Ok, do you want house prices to go up or down ?

baileysbattlebus

A few years ago quite a few younger people I worked with moved out of the area (Reading) and moved to Swindon - 40 miles up the M4, they kept their jobs and commuted - the reason, they could buy a family sized house for the price they would have paid for a 1 bed flat in the Reading area.

One or two moved to Southampton and Portsmouth for same reason.

OH works at Heathrow - when we moved down here from Scotland our ideal locations were Windsor or Maidenhead, but we couldn't afford a decent house there and that was 20 years ago! He is and always has been on well over average salary - not in the barrister league maybe, but well paid.
We ended up in Woodley, because we could afford a decent house there and it was commutable

andys15

I would like them to go down

lostinrates wrote: »

No, no, no. we could not get an average property in a realistic commutable location for DH, we can't. It was this that first prompted us to look at alternatives, which in fact, may well suit us better- but thats because we are both lucky and unusual. I also think we have done pretty darn well accumulating funds, better than average for our generation, first year of Uni fees etc etc, so on that front I think we are above average but still struggling! Again, I agree, times have changed. But its not just for higher paid workers. That was kind of my point, if it is hard for us, how hard must it be for other comparitive situations.

ETA: how id the HPI help juniors? Had they BTL, MEWed? Did they sell the houses they had bought? are you sure none of it was own to increased debt an debt culture?

no for one example. my mate was a junior rate like I was. He bought his house in 97 for £67000, in 2007 that was worth £369000, his boss bought a house in 2007 for £240000 in a much much worst area. My mate has a mortgage of about £290 per month, officer probably £1000. I am not saying HPI helped anyone differently, I am saying that if in the past a persons class was based on the size of a mans house, then tin some cases that class divide has narrowed, and in some cases ie my mates switched

lostinrates

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

A few years ago quite a few younger people I worked with moved out of the area (Reading) and moved to Swindon - 40 miles up the M4, they kept their jobs and commuted - the reason, they could buy a family sized house for the price they would have paid for a 1 bed flat in the Reading area.

One or two moved to Southampton and Portsmouth for same reason.

OH works at Heathrow - when we moved down here from Scotland our ideal locations were Windsor or Maidenhead, but we couldn't afford a decent house there and that was 20 years ago! He is and always has been on well over average salary - not in the barrister league maybe, but well paid.
We ended up in Woodley, because we could afford a decent house there and it was commutable

The thing with commuting is that that is also increasingly expensive (in relation to earnings.) and distances that are considered with in 'reasonable' commute lengthening.

moggylover

I would like them to go down

lostinrates wrote: »

Realy, I'm agreeing with you today . It is not a right to BUY a home, it is likely people on low paid jobs will never afford to buy a 'four bedroom detached'.;) i also agree that the real world is ..well real, but i think we see it always, as though in a hall of mirrors.

But what about the average barrister (like NDG), the average corporate solicitor, like my DH? These people earn above average and struggle still to afford to buy suitable average housing, yet are traditionally the people buying the above average, albeit not top of the pile housing.

Maybe this is where the problem lies!

Who decides who is worth what, and who SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be able to afford what .

My own belief is simply that everyone who is working should be able to afford a home: and also that they should be able to afford to BUY their home if they so wish. NO-ONE should be allowed to own more than one house in this Country unless it is rented out long term (i.e. NO holiday homes at all:D ) and no-one should be allowed to mortgage to buy second or third or BTL properties, they should only be allowed to buy those from the proceeds of their prior hard work, or receive them from inheritance (where the same rules would apply: i.e. it must not be allowed to sit empty and fall into disrepair!)

However, I would also state that everyone who is working is entitled to expect a LIVING wage, and that the Government should not be paying out tax credits to top up wages: if you want a job done (be it corporate lawyering or loo cleaning) then you pay a LIVING wage to get it done. No Government should need to top up earnings to an amount that allows a minimal life on over-long hours as this Country currently does!

I have voted for the prices to come down (although I am selling at the moment and it is not entirely in my best interests:rolleyes: ) because I believe that we do need to allow first time buyers to get homes, and also lower paid workers. Hopefully the building societies and banks will have the sense NOT to re-start the BTL loaning for a good long period:D .

