FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Gen Z is fucked
Gen Z is fucked
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
If you think it hard for millennials to buy their first home on a normal salary, GenZ is in for a big shock, huge! Simply because wages haven't gone up in line with house prices.
So what's the solution? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Government needs to do something to make 2nd properties not as worth while an investment.
The issue then will be when house prices fall. Sure it sounds great if your trying to buy, but that means anyone that’s bought in the previous 20 years could fall into negative equity
You’ve also got to factor in how big an industry construction is. A big drop in house prices will cause a big knock on effect in that industry
It’s not an easy issue to tackle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And hardly any social housing. I live in an old ex council estate. A couple of decades back they gave it to a housing association who now rent properties through estate agents slightly below market rents.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you think it hard for millennials to buy their first home on a normal salary, GenZ is in for a big shock, huge! Simply because wages haven't gone up in line with house prices.
So what's the solution? "
Rent
Live with mum and dad
Multi genereation mortgages
Shared ownership
What do other countries do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you think it hard for millennials to buy their first home on a normal salary, GenZ is in for a big shock, huge! Simply because wages haven't gone up in line with house prices.
So what's the solution?
Rent
Live with mum and dad
Multi genereation mortgages
Shared ownership
What do other countries do? "
They have social housing and don't allow slimy landlords to charge extortionate rents |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If only it were that simple. There's such a huge gap not only between earnings and house prices but a massive difference in the north and south
There needs to be a complete overhaul of the taxing and mortgage system in my opinion. More affordable housing needs to be built and needs to be available to more types of people.
The rented sector needs a massive improvement. Rent controls, longer tenancies and even more rent to buy schemes for those who struggle to get deposits together.
The shared ownership system is pants and needs rethinking too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
London boroughs have had to deal with Yuppicide and now gentrification. I live in what was one of the poorest boroughs but now it's a hipsters paradise. Local people are not reeping the benefits and many local businesses have shut because of increasing rents only to be replaced by another artisan bakery or vegan fried chicken shop.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tax private landlords at 75%. Huge amounts of public money go to landlords via benefits paying rent. This money needs to be spent on building social housing. "
This will just push up rental prices |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets. "
Why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets. "
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
Why? "
Is that a trick question? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
Why?
Is that a trick question? "
No |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed"
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In my local area there has been massive construction over the last 10 years. Every scrap of land from Manor House to Walthamstow has been torn down and built up. No new schools though and Whipps cross hospital is always under threat of closure.
And on a more serious note. All the isolated industrial estates perfect for dogging and car meets are gone!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Renting a property should never be more expensive than the cost of the mortgage on said property.
Private landlords should only be allowed to charge 50% of the cost of the mortgage they're paying for that property as they're still going to have half of that property paid for by the person renting so with how property prices are rising exponentially compared to wages and inflation, they're still going to be making a profit whilst someone who cannot afford to buy through a mortgage gets to live with reasonable rental costs.
A renter should never be buying someone else a house and paying an excess for that house too while the landlord often does little or nothing to help yet at the end of thee mortgage they've got a free house plus profit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Renting a property should never be more expensive than the cost of the mortgage on said property.
Private landlords should only be allowed to charge 50% of the cost of the mortgage they're paying for that property as they're still going to have half of that property paid for by the person renting so with how property prices are rising exponentially compared to wages and inflation, they're still going to be making a profit whilst someone who cannot afford to buy through a mortgage gets to live with reasonable rental costs.
A renter should never be buying someone else a house and paying an excess for that house too while the landlord often does little or nothing to help yet at the end of thee mortgage they've got a free house plus profit.
"
Well said. Many years ago I was privately renting an ex council flat on an estate. My rent was more then double the council rent so I was essentially paying their mortgage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point. "
And what happens to those who already own? Negative equity meaning they can't move which then causes problems in itself. For the market to move freely then everyone from first time buyers up to downsizers need to be able to buy and sell. Far too many issues
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a magic solution.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what happens to those who already own? Negative equity meaning they can't move which then causes problems in itself. For the market to move freely then everyone from first time buyers up to downsizers need to be able to buy and sell. Far too many issues
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a magic solution.
"
The issue that matters here is that some people don't have homes when other people have shitloads. Resolving that basic inequality is waaay more important than any other consideration. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point. "
Thank god guts like this aren’t in charge. Can’t see literally 2 feet in front of his face let alone the absolute chaos ideas like that would cause |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
House prices are outstripping wages but it’s not impossible to get on the housing ladder.
Discouraging landlords is not the answer, many people choose to rent (not all admittedly), what would happen to students if all private landlords sold up. People who do short term contracts in different locations etc..
A drastic drop in house prices would penalise many many people and inversely could lead to more people needing to rent if it caused them to be in negative equity and unable to upsize their mortgage for a larger home as their family grows.
Many gen Z could benefit from house price increases as grandparents downsize and release equity which may get passed onto them. Or through inheritance which could be substantial due to house price growth.
My 22yr old son has just bought his first house, he is a prudent saver and also used help to buy
He rents out his second room which covers his mortgage and he didn’t have help from me & his Dad.
So it’s not impossible.. difficult yes but not unachievable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"House prices are outstripping wages but it’s not impossible to get on the housing ladder.
Discouraging landlords is not the answer, many people choose to rent (not all admittedly), what would happen to students if all private landlords sold up. People who do short term contracts in different locations etc..
A drastic drop in house prices would penalise many many people and inversely could lead to more people needing to rent if it caused them to be in negative equity and unable to upsize their mortgage for a larger home as their family grows.
Many gen Z could benefit from house price increases as grandparents downsize and release equity which may get passed onto them. Or through inheritance which could be substantial due to house price growth.
My 22yr old son has just bought his first house, he is a prudent saver and also used help to buy
He rents out his second room which covers his mortgage and he didn’t have help from me & his Dad.
So it’s not impossible.. difficult yes but not unachievable."
I think discouraging landlords to some extent is part of the solution. Right now being a landlord is such a profitable thing for the rich to do it’s driving house prices up above what most can afford.
It’s a hard balance to achieve and as many have said on here, just driving house prices down isn’t the answer as that could leave millions in negative equity.
Part of me thinks the answer lays in less strict mortgage lending, but part of me knows that could lead to another mortgage bubble if interest rates jump up again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"House prices are outstripping wages but it’s not impossible to get on the housing ladder.
Discouraging landlords is not the answer, many people choose to rent (not all admittedly), what would happen to students if all private landlords sold up. People who do short term contracts in different locations etc..
A drastic drop in house prices would penalise many many people and inversely could lead to more people needing to rent if it caused them to be in negative equity and unable to upsize their mortgage for a larger home as their family grows.
Many gen Z could benefit from house price increases as grandparents downsize and release equity which may get passed onto them. Or through inheritance which could be substantial due to house price growth.
My 22yr old son has just bought his first house, he is a prudent saver and also used help to buy
He rents out his second room which covers his mortgage and he didn’t have help from me & his Dad.
So it’s not impossible.. difficult yes but not unachievable.
I think discouraging landlords to some extent is part of the solution. Right now being a landlord is such a profitable thing for the rich to do it’s driving house prices up above what most can afford.
