from having one. The same is not true for housing, plus there's clearly a greater need for a home than a car.
    True, but the thing is if you can't afford a mortgage then someone else buying that house isn't exactly stopping you from getting the house. You not earning enough stops you from getting a house. I find it extremely ironic that many of the people who benefited from the buying council houses scheme now seem to be lefties whinging about there not being enough houses - didn't mind when it gave them the chance to own a house though, did they? Everyone wants to own a house. There are not enough houses and too many people. Save from building houses on the remaining green parts of this country, what is the solution? Landlords buying houses barely features in the grand scheme of the problem, to them it's almost like a job.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    There's a huge difference between housing and services, for a start you don't need phone, internet and TV to the extent that you need a home.
    What has that got to do with it? Just because something is needed to a great extent doesn't stop it from being a service. When my plumber comes to fix my water pipes so I can have something to drink during the day, I don't refuse to pay him just because I need water to live. Whether or not something is a service that ought to be remunerated has nothing to do with how vital the service is.

    On top of that, £50pm is nothing compared to what one has to pay in rent.
    So? The principle is exactly the same. It's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. If phone, TV and internet cost £500 instead of £50 due to low supply or high demand, it wouldn't make that immoral as well. That's just what the market price of the service is.

    Finally, the landlord gets to keep the house that their tenants have paid for at the end of it all, and continue to take money from them when the house is fully paid for -
    The tenants haven't paid for the house though. They have paid (and continue to pay) for the right to live in someone else's house. Just like when I pay for a gym membership, I'm paying for the right to use it, not the actual gym itself. I don't expect to own the gym after many years of doing this.

    there isn't a start up cost because you can always sell it to get your cash back,
    A "start-up cost" is the cost of setting up the service provision in the first place - not the difference between the cost of setting it up, and the cost of selling it. It costs money to buy a house. The fact that you can get your money back by the end of it doesn't change that.

    The relevant point is the fact that there are initial costs - meaning that the service being provided is in low supply, because not everyone can afford the initial costs. When someone gives you something that not many other people can, the principle of supply and demand dictates that you should be remunerated more highly for it.

    If there was no start-up cost, everyone would be buying houses.

    and now we know there isn't even a risk because the government will step in to prop up the banks and house prices. The landlord can then take up more properties and profit from even more homeless people at a time.
    Making homeless people into non-homeless people is a good thing to do. The landlord ought to profit from it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    True, but the thing is if you can't afford a mortgage then someone else buying that house isn't exactly stopping you from getting the house. You not earning enough stops you from getting a house.
    If the house is bought by someone else, then you can't buy it. Unless you offer them more, of course, but in the meantime you're stuck paying them rent money to live in it.

    I find it extremely ironic that many of the people who benefited from the buying council houses scheme now seem to be lefties whinging about there not being enough houses - didn't mind when it gave them the chance to own a house though, did they? Everyone wants to own a house. There are not enough houses and too many people. Save from building houses on the remaining green parts of this country, what is the solution? Landlords buying houses barely features in the grand scheme of the problem, to them it's almost like a job.
    There not being enough houses is another issue that needs to be solved, and is suited for another thread, however, how does who owns the house affect how many houses there are? The problem discussed in this thread is how someone buying a property to rent it out is causing problems for society, namely stopping poorer (and younger, since it is those who are rich and get there first who get the houses) people getting their own home, with the problem set to continue to worsen.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    How much money do you spend a week?The ultimate guide to tax!Guide to student bank accounts

    Sponsored features:

    Web Legend

    Win a Macbook Air!

    Blog about setting up a website for a chance to win in our Web Legend competition.

    Quick link:

    Unanswered money and finance threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.