I'm off to get me coat now - since I am bound to get flamed (in fact I can feel the heat already:D ).

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

Maybe this is where the problem lies!

Who decides who is worth what, and who SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be able to afford what .

The markets!:rolleyes: In all seriousness, training for some jobs is more expensive, apptitude is not omnipresent and nither is skill.

Who should and shouldn't buy? How much the iniviual can afford. We don't fel we can safely afford what we want, so we haven't bought, when we were both self employed in lower income jobs, and now that I don't work and he's moved sector.

NO-ONE should be allowed to own more than one house in this Country unless it is rented out long term (i.e. NO holiday homes at all:D )

If we had a second property it woul be neither holiday home, nor home. It woul be accomodation to let DH earn, we'd only do it if it wer cheaper than renting. I know this is a popular view, but its not one I subscribe to myself. Obvously:) I'd rather we capped oversea investment in uk residential property first.

However, I would also state that everyone who is working is entitled to expect a LIVING wage, and that the Government should not be paying out tax credits to top up wages: if you want a job done (be it corporate lawyering or loo cleaning) then you pay a LIVING wage to get it done. No Government should need to top up earnings to an amount that allows a minimal life on over-long hours as this Country currently does!

I agree with you about tax credits. Totally.

darktrader

I would like them to go down

I voted "Down."

I own my property - just the one - with no mortgage or other debts and I purchased it ten years ago.

Prices going up or down have no direct affect on me whatsoever but the price (to use the word "value" is a misnomer) increase bubble, boom then bust, BTL and TV Property !!!!!! explosion has had a huge detrimental affect on our Society and Economy. Only a massive drop/collapse of Property prices will be sufficient to imprint on the Nations psyche and prevent a repeat of the folly for at least a Generation.

I will be interested in what future Governments do to curb BTL as this, as much as anything else has skewed the Market. Prices have not risen due to supply and demand operating in a "normal" Market. They have risen due to a minority purchasing too many properties for themselves. They are not wrong to do this given the inducements, easy debt and plethora of "experts" extolling the virtues of "Property Portfolios." But this gross distortion of the Market must be prevented from happening again.

baby_boomer

I would like them to go down

Lower prices please. [One property of my own but will "suffer" from lower inheritance because of lower property prices, in due course.]

As a country we need to save more for retirement. This is only possibly if our indebted future students can afford housing, living costs and have a bit left over.

The first idiot who said "my home is my pension" was probably a baby_boomer.

Eventually an economy less reliant on a property boom might be healthier. If we survive that far!

Property inflation rewards the wrong people. Hard work and talent is what we should be trying to reward.

IveSeenTheLight

lostinrates wrote: »

How big do you think the area should be? I'm currently receiving details from propertis in 8 counties (having rduced search area:o ).

Thing is, DH earns his salary. Last week he didn't even go to his rented room three nights, two nights he worked/napped through, the third he was so tired he fell asleep for almost four hours at his desk. How, relaistically, working like that could a person then commute for the long commutes that have become quite normal to city workers? Let alone take part in family life.

Its all very well for us, and I agree with much said here, to say people must 'cut their cloth' but in reality there are a lot of people who are working like stink, for both good wages and poor, an are tied to work locations, family problems etc that the way they live with these constriants suggest to be there are flaws in the current system, serious flaws!

I am not arguing with you, however I am sure there are areas where your DH would have still have a very good salary and a good lifestyle (possibly better).

You have a choice, stay where you are or move. If people in your DH's professions made it clear that you were moving because it was not a good life / work balance and you couldn't afford to live / work in that area then crudely the employers would need to work out a resolution.

Don't jump down my neck, I feel for you and others who find it difficult in your areas, but ultimately, people are getting by, positions are filled / covered, so why would the employer change things.

Ultimately the market will settle and people make their decision if they are happy in that area or not.

moggylover

I would like them to go down

lostinrates wrote: »

The markets!:rolleyes: In all seriousness, training for some jobs is more expensive, apptitude is not omnipresent and nither is skill.