It’s a hard balance to achieve and as many have said on here, just driving house prices down isn’t the answer as that could leave millions in negative equity.
Part of me thinks the answer lays in less strict mortgage lending, but part of me knows that could lead to another mortgage bubble if interest rates jump up again "
A lot of landlords sold up and left the market when the tax rules changed.
Being a landlord isn’t as profitable as many people think (and I’m not a landlord but worked in lettings) in fact landlords selling up is what has increased rent prices as demand has outstripped supply.
There will be another exodus of landlords in a few years once they make landlords achieve an EPC rating of C on their properties (cost prohibitive for many older properties)
Less strict lending criteria and a return to 100% mortgages is definitely not the answer, the only way is up wrt to interest rates.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"House prices are outstripping wages but it’s not impossible to get on the housing ladder.
Discouraging landlords is not the answer, many people choose to rent (not all admittedly), what would happen to students if all private landlords sold up. People who do short term contracts in different locations etc..
A drastic drop in house prices would penalise many many people and inversely could lead to more people needing to rent if it caused them to be in negative equity and unable to upsize their mortgage for a larger home as their family grows.
Many gen Z could benefit from house price increases as grandparents downsize and release equity which may get passed onto them. Or through inheritance which could be substantial due to house price growth.
My 22yr old son has just bought his first house, he is a prudent saver and also used help to buy
He rents out his second room which covers his mortgage and he didn’t have help from me & his Dad.
So it’s not impossible.. difficult yes but not unachievable.
I think discouraging landlords to some extent is part of the solution. Right now being a landlord is such a profitable thing for the rich to do it’s driving house prices up above what most can afford.
It’s a hard balance to achieve and as many have said on here, just driving house prices down isn’t the answer as that could leave millions in negative equity.
Part of me thinks the answer lays in less strict mortgage lending, but part of me knows that could lead to another mortgage bubble if interest rates jump up again
A lot of landlords sold up and left the market when the tax rules changed.
Being a landlord isn’t as profitable as many people think (and I’m not a landlord but worked in lettings) in fact landlords selling up is what has increased rent prices as demand has outstripped supply.
There will be another exodus of landlords in a few years once they make landlords achieve an EPC rating of C on their properties (cost prohibitive for many older properties)
Less strict lending criteria and a return to 100% mortgages is definitely not the answer, the only way is up wrt to interest rates.."
That’s interesting to hear, I really do wonder what the answer is then.
Luckily I’m soon in a position to buy after a long time saving. But I consider myself lucky enough to be self employed and earning well, but even then I’m going to be buying what I can afford, not what I want or like.
Maybe a hike in the 4.5x salary lending limit? But that still leaves the huge issue of getting together that 10% deposit. In the south even a pretty standard flat can run you 250k and it’s not easy for most to save up 25k |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people"
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords "
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The problem is not people having 2nd properties - most people do this as a pension plan given how crap state pension is and how we are all supposed to have private plans.
The issue is only going to be resolved by stopping selling council homes/ending right to by, ending "house for life" and kicking anyone who is earning enough out of council housing (lad i know earns 60k plus a year and has a house for life and soon can by it at a discount). Then you put proviso on new builds that they cannot be rented for 20 years. You could also tax anyone with a letting business earning over 15k a year through the roof and deny mortgage deductions and other expenses on these properties. Will this push rent up? It wont - it'll force a big sell off if done correctly and the market will cool off. Over the next 10 to 15 years,, if the gov raise public sector pay and force the private sector to follow things will improve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them"
It kinda is though isn’t it? Renting is a very useful part of the property market. Not everyone wants to buy. It’s literally part of the economy. Outright banning it is ridiculous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem is not people having 2nd properties - most people do this as a pension plan given how crap state pension is and how we are all supposed to have private plans.
The issue is only going to be resolved by stopping selling council homes/ending right to by, ending "house for life" and kicking anyone who is earning enough out of council housing (lad i know earns 60k plus a year and has a house for life and soon can by it at a discount). Then you put proviso on new builds that they cannot be rented for 20 years. You could also tax anyone with a letting business earning over 15k a year through the roof and deny mortgage deductions and other expenses on these properties. Will this push rent up? It wont - it'll force a big sell off if done correctly and the market will cool off. Over the next 10 to 15 years,, if the gov raise public sector pay and force the private sector to follow things will improve."
I don’t know that making people homeless (your mate on 60k will be ok) is the solution to the housing crisis |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem is not people having 2nd properties - most people do this as a pension plan given how crap state pension is and how we are all supposed to have private plans.
The issue is only going to be resolved by stopping selling council homes/ending right to by, ending "house for life" and kicking anyone who is earning enough out of council housing (lad i know earns 60k plus a year and has a house for life and soon can by it at a discount). Then you put proviso on new builds that they cannot be rented for 20 years. You could also tax anyone with a letting business earning over 15k a year through the roof and deny mortgage deductions and other expenses on these properties. Will this push rent up? It wont - it'll force a big sell off if done correctly and the market will cool off. Over the next 10 to 15 years,, if the gov raise public sector pay and force the private sector to follow things will improve.
I don’t know that making people homeless (your mate on 60k will be ok) is the solution to the housing crisis"
Giving council houses to those who can afford the private sector is absurd. Giving 3 bed homes to single people whose kids have flown the nest is absurd. The council housing system was designed for a purpose and when that purpose changed the new purpose failed 2 generations |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them
It kinda is though isn’t it? Renting is a very useful part of the property market. Not everyone wants to buy. It’s literally part of the economy. Outright banning it is ridiculous."
I’m not talking about banning it. I’m talking about abolishing landlordism. You can still have council housing and social housing. Private landlords are what have absolutely killed the market for lots of areas. People from out of town buying to let forcing local people out of the market |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem is not people having 2nd properties - most people do this as a pension plan given how crap state pension is and how we are all supposed to have private plans.
The issue is only going to be resolved by stopping selling council homes/ending right to by, ending "house for life" and kicking anyone who is earning enough out of council housing (lad i know earns 60k plus a year and has a house for life and soon can by it at a discount). Then you put proviso on new builds that they cannot be rented for 20 years. You could also tax anyone with a letting business earning over 15k a year through the roof and deny mortgage deductions and other expenses on these properties. Will this push rent up? It wont - it'll force a big sell off if done correctly and the market will cool off. Over the next 10 to 15 years,, if the gov raise public sector pay and force the private sector to follow things will improve.
I don’t know that making people homeless (your mate on 60k will be ok) is the solution to the housing crisis
Giving council houses to those who can afford the private sector is absurd. Giving 3 bed homes to single people whose kids have flown the nest is absurd. The council housing system was designed for a purpose and when that purpose changed the new purpose failed 2 generations"
I agree that the council housing system needs an overhaul, but the idea that people are being “given” 3 bed houses is a fallacy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still can't believe the average house price is quarter of a million pounds... A QUARTER OF A MILLION FFS!  "
I’m currently working on very standard spec flats and some of them are half a million.
That’s with nothing special or fancy. 1 bedroom. Outside London
It’s crazy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them
It kinda is though isn’t it? Renting is a very useful part of the property market. Not everyone wants to buy. It’s literally part of the economy. Outright banning it is ridiculous.
