The Affordability scam explained

Turnbull2000

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Absolutely correct.
Theres a lot of people trying to revise history around here, but the numbers are clear. The last decade has seen both affordability and accessability to housing increase.

Yet...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7156906.stm

The number of first-time home buyers in the UK has dropped to its lowest point since 1980 as house prices soar, mortgage lender Halifax says.

When they do enter the market, first-time buyers are now more likely to be in their 30s rather than their 20s and buy a flat rather than a terraced house.

And...

http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/2920061818.htm

First time buyers lowest in quarter of a century

First time buyer numbers dwindled to record lows to the point where they were outnumbered by investors. And not only that, the average age of first-time buyers rocketed to 30 and beyond and the percentage of owner-occupiers decreased for the first time in years. It's you that's trying to revise history.

mbga9pgf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

One of the side effects of this crash is that it will be a decade or more before the lower earners, the young, those with less than spotless credit, those who live in areas with high rental yields, who can't save huge deposits, etc, can again buy a house.

High deposit requirements hurt the poorest and youngest in society the most.

Ironically, many of the people most loudly complaining about house prices being too high, have seen those prices fall, only to be locked out of the market.

So what? When did I ever complain about social mobility? this is purely about the size of the house I can get for my money, whilst comparing it to relative income. In other words, I believe the house I could have purchased historically for my household income should become available. I couldnt give 2 sh*ts if the scab that has been claiming the dole for the past 20 years has access to affordable housing.

Hamish, I agree fully wrt your sentiments in terms of savings and sacrifice, the problem is, I will have 2X my annual (top 5% of population 3X in 2011) salary and still not be able to afford much more than a 3 bed semi on an estate. I live in the South west, an my wage is above the local average. Despite saving 80% of my take-home for the past 3 years, the best I can hope for is a semi on an estate. Fantastic. something is fundamentally wrong with this, hence the reason why droves of top income young professionals choose to flee the UK every year for a better life abroad.

I think if the Tories really do want to sort this, they need to enable wide-scale building projects constructiong QUALITY fair sized homes in decent areas (b*gger the green belt if necessary, we are talking quality homes here not new sink estates) which will do wonders for the construction industry and sort out supply problems. I Honestly think this is what they are planning, having viewed the Tory white paper on housing.

I the mean while, we face a vastly lop-sided economy that is about to experience a major rebalance, in terms of taxation, employment and most importantly, how we value our cash and more importantly our savings. You only have to listen to the message the Tories are pumping out about reducing individual debt to see that profligate lending is not going to feature highly on a Try manifesto. Not necessarily good for those who have existed for the past 10 years on the plastic but good in terms of our nation state and the future of Britain.

chucky

CluelessJock wrote: »

There is also the consideration of the right to buy, not only due to the cheap council property that was snapped up, but also the knock on effect on how home ownership was viewed as the result, and of course the more subjective issue of how the nation has evolved.

you're right the UK attitude to property has changed so much that renting is frowned upon by many and the the next step from renting is buying. renting property isn't a bad if it suits your circumstances.

CluelessJock wrote: »

It might be an idea to stop trying to draw direct comparisons, as it cannot be done in a way that provides the answers you seek.

my post was in reply to the comment comparing the 1970s as the easiest time to buy.
that wasn't the case, just stating the facts. it wasn't.

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

that wasn't the case, just stating the facts. it wasn't.

I think your interpretation of the articles you read is probably incorrect.

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

I think your interpretation of the articles you read is probably incorrect.

and why is my interpretation incorrect?

let's see if you can explain why... :rotfl:

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

and why is my interpretation incorrect?

let's see if you can explain why...

I think you try very hard to understand economic theory, and use it to back up your case for buying a house at the peak. Understandable in some ways, but misleading for others using the forum.

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

I think you try very hard to understand economic theory, and use it to back up your case for buying a house at the peak. Understandable in some ways, but misleading for others using the forum.

lol - i've never bought at peak :rotfl:

i've bought more than one after peak though... what a great time to buy cheap property... :money:

what has me buying or not buying property got to do with my post about the number of home owners in the 1970s? you still haven't told us why my interpretation is incorrect too... you've just relied on making stuff up again...

are you trying to cause arguments again?? it's not my fault that you've got to pay two mortgages though... :rotfl:

geoffky

graham i was 18 years old when i bought my first house.i had saved the deposit from spending long cold months down in the Falklands in 1982 but it was no where normal for a 18 year old to buy then...

mewbie_2

In the long run the affordability myth will sort out the over extended.

CluelessJock

chucky wrote: »

my post was in reply to the comment comparing the 1970s as the easiest time to buy.
that wasn't the case, just stating the facts. it wasn't.

My point is comparing the number of home owners now with the number in the 70's is not necessarily a direct indication of affordability! There are numerous factors that influence the number of homeowners. If you see it as such then your interpretation of the 'fact' (if it is a fact) is wrong.