Okay - but my question is - if we all train for "better" and "better paid" jobs, who does the other less skilled, but often more essential jobs? When I lecture (which I still do occasionally upon invitation:o ) I always like to ask students "who EARNS his retirement the most, the guy/gal who works a 40 hour week doing something they hate in order to earn a bare living, or the one who does 60 hours in a job they enjoy, or the guy who works 85 hours a week in a job he doesn't particulary like but gets mega-dosh for doing it? Who actually works hardest, the guy who hates his job, or the one who gets job satisfaction?" I get some amazingly lucid answers from some of the younger ones: who, wanting to live in a greener society, also seem to realise that we need to approach it more fairly in terms of earnings!

Who should and shouldn't buy? How much the iniviual can afford. We don't fel we can safely afford what we want, so we haven't bought, when we were both self employed in lower income jobs, and now that I don't work and he's moved sector.

I see one of the basic "rights" of life as being a roof over ones head, either because ones family are able to provide it during childhood, or because you can afford to rent it or buy it in adulthood because you are working. How we expect, as a nation, to encourage people to work when they will still not be able to afford a "decent" home in line with their familial needs I do not know. Now, it may be that you are personally asking for too much - I do not know your circumstances, but those of us that own nice homes in older age did not necessarily start out with such nice homes first, and I am afraid to say that the current generation generally want too much at one go and would not be seen dead with someone else's cast-off furniture or curtains as my own generation (even in fairly well paid jobs) often did!

What I do see as wrong, is that often people in privately rented accommodation are paying as much to rent as they would to pay a mortgage, and are (in fact) paying a mortgage for someone else to get the benefit of because they are not seen as mortgageable themselves! That is what is basically wrong with the current BTL situation, and until that is addressed (by rent control or more state owned housing for those on low incomes) then we are not going to make any lasting impression on the housing market just by getting lower prices for a couple of years!

If we had a second property it woul be neither holiday home, nor home. It woul be accomodation to let DH earn, we'd only do it if it wer cheaper than renting. I know this is a popular view, but its not one I subscribe to myself. Obvously:) I'd rather we capped oversea investment in uk residential property first.

I too would wish to see overseas investment in residential property stopped: except where the person buying was able to show a need for that property for their own use for at least 75% of the year!

A pied-a-terre should not be a necessity in this life, work should be available in the areas people live in and "dormitory" systems should be frowned upon greatly: although I admit that a sneaking wish of mine is to be able to live here where I am, and have somewhere back home so that I could spend more time with my other family.:o


I agree with you about tax credits. Totally.

I know it is often "difficult" for small companies to pay very much on starting up! What annoys me is the number of very much better off companies where the staff are still paid a pittance so that their boss (who forgets that their work contributes to his living) can have a bigger house, fancier car or a boat for weekends! There is no such thing as a "self-made" millionaire: one cannot earn and amass that sort of money on ones own work and time only - and if you are receiving that kind of money and exploiting just one person on an unlivable wage then I personally think you should be shot:D As to the big corporations that pay poorly..............well, I shall leave you to imagine for yourselves what I think of them!

During the last recession, a friend of mine who was a very highly qualified quantity surveyor was laid off from the job he had been doing very well for 12 years because the Company were in difficulties: he attended a very large number of interviews and was offered a couple of jobs, which was fine until he asked about remuneration, at which stage they asked what he was getting on the dole, and offered him that as a starting wage!!!! Wonder how much of that sort of exploitation will go on this time around!;)

lostinrates

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Don't jump down my neck, I feel for you and others who find it difficult in your areas, but ultimately, people are getting by, positions are filled / covered, so why would the employer change things.
.

Hey, I didn't jump down your throat

I've only lost my temper on the forum once, an apologised afterwards and it was not with you. In my world its never worth shouting at a computer screen;) an I had very strong words with my self when someone rattled my cage enough to get a bite.:o

I agree with looking elsewhere. In UK DH is tied to London. Paris for six months next year will make an intersting comparison of affordablity and quality of life. Reluctantly I am accepting we were financially much better off in Italy. We want to stay in England, we love England, but we are very lucky that we have good options abroad, both within an out side EU, and if we were still finding we could do seriously better elsewhere financially, enough to make up for not being in England, well, we might go. Going outside EU (eg to America) is very possible without changing employer, but a big deal for us to arrange quarantine if we wanted to come back.