I’m not talking about banning it. I’m talking about abolishing landlordism. You can still have council housing and social housing. Private landlords are what have absolutely killed the market for lots of areas. People from out of town buying to let forcing local people out of the market"
That is true but i dont see how we can ban it in a free market economy - we can regulate it and tax it properly though. And we can ban renting out any new build property for 20 years etc.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem is not people having 2nd properties - most people do this as a pension plan given how crap state pension is and how we are all supposed to have private plans.
The issue is only going to be resolved by stopping selling council homes/ending right to by, ending "house for life" and kicking anyone who is earning enough out of council housing (lad i know earns 60k plus a year and has a house for life and soon can by it at a discount). Then you put proviso on new builds that they cannot be rented for 20 years. You could also tax anyone with a letting business earning over 15k a year through the roof and deny mortgage deductions and other expenses on these properties. Will this push rent up? It wont - it'll force a big sell off if done correctly and the market will cool off. Over the next 10 to 15 years,, if the gov raise public sector pay and force the private sector to follow things will improve.
I don’t know that making people homeless (your mate on 60k will be ok) is the solution to the housing crisis
Giving council houses to those who can afford the private sector is absurd. Giving 3 bed homes to single people whose kids have flown the nest is absurd. The council housing system was designed for a purpose and when that purpose changed the new purpose failed 2 generations
I agree that the council housing system needs an overhaul, but the idea that people are being “given” 3 bed houses is a fallacy "
I can promise you that anyone who is in a 3 bed who has previously had multiple people living there and now lives there alone cannot be made to downsize. You should be able to do this with social housing - make number of full time occupants a factor in occupancy. Bedroom tax attempted this but gov bottled it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them
It kinda is though isn’t it? Renting is a very useful part of the property market. Not everyone wants to buy. It’s literally part of the economy. Outright banning it is ridiculous.
I’m not talking about banning it. I’m talking about abolishing landlordism. You can still have council housing and social housing. Private landlords are what have absolutely killed the market for lots of areas. People from out of town buying to let forcing local people out of the market
That is true but i dont see how we can ban it in a free market economy - we can regulate it and tax it properly though. And we can ban renting out any new build property for 20 years etc...."
I say ban it as a means to start the debate. It won’t get banned. I know that. There are lots of ways to make it a fairer system like the ways you mention. Landlords offer very little and get a great deal back. I say this as someone that has had to call environmental health to two rental properties and has had to fight tooth and nail for a deposit back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And hardly any social housing. I live in an old ex council estate. A couple of decades back they gave it to a housing association who now rent properties through estate agents slightly below market rents.
"
And this is why the model is broken. Pushing those that were never really destined for home ownership to compete for high rents.
When the average house price is 10x average salary (what’s that about 3x the ratio from 30, 40 years ago) then something is very dysfunctional with the ‘market’ and the gap between the haves and have nots gets ever wider and social mobility grinds to a halt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point. "
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Still can't believe the average house price is quarter of a million pounds... A QUARTER OF A MILLION FFS!
£635,000 where I live 
For house or flat?"
Just average price for all property |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them
It kinda is though isn’t it? Renting is a very useful part of the property market. Not everyone wants to buy. It’s literally part of the economy. Outright banning it is ridiculous.
I’m not talking about banning it. I’m talking about abolishing landlordism. You can still have council housing and social housing. Private landlords are what have absolutely killed the market for lots of areas. People from out of town buying to let forcing local people out of the market
That is true but i dont see how we can ban it in a free market economy - we can regulate it and tax it properly though. And we can ban renting out any new build property for 20 years etc...."
Landlords lost mortgage interest tax deductions a few years ago and it really is not as profitable as it once was. Many landlords have already left the market.
Councils don’t have the cash to buy up loads of properties to fulfill the demand. Housing associations have stepped into the breach but many are actually making big bucks developing and selling on properties.. in theory that’s to be able to fund buying/building more housing association properties but they don’t pile all the money back in and instead stockpile it.
Responsible private landlords do fill a need and should not be discouraged. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them
It kinda is though isn’t it? Renting is a very useful part of the property market. Not everyone wants to buy. It’s literally part of the economy. Outright banning it is ridiculous.
I’m not talking about banning it. I’m talking about abolishing landlordism. You can still have council housing and social housing. Private landlords are what have absolutely killed the market for lots of areas. People from out of town buying to let forcing local people out of the market
That is true but i dont see how we can ban it in a free market economy - we can regulate it and tax it properly though. And we can ban renting out any new build property for 20 years etc....
Landlords lost mortgage interest tax deductions a few years ago and it really is not as profitable as it once was. Many landlords have already left the market.
Councils don’t have the cash to buy up loads of properties to fulfill the demand. Housing associations have stepped into the breach but many are actually making big bucks developing and selling on properties.. in theory that’s to be able to fund buying/building more housing association properties but they don’t pile all the money back in and instead stockpile it.
Responsible private landlords do fill a need and should not be discouraged."
Private landlords horde housing for their own gain. No one becomes a landlord to help out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea. "
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation. "
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ban landlords!
This
So you live with your parents until you can buy?
This isn’t always a viable option for people
Exactly my point. I wasn’t offering it as an idea. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of banning landlords
I see your point. It’s not a ridiculous idea if you really think about it. I mean, it absolutely won’t happen whilst we have a parliament and House of Lords absolutely chock full of them
It kinda is though isn’t it? Renting is a very useful part of the property market. Not everyone wants to buy. It’s literally part of the economy. Outright banning it is ridiculous.
I’m not talking about banning it. I’m talking about abolishing landlordism. You can still have council housing and social housing. Private landlords are what have absolutely killed the market for lots of areas. People from out of town buying to let forcing local people out of the market
That is true but i dont see how we can ban it in a free market economy - we can regulate it and tax it properly though. And we can ban renting out any new build property for 20 years etc....
Landlords lost mortgage interest tax deductions a few years ago and it really is not as profitable as it once was. Many landlords have already left the market.
Councils don’t have the cash to buy up loads of properties to fulfill the demand. Housing associations have stepped into the breach but many are actually making big bucks developing and selling on properties.. in theory that’s to be able to fund buying/building more housing association properties but they don’t pile all the money back in and instead stockpile it.
Responsible private landlords do fill a need and should not be discouraged.
Private landlords horde housing for their own gain. No one becomes a landlord to help out"
I don’t object to people making money, it’s a free market economy we live in.
Supply and demand. Losing landlords will make rental stock scarce & result in rents being pushed up further. Housing associations want market rates nowadays and will follow suit & the people that will be penalised will be renters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Here’s another thought/option:
Remove (over time) the capital gains benefit of principle residence. Offset this to help movement and liquidity by scrapping stamp duty so people can move house more easily to suit their needs, but apply capital gains rules to homes same as any other asset.
It is bot only landlords that ‘invest in property’ people max out on their main home to then downsize as a pension pot too. This also has the effect of skewing the market.
Roll the gains over into estate/inheritance to discourage house hogging too.
Fookinell, becoming a commie in my old age  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai / Nottingham |
"If you think it hard for millennials to buy their first home on a normal salary, GenZ is in for a big shock, huge! Simply because wages haven't gone up in line with house prices.
So what's the solution? "
Don’t be so greedy , rent or share a house until you have worked long and hard enough to buy your own. Abs stop wasting all your pocket money on sweets and mobile phones |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is a lack of supply because there are 2.6million landlords in the UK. A large chunk of these own more than one rental property. That’s a shitload of houses and flats being swallowed up because someone wants to make a few extra quid for their retirement fund |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they? "
Exactly.. a lot of profit from housing investment will filter down to the next generation when they inherit and as such their investments will be redistributed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they?
Exactly.. a lot of profit from housing investment will filter down to the next generation when they inherit and as such their investments will be redistributed.
"
Absolutely. My own children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tax private landlords at 75%. Huge amounts of public money go to landlords via benefits paying rent. This money needs to be spent on building social housing. "
So when the landlords being taxed at 75% decide it's not worth it what do you think will happen?
I guess they will sell, which will make everyone renting homeless in short order. Councils will have to provide emergency housing in hotels and also buy the houses to put people in. House prices will drop putting millions into negative equity so they won't be able to sell, meaning the housing market grinds to a halt. Building will stop, putting the building trade into a tail spin and exacerbate the housing shortage.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they? "
Never say they should not (invest). Suggested that they should be taxed on gains in the same way as any other investment class. Subtle yet impactful difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed"
I think they mean that any seized assets go back into public hands..after all landlords are multiple property owners who inflated prices so the actual home owners wouldn't land in neg equity as the greed landlords will pay by seized assets & would maintain equity in home ownership because there would be less of them available to buy...however many would have security of a home by social housing seizures, the rent would be reasonable & the money going into council funds & therefore services...not into private pockets to go hide offshore or invest to avoid taxes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they?
Never say they should not (invest). Suggested that they should be taxed on gains in the same way as any other investment class. Subtle yet impactful difference. "
So when I die my children should pay inheritance tax and gains tax? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they?
Exactly.. a lot of profit from housing investment will filter down to the next generation when they inherit and as such their investments will be redistributed.
Absolutely. My own children. "
And morally it correct that they should get such an easy ride when there are many who are not so fortunate to have popped out of such a well funded fanny and have to “work even harder” to catch up.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they?
Exactly.. a lot of profit from housing investment will filter down to the next generation when they inherit and as such their investments will be redistributed.
Absolutely. My own children.
And morally it correct that they should get such an easy ride when there are many who are not so fortunate to have popped out of such a well funded fanny and have to “work even harder” to catch up.
"
Wow! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tax private landlords at 75%. Huge amounts of public money go to landlords via benefits paying rent. This money needs to be spent on building social housing.
So when the landlords being taxed at 75% decide it's not worth it what do you think will happen?
I guess they will sell, which will make everyone renting homeless in short order. Councils will have to provide emergency housing in hotels and also buy the houses to put people in. House prices will drop putting millions into negative equity so they won't be able to sell, meaning the housing market grinds to a halt. Building will stop, putting the building trade into a tail spin and exacerbate the housing shortage.
"
^this^ well said! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tax private landlords at 75%. Huge amounts of public money go to landlords via benefits paying rent. This money needs to be spent on building social housing.
So when the landlords being taxed at 75% decide it's not worth it what do you think will happen?
I guess they will sell, which will make everyone renting homeless in short order. Councils will have to provide emergency housing in hotels and also buy the houses to put people in. House prices will drop putting millions into negative equity so they won't be able to sell, meaning the housing market grinds to a halt. Building will stop, putting the building trade into a tail spin and exacerbate the housing shortage.
"
Someone talking sense  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they?
Exactly.. a lot of profit from housing investment will filter down to the next generation when they inherit and as such their investments will be redistributed.
Absolutely. My own children.
And morally it correct that they should get such an easy ride when there are many who are not so fortunate to have popped out of such a well funded fanny and have to “work even harder” to catch up.
"
Oh that’s not on!
Many have come from nothing and worked hard to get where they are.. pay huge amounts of tax & spend money which benefits the economy & wider society. Why in hell should they not be able to redistribute their hard earned money to their kids. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what about the people who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgage and then suddenly lose their equity which could be their retirement pension?! Ridiculous idea.
They get “taxed” to redistribute some of their gains to help those who have not been in a position to make any gains.
The only element of their property value that they’ve “worked hard all their lives” for is the original purchase price. Most of the rest is a bit of luck and inflation.
Really?? Some people buy properties for investment! Why shouldn’t they?
Exactly.. a lot of profit from housing investment will filter down to the next generation when they inherit and as such their investments will be redistributed.
Absolutely. My own children.
And morally it correct that they should get such an easy ride when there are many who are not so fortunate to have popped out of such a well funded fanny and have to “work even harder” to catch up.
Oh that’s not on!
Many have come from nothing and worked hard to get where they are.. pay huge amounts of tax & spend money which benefits the economy & wider society. Why in hell should they not be able to redistribute their hard earned money to their kids."
I’m playing devil’s advocate btw. And Dora sorry if it seemed aimed at you. It was not meant to be. It was an analogy - maybe a crude one - as to the dysfunction in the market. Compounded by the capital gains advantages and ability to shelter from IHT that the wealthy can afford which means that those who have no legacy of property are at an even greater disadvantage.
Ultimately whatever the answer it will have the impact of depressing gains made my current owners… whether rebalance is brought about by inflation combined with interest principle hikes, increasing supply or other measures to discourage property as an investment asset. One way or another prices will drop or rise slower…… IF gen Z are to be helped.
One thing is certain there won’t be a simple answer that pleases all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
22% of prime London properties bought by overseas buyers without a viewing, new report says - UK Investor Magazine. Home News 22% of prime London properties bought by overseas buyers without a viewing,...3 Nov 2020 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asual777Man
over a year ago
i travel all over |
There are some positives
They can work virtually more so aren’t tied to big cities as much
Life is easier in many ways due to technology compared to how it was for their parents and grandparents
Some of their parents sit on significant equity
Society is more civilized. Easier to come out for example .
Life expectancy is longer . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think if you have been renting a property for 5 years with a very good record of paying it each month the banks should be made to give you a mortgage with a smaller deposit needed as you have proved you can pay it .
Holiday homes need to be taxed more with no relief from council tax .
Any property proved to be empty for more than a year gets sold off to councils to use .
Got a guy I know who owned a house for 30 years and never rented it out to anyone for anything . Just been empty the whole time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you want something expensive you simply have to do without other things and save. It is possible to find a home you can afford if you have sensible expectations, and save up.
If you do not earn enough to buy a home then you need to get experience for the jobs that pay enough for you to afford to do so. Being in a couple also helps massively as you can pool your incomes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tax private landlords at 75%. Huge amounts of public money go to landlords via benefits paying rent. This money needs to be spent on building social housing. "
And who will then fund that? The tenants, thus exacerbating the problem of exorbitant rents.
Also, benefits for rent payments are capped.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you want something expensive you simply have to do without other things and save. It is possible to find a home you can afford if you have sensible expectations, and save up.
If you do not earn enough to buy a home then you need to get experience for the jobs that pay enough for you to afford to do so. Being in a couple also helps massively as you can pool your incomes."
Whaaaaaat! You mean I can't just click my fingers and have all good things come to me? Fuck that.. Whose fault is it? Come on? Own up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what happens to those who already own? Negative equity meaning they can't move which then causes problems in itself. For the market to move freely then everyone from first time buyers up to downsizers need to be able to buy and sell. Far too many issues
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a magic solution.
The issue that matters here is that some people don't have homes when other people have shitloads. Resolving that basic inequality is waaay more important than any other consideration. "
.
Is that just not called Communism |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *azzuMan
over a year ago
belfast |
I love the optimism of people suggesting the government make buying 2nd/3rd/4th homes less appealing.
Most Mps own multiple homes and are in bed with friends and corporations who buy up as much property as they can all for greed and profit.
In an ideal world that is the answer but we live in a world with greedy people in powerful positions and that won't change anytime soon. The little guy never wins esp when they keep voting fucking tory!!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you want something expensive you simply have to do without other things and save. It is possible to find a home you can afford if you have sensible expectations, and save up.
If you do not earn enough to buy a home then you need to get experience for the jobs that pay enough for you to afford to do so. Being in a couple also helps massively as you can pool your incomes."
Exactly! I’ve never had anything handed to me on a plate. I have an 11 year age gap between my kids. Not ideal. Why? Because I couldn’t afford another one. I’ve worked bloody hard for what I have. And no I didn’t come out of a “well funded fanny”’ and neither did my kids. Getting called lucky and shit like that pisses me off no end. There certainly wasn’t any luck involved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai / Nottingham |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what happens to those who already own? Negative equity meaning they can't move which then causes problems in itself. For the market to move freely then everyone from first time buyers up to downsizers need to be able to buy and sell. Far too many issues
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a magic solution.
The issue that matters here is that some people don't have homes when other people have shitloads. Resolving that basic inequality is waaay more important than any other consideration. .
Is that just not called Communism "
Not really , the government provides every citizen with a basic level of education, health and income even in a capitalist system , there’s a valid argument that if the government fuckup the economy so badly, they could extend that provision to things like heating and housing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's an architect called Mike Reynolds in the united states. He makes houses out of materials that most people disgard, such as old car tyres and glass bottles. The houses he makes are actually beautiful - works of art even. He's been making sustainable buildings since the late 60s.
About 15 years ago he bought a big plot of land & got a group of about 20 young people to help him build a development of these houses. They all chipped in their free time on weekends and evenings when they could and helped him with the labour. After about 3 years, when all the houses were finished he let them own the buildings they each worked with him on- outright.
-He got to have a development of these modern houses so he could showcase his architectural skills & the young folks in their 20s that helped him got to own their finished houses.
So it basically was a win/win for everybody.
There's a very good documentary about the whole process called "garbage warrior".
The houses are all off grid with solar/wind and rainwater collection systems, so there is almost no maintenance bills for them.
In the big scheme of things, this story isn't that important, but I just wanted to post something positive.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Make it *seriously* illegal to own any property in which you do not personally live. I don't mean a fine and a waggled finger; I mean decades in jail and stripped of all their assets.
But that would only work if there's alternative housing. There are over 4 million households in rented accommodation in the UK. A large portion of those couldn't buy, where do they go? Then there would be the issue of all those houses having to be sold, causing a saturation of stock and would send house prices plummeting, negative equity all over the place. Would never work. A less extreme solution is needed
Dropping the prices low enough so that people who currently can only rent can afford to buy is literally the point.
And what happens to those who already own? Negative equity meaning they can't move which then causes problems in itself. For the market to move freely then everyone from first time buyers up to downsizers need to be able to buy and sell. Far too many issues
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a magic solution.
The issue that matters here is that some people don't have homes when other people have shitloads. Resolving that basic inequality is waaay more important than any other consideration. .
Is that just not called Communism "
To each according to their needs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its never been as easy to buy a house, the government schemes are fantastic at current.
Yes central londons always been a issue so no change there.
The problem i see is everyone expects now, rather than going out and grafting. Its more important for youngsters now to have a 35k vw golf on finance than have a house, how many 17 year olds 20 year ago had a brand new car? Hardley any we bought to our means.
Now days its different. At 20 i bought my first home, a shit 2 bed £130k i put 20k down that was saved through working then had to renovate it and make it nice. you can now move into a brand new 2 bed home in derby for 190k with just a 10k deposit. Yet back when i saved 20k i was on about 15k per year, the equivalent job now payed 26k per year.
Its got nothing to do with governments or landlords to do with affordability its down to young people of today.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its never been as easy to buy a house, the government schemes are fantastic at current.
Yes central londons always been a issue so no change there.
The problem i see is everyone expects now, rather than going out and grafting. Its more important for youngsters now to have a 35k vw golf on finance than have a house, how many 17 year olds 20 year ago had a brand new car? Hardley any we bought to our means.
Now days its different. At 20 i bought my first home, a shit 2 bed £130k i put 20k down that was saved through working then had to renovate it and make it nice. you can now move into a brand new 2 bed home in derby for 190k with just a 10k deposit. Yet back when i saved 20k i was on about 15k per year, the equivalent job now payed 26k per year.
Its got nothing to do with governments or landlords to do with affordability its down to young people of today. "
More the case that wages for youngsters hasn’t increased properly.
I’m 32, almost saved £60K for my first home. The banks however are making it incredibly difficult for me to borrow as they want me to do a 10% deposit and take a higher interest rate, I’m not prepared to do that, I want to do 20% and lower interest, yet the bank turned around and offered me less than someone with 10%. How is that fair!? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its never been as easy to buy a house, the government schemes are fantastic at current.
Yes central londons always been a issue so no change there.
The problem i see is everyone expects now, rather than going out and grafting. Its more important for youngsters now to have a 35k vw golf on finance than have a house, how many 17 year olds 20 year ago had a brand new car? Hardley any we bought to our means.
Now days its different. At 20 i bought my first home, a shit 2 bed £130k i put 20k down that was saved through working then had to renovate it and make it nice. you can now move into a brand new 2 bed home in derby for 190k with just a 10k deposit. Yet back when i saved 20k i was on about 15k per year, the equivalent job now payed 26k per year.
Its got nothing to do with governments or landlords to do with affordability its down to young people of today. "
20 years ago when you bought got a mortgage you could get mortgages with 0% deposit
Fair play for saving 20k by the time you were 20, not easy at all. We’re you living at home rent feee? If not you must have lived like an absolute monk to pay for rent and save for a deposit.
You’ve cast an awful lot of aspersions on an awful lot of people. The reality is, money doesn’t travel as far as it used to. Sounds like you’ve been lucky* because you were able to buy when you could and maintain a job working in companies and sectors that haven’t gone bust.
Landlords do, wether people want to hear this or not, horde housing. It’s just a fact.
*i use the term lucky not to be derogatory, you are probably very good at your job but I hope you see that I mean it in the sense that the firms and sectors you work in have remained afloat.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its never been as easy to buy a house, the government schemes are fantastic at current.
Yes central londons always been a issue so no change there.
The problem i see is everyone expects now, rather than going out and grafting. Its more important for youngsters now to have a 35k vw golf on finance than have a house, how many 17 year olds 20 year ago had a brand new car? Hardley any we bought to our means.
Now days its different. At 20 i bought my first home, a shit 2 bed £130k i put 20k down that was saved through working then had to renovate it and make it nice. you can now move into a brand new 2 bed home in derby for 190k with just a 10k deposit. Yet back when i saved 20k i was on about 15k per year, the equivalent job now payed 26k per year.
Its got nothing to do with governments or landlords to do with affordability its down to young people of today.
20 years ago when you bought got a mortgage you could get mortgages with 0% deposit
Fair play for saving 20k by the time you were 20, not easy at all. We’re you living at home rent feee? If not you must have lived like an absolute monk to pay for rent and save for a deposit.
You’ve cast an awful lot of aspersions on an awful lot of people. The reality is, money doesn’t travel as far as it used to. Sounds like you’ve been lucky* because you were able to buy when you could and maintain a job working in companies and sectors that haven’t gone bust.
Landlords do, wether people want to hear this or not, horde housing. It’s just a fact.
*i use the term lucky not to be derogatory, you are probably very good at your job but I hope you see that I mean it in the sense that the firms and sectors you work in have remained afloat.
"
I worked 3 jobs saving & drove a 600 quid car and payed my parents board. my mates were in ibiza, going to gigs partying.. i didnt. i saved because i hated living in a council estate and wanted nice things.
I had a ferrari 355 at 28 lost everything incl my house at 30 then started again then got everything back by 37 through graft, risks and investment. Its there for the taking if priorities are right, i coach so many young people in business and investment as a side to the job i do. One thing ive noticed and its getting worse is people live for the here and now, young people think nothing to paying 600 quid a month on a car.. but yet 'cant' afford a house yet a house goes up in value... their car doesnt. Priorities
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its never been as easy to buy a house, the government schemes are fantastic at current.
Yes central londons always been a issue so no change there.
The problem i see is everyone expects now, rather than going out and grafting. Its more important for youngsters now to have a 35k vw golf on finance than have a house, how many 17 year olds 20 year ago had a brand new car? Hardley any we bought to our means.
Now days its different. At 20 i bought my first home, a shit 2 bed £130k i put 20k down that was saved through working then had to renovate it and make it nice. you can now move into a brand new 2 bed home in derby for 190k with just a 10k deposit. Yet back when i saved 20k i was on about 15k per year, the equivalent job now payed 26k per year.
Its got nothing to do with governments or landlords to do with affordability its down to young people of today. "
Sorry to say this doesnt add up in any sense. You also would have been in negative equity having gone through the bubble in 2008. 20k saved whilst earning 15k a year in 2004? 15k back then is about 24k now but wages havent risen with inflation - thats the problem. In derby, a house worth 140k in 2000 has gone up in value to over 260k now. Who lent you 10x your earnings in 2004 anyway?! The most you would have been lent would have been about 70k even with this magical depisit you saved in about 3 years - over 500 a month when your take home pay was about 1k a month (what did you eat? How did you transport yourself? Where did you sleep?) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Basically, you got a mortgage when they handing them out for free, earning 24k a year straight out of school, the value of your property doubled but wages only went up about 40% - making property twice as expensive. You purchased with someone else and are now reaping the rewards.
To put it in perspective - a graduate earning 25k a year and renting a private room could save 500 quid a month and take 3 years to save up a 10% deposit on a 2 bed flat - provided they work from home and didnt really eat for 1000 days |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans"
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *azzuMan
over a year ago
belfast |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!"
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish  etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back "
No need to hate immigrants.
Bit we have to acknowledge that an increase in demand adds upward pressure to prices.
The renting/buying issue is irrelevant...an occupied house means less supply left on the open market and that adds upward pressure to prices.
Basic economics and you can't understand the housing market without understanding economics |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *azzuMan
over a year ago
belfast |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back
No need to hate immigrants.
Bit we have to acknowledge that an increase in demand adds upward pressure to prices.
The renting/buying issue is irrelevant...an occupied house means less supply left on the open market and that adds upward pressure to prices.
Basic economics and you can't understand the housing market without understanding economics"
I thought net migration was higher than immigration to the UK but perhaps I am wrong on that.
My immigrant comment was tongue n cheek in case that went over your head  but good to see your positive comment! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back
No need to hate immigrants.
Bit we have to acknowledge that an increase in demand adds upward pressure to prices.
The renting/buying issue is irrelevant...an occupied house means less supply left on the open market and that adds upward pressure to prices.
Basic economics and you can't understand the housing market without understanding economics
I thought net migration was higher than immigration to the UK but perhaps I am wrong on that.
My immigrant comment was tongue n cheek in case that went over your head but good to see your positive comment! "
Net migration will always be lower than raw immigration because some people leave the country |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
Gen Z are in a terrible position. They could help themselves more by understanding why they are so put upon.
Increased demand caused by immigration is part of the problem. So are high taxes which reduces their take-home pay. The irony is that young people tend to support immigration and higher public spending which leads to higher taxes.
I wish they'd think it through |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
Another reason that house prices are so high is government printing of money which has been shocking vsince 2008.
When money supply increases it means that more money is chasing assets and that forces prices up.
Houses are an asset.
We shouldn't be tinkering with this issue...we have to tackle the underlying problem if we really want to help young people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Stop mortgage companies requiring stupidly large deposits. If someone can prove they can pay ridiculous amounts of rent for 12 months surely they can afford a mortgage? I can’t afford to rent a property identical to mine as it £330 more a month than my mortgage
J x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back
No need to hate immigrants.
Bit we have to acknowledge that an increase in demand adds upward pressure to prices.
The renting/buying issue is irrelevant...an occupied house means less supply left on the open market and that adds upward pressure to prices.
Basic economics and you can't understand the housing market without understanding economics"
The housing market is not sufficiently pressured by net migration to have caused the severe issues we currently face. We have sold off social housing and failed to build enough houses for over 30 years.
Without the level of migration we have, the economic impact would stagnate the economy and disrupt and impoverish vital services.
"Supply and demand" is a basic issue in terms of upward pressure on prices but the scale of the problem is vastly beyond issues to do with the amount of foreign labour we import. Without them, we still dont have enough houses |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back
No need to hate immigrants.
Bit we have to acknowledge that an increase in demand adds upward pressure to prices.
The renting/buying issue is irrelevant...an occupied house means less supply left on the open market and that adds upward pressure to prices.
Basic economics and you can't understand the housing market without understanding economics
The housing market is not sufficiently pressured by net migration to have caused the severe issues we currently face. We have sold off social housing and failed to build enough houses for over 30 years.
Without the level of migration we have, the economic impact would stagnate the economy and disrupt and impoverish vital services.
"Supply and demand" is a basic issue in terms of upward pressure on prices but the scale of the problem is vastly beyond issues to do with the amount of foreign labour we import. Without them, we still dont have enough houses"
I disagree.
If we have been having net immigration of 350,000 people per year (anyone have the exact figure?) for the last 15 years it means that is an extra 5,250,000 people needing houses.
That is a very strong increase in demand. I can't see how that can't have contributed to rising prices |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back
No need to hate immigrants.
Bit we have to acknowledge that an increase in demand adds upward pressure to prices.
The renting/buying issue is irrelevant...an occupied house means less supply left on the open market and that adds upward pressure to prices.
Basic economics and you can't understand the housing market without understanding economics
The housing market is not sufficiently pressured by net migration to have caused the severe issues we currently face. We have sold off social housing and failed to build enough houses for over 30 years.
Without the level of migration we have, the economic impact would stagnate the economy and disrupt and impoverish vital services.
"Supply and demand" is a basic issue in terms of upward pressure on prices but the scale of the problem is vastly beyond issues to do with the amount of foreign labour we import. Without them, we still dont have enough houses
I disagree.
If we have been having net immigration of 350,000 people per year (anyone have the exact figure?) for the last 15 years it means that is an extra 5,250,000 people needing houses.
That is a very strong increase in demand. I can't see how that can't have contributed to rising prices"
They've not fallen, with the exodus of EU citizens though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its never been as easy to buy a house, the government schemes are fantastic at current.
Yes central londons always been a issue so no change there.
The problem i see is everyone expects now, rather than going out and grafting. Its more important for youngsters now to have a 35k vw golf on finance than have a house, how many 17 year olds 20 year ago had a brand new car? Hardley any we bought to our means.
Now days its different. At 20 i bought my first home, a shit 2 bed £130k i put 20k down that was saved through working then had to renovate it and make it nice. you can now move into a brand new 2 bed home in derby for 190k with just a 10k deposit. Yet back when i saved 20k i was on about 15k per year, the equivalent job now payed 26k per year.
Its got nothing to do with governments or landlords to do with affordability its down to young people of today.
Sorry to say this doesnt add up in any sense. You also would have been in negative equity having gone through the bubble in 2008. 20k saved whilst earning 15k a year in 2004? 15k back then is about 24k now but wages havent risen with inflation - thats the problem. In derby, a house worth 140k in 2000 has gone up in value to over 260k now. Who lent you 10x your earnings in 2004 anyway?! The most you would have been lent would have been about 70k even with this magical depisit you saved in about 3 years - over 500 a month when your take home pay was about 1k a month (what did you eat? How did you transport yourself? Where did you sleep?)"
15k a year? I was earning 28k + a year at a local car factory & delivering poultry at the weekend + odd jobbing.
In the area i bought 'sinfin' it was the cheapest area in derby and still only around 10-20k more than they were in those days.
Many many borrowers will lend that amount. The problem is many are blind sighted when taking a mortgage out and go to the main banks which typically offer the worst % deals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Make buying second/third/fourth properties a less enticing proposal.
And bring in rent controls similar to Germany. "
.
I was looking for a comment on rent controls similar to Germany's, which I agree with. However, I disagree on making further properties 'less enticing' as such. If landlords didn't buy those properties, the onus would fall on the state to provide the housing.
The point is to put controls in place to manage rental prices. That alone will entice landlords to invest in properties to let or decide to invest elsewhere.
Many countries also prohibit non-citizens from buying, limit what types of properties they can purchase or simply make it far more expensive for them to do so. The UK began doing this with extra measures specifically for foreign buyers a few years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
Rental controls will be blown away if the government continues printing money.
An increase in money forces asset prices up. This forces up rents.
Anyone remember (from two weeks ago) what government price caps did to electricity supply? It's fiddling at the margins and is avoiding miney-supply issues which is the elephant in the room |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmMandyTV/TS
over a year ago
Southampton |
"If you think it hard for millennials to buy their first home on a normal salary, GenZ is in for a big shock, huge! Simply because wages haven't gone up in line with house prices.
So what's the solution? "
Really, you think thats the biggest problem they face?
Climate change is going to fuck them totally, irrespective of wether they pay rent or mortgage.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai / Nottingham |
"Its never been as easy to buy a house, the government schemes are fantastic at current.
Yes central londons always been a issue so no change there.
The problem i see is everyone expects now, rather than going out and grafting. Its more important for youngsters now to have a 35k vw golf on finance than have a house, how many 17 year olds 20 year ago had a brand new car? Hardley any we bought to our means.
Now days its different. At 20 i bought my first home, a shit 2 bed £130k i put 20k down that was saved through working then had to renovate it and make it nice. you can now move into a brand new 2 bed home in derby for 190k with just a 10k deposit. Yet back when i saved 20k i was on about 15k per year, the equivalent job now payed 26k per year.
Its got nothing to do with governments or landlords to do with affordability its down to young people of today.
Sorry to say this doesnt add up in any sense. You also would have been in negative equity having gone through the bubble in 2008. 20k saved whilst earning 15k a year in 2004? 15k back then is about 24k now but wages havent risen with inflation - thats the problem. In derby, a house worth 140k in 2000 has gone up in value to over 260k now. Who lent you 10x your earnings in 2004 anyway?! The most you would have been lent would have been about 70k even with this magical depisit you saved in about 3 years - over 500 a month when your take home pay was about 1k a month (what did you eat? How did you transport yourself? Where did you sleep?)
15k a year? I was earning 28k + a year at a local car factory & delivering poultry at the weekend + odd jobbing.
In the area i bought 'sinfin' it was the cheapest area in derby and still only around 10-20k more than they were in those days.
Many many borrowers will lend that amount. The problem is many are blind sighted when taking a mortgage out and go to the main banks which typically offer the worst % deals. "
It used to be very easy to get mortgages as long as you could pay the payments everyone turned a blind eye, prices we’re rising so fast and many people took multiple mortgages out. I was temping in 1997 while a full time student and took out two mortgages at around 30x my annual income , if you couldn’t keep the payment you could just flip the property |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Preston |
"If you think it hard for millennials to buy their first home on a normal salary, GenZ is in for a big shock, huge! Simply because wages haven't gone up in line with house prices.
So what's the solution?
Really, you think thats the biggest problem they face?
Climate change is going to fuck them totally, irrespective of wether they pay rent or mortgage.
"
'Climate change' won't fuck anyone.
Government responses to climate change will fuck them though.
They won't be able to afford cars, houses or flights because of the green nonsense.
Possibly the biggest thing to hurt their life chances will be the forthcoming upgrade to the national grid, made necessary by the green crap
It's going to cost £100,000 for each family! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you think it hard for millennials to buy their first home on a normal salary, GenZ is in for a big shock, huge! Simply because wages haven't gone up in line with house prices.
So what's the solution?
Really, you think thats the biggest problem they face?
Climate change is going to fuck them totally, irrespective of wether they pay rent or mortgage.
'Climate change' won't fuck anyone.
Government responses to climate change will fuck them though.
They won't be able to afford cars, houses or flights because of the green nonsense.
Possibly the biggest thing to hurt their life chances will be the forthcoming upgrade to the national grid, made necessary by the green crap
It's going to cost £100,000 for each family!"
Amen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *m389Man
over a year ago
Bromley |
Land should never have been allowed to be private owned for making profit and accumulating wealth.
Everyone should have a roof over their head as a right. You can’t achieve this with widespread private land ownership. All land should belong to the state and the state should take responsibility for efficient provision of housing and roof over every head. Everyone effectively “rents” from the state.
If you really think about it, why do you need to buy a house. It’s to have security of having somewhere to stay. Owning a house outright is just one way of achieving this.
We all pay tax and in return we have the NHS that provides healthcare. You don’t need to “own” a doctor like you own a house because of this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Land should never have been allowed to be private owned for making profit and accumulating wealth.
Everyone should have a roof over their head as a right. You can’t achieve this with widespread private land ownership. All land should belong to the state and the state should take responsibility for efficient provision of housing and roof over every head. Everyone effectively “rents” from the state.
If you really think about it, why do you need to buy a house. It’s to have security of having somewhere to stay. Owning a house outright is just one way of achieving this.
We all pay tax and in return we have the NHS that provides healthcare. You don’t need to “own” a doctor like you own a house because of this.
"
Yeah not sure that's the best analogy... Perhaps if people felt a bit more ownership of the nhs they might be a bit more respectful of it and not take it for granted because its "free". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all about supply and demand. You can't keep prices stable ..or even reduce them ..when a net annual 500,000 immigrants have to be housed.
Young people would also be helped by a reduction in tax and the abolition of student loans
Well...those spurious figures are much higher than the reality of 270-300k but let's say 331k (the peak number)- how many rented housing? About 90%. Across the uk, 300,000 people is less than 0.4% population growth from migration. The average figure over 10 years is closer to 220,000. So no - migration is not a significant driving force of house prices! They rent and there arent many of them!
Gotta hate those immigrants though, Afghans, Somalians, Spanish etc etc
Bloody immigrants coming over taking our jobs, our woman and now are houses send the buggers back
No need to hate immigrants.
Bit we have to acknowledge that an increase in demand adds upward pressure to prices.
The renting/buying issue is irrelevant...an occupied house means less supply left on the open market and that adds upward pressure to prices.
Basic economics and you can't understand the housing market without understanding economics
The housing market is not sufficiently pressured by net migration to have caused the severe issues we currently face. We have sold off social housing and failed to build enough houses for over 30 years.
Without the level of migration we have, the economic impact would stagnate the economy and disrupt and impoverish vital services.
"Supply and demand" is a basic issue in terms of upward pressure on prices but the scale of the problem is vastly beyond issues to do with the amount of foreign labour we import. Without them, we still dont have enough houses
I disagree.
If we have been having net immigration of 350,000 people per year (anyone have the exact figure?) for the last 15 years it means that is an extra 5,250,000 people needing houses.
That is a very strong increase in demand. I can't see how that can't have contributed to rising prices"
350,000 is the higgest figure. The average is 240,000. Net migration doesnt mean we have population increase though - birth rates have dropped and the native population is currently decreasing - 1.65 is the annual birth rate (2019). Population growth is about 0.45%
Population in 2000 was 58m
Population 2021 is 68m
Interestingly, polulation growth has been higher under the tories in the last 10 years than any other 10 year period since 1950 - and that includes 2016-2021 post Brexit (where EU migration has dropped substantially).
Failure to build is government policy and not the fault of the net migration - which accounts for less than half the population growth. If there was a neutral rate of emigration/migration the polulation would still have risen over the last 20 years by significantly more than for the previous 50 years where the population grew by 8m from 1950 to 2000.
House prices rose massively previously too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There isn’t one cause of the problem, it’s a combination of many things.
The sell off of social housing coupled with the failure to replace the sold stock is at the heart of the problem. The “right to buy” was and is a Tory policy aimed solely at converting red votes to blue. The nation needs more social housing.
The concept of “right to buy” needs to be erased. By all means buy a home, but not a social housing property.
The concept of multiple home ownership needs to be addressed. Limit it to two properties with no tax breaks on the second home, be it stamp duty or anything else, with minimum levels of occupancy required.
We need to completely reconsider the whole “house as an investment” mindset, and get back to the concept of a place to live. (Besides, until you’re mortgage free, you don’t actually own your home.) we need to find more appropriate ways if funding houses, the price of which has been allowed to super inflate for too long. Perhaps the buy to let mortgage on a residential home needs to be banned?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
Reading the comments on this I'm not going to be popular with many... I'm a landlord.
I made a decision to buy another house rather than leave my money in the bank or invest in the markets.
The house is 3 bedrooms, it is in a desirable area, contains all the latest appliances and always kept in excellent condition from appliances, plumbing, heating, gas and electric etc.
I have had 3 families that have rented over the last 20 years. Non of the families could afford to buy, two families couldn't get a mortgage but they could afford to rent a house that suited their family in an area they wanted to live. I did not increase rent for any of the families for the first 2 years, after that it was linked to inflation. One family wrecked the house and did a runner, this cost me £10K to get it back to a condition to rent again.
What is missing in the narrative of how we got to where we are today, financial service screw ups such as the housing crash and credit crunch that left a lot of people in a position of negative equity or debt. House prices shot up in the 90's peaking in 2006 - 2007 due to easy borrowing fast track loans, no credit checks, fraud by financial institutes started the rot and it has never recovered. 2 of the families who rented my house were impacted by over borrowing, negative equity and increased mortgage payments. I have bridged a gap that benefits them today and me tomorrow. I will sell up when the time comes for me to retire and I will live off the money my investment has made plus my savings.
What is the answer to ever increasing house prices?
New mortgage ideas that are borrower friendly to start and lender friendly towards the end is an idea, why shouldn't the financial services pay back? Remove the deposit payment at the start of the mortgage and set it up as a second loan that can be paid off along side the mortgage or paid off when the property is sold or the mortgage ends. This gives time to the home owner to manage or save the deposit payment.. Just a thought |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
One other driver that’s not been mentioned much… the changing population dynamic in the UK over the past 30 or so years. Many more smaller family units than there were s few generations ago (reduction in the “traditional” or previously more typical nuclear family) must have had some impact on fuelling demand too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tax private landlords at 75%. Huge amounts of public money go to landlords via benefits paying rent. This money needs to be spent on building social housing. "
not all landlords are greedy most council and housing association charge just as much some cases more than I used to charge
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One other driver that’s not been mentioned much… the changing population dynamic in the UK over the past 30 or so years. Many more smaller family units than there were s few generations ago (reduction in the “traditional” or previously more typical nuclear family) must have had some impact on fuelling demand too. "
This is a massive issue - esp in reducing social housing availability. It has also meant single occupancy of 3 and 4 bedroom council houses when peoples children leave home and the occupier isnt made to move into a smaller property by the council |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It has also meant single occupancy of 3 and 4 bedroom council houses when peoples children leave home and the occupier isnt made to move into a smaller property by the council"
It was this, the hidden trap in the bedroom tax… there isn’t enough one and two bedroom social housing stock. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It has also meant single occupancy of 3 and 4 bedroom council houses when peoples children leave home and the occupier isnt made to move into a smaller property by the council
It was this, the hidden trap in the bedroom tax… there isn’t enough one and two bedroom social housing stock."
That is true but subsidised private rent has been an option for many years - friends of mine had a 3 bed house completely paid for via privste rental. Two bed flats are pretty much all that gets built in my town of 80,000 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
