Who should be able to buy?

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

House ownership is already at 70% or so.... Far higher than many countries in Europe.

How much further is likely, possible, or desirable?

Likely? Who knows. No crystal ball.

Possible? 100% surely is possible, if the political will is there. All things are possible.

Desirable? Ah, there you have the real question. I'd say, the desirable figure would be 1 for everyone who wants one, none for anyone who doesn't. Unfortunately, I'm talking about houses for living in. The problem arises because some people feel they need to own 10 houses and make a living by renting them out, instead of getting a proper job. Or 700 houses, in the case of the Wilsons.

To me, that is highly undesirable.

PasturesNew

PasturesOld wrote: »

....

Not me... naughty sockie.

Framps

shakerbaby wrote: »

Where you getting this figure from Hamish?

Can't speak for Hamish, but that is the figure quoted by National Statistics (ex-HMSO) for 2003/4:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1105&Pos=6&ColRank=2&Rank=224

Personally I can't see home ownership breaching 75 / 80%.

Some people can't afford to buy a home, some people don't want to buy a home, some people aren't planning on staying in the UK long enough to want to buy a home.

There will always be a flow of people renting - I'm an FTB at the ripe old age of 31. Have spent 12 years happily renting all over London plus time in Europe. The flexibility and fact that I could rent places I could never afford to buy more than offset the "paying someone elses mortgage" aspect. Although, looking at the national statisitcs data, that could just be a London thing...

Framps

Actually looking at the National Statistics data in a bit more detail, it would appear that c. 20% of all households are "social sector" rented dwellings - perhaps 70 - 75% is a more realistic maximum...

Dan:_4

Who shoud be able to buy?

Those that can afford it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Framps wrote: »

Actually looking at the National Statistics data in a bit more detail, it would appear that c. 20% of all households are "social sector" rented dwellings - perhaps 70 - 75% is a more realistic maximum...

I'm inclined to believe home ownership as a percentage of population has already peaked.

dopester

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

House ownership is already at 70% or so.... Far higher than many countries in Europe.

How much further is likely, possible, or desirable?

This quote below was referring to the US, from about 18 years ago. I'm not sure how to interpret it or how they came to their conclusion, but whenever the 70% UK home ownership gem is proudly flaunted about, I think of it. I'd suggest many purchasers of recent years in the UK are very highly leveraged.

Those who have held houses for a long time, including most older home-owners, have little or no mortgage debt. For overall owner-occupied real estate to reach 49.2 percent, more recent borrowers had to be leveraged to the hilt.

Also it is only the active buyers/sellers which shape the values for everyone else in the market. Whether they own or don't own, are buying or not, are selling or not.

Including the 80+ year old spritely pensioner down the street who a few summers ago proudly told me he bought his home in the 1950s for something like £4,600 and how it was now worth £300,000 despite him having done very little to it, other than a few modernising improvements like a new kitchen, wallpapering and so on.

It has been pushed up to that value by buyers and sellers over the months and years transacting on similar properties in the area for ever higher prices.

Generali

jim83 wrote: »

House ownership is not 70% - you only own a house when you've paid for it in full.

I don't have figures in front of me, but I'd imagine that the majority have some sort of mortgage attached. A considerable number will actually own no part of the house they claim to.

I do think real rates of ownership will decrease, but that can happen in two different ways - either house values increase, or the population's spending power decreases.

Slightly under 50% of houses have a mortgage.

dopester

A pretty interesting read from The Independent (1997) about higher levels of home ownership impacting on unemployment, and some interesting historical data about values and ownership-vs-renting.

I know Labour's wild party decade kept the property magic show going, and values rocketing... but the show is now over.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-home-ownership-boom-is-pushing-up-unemployment-1269185.html

Under Labour of course, if you now lose your job and want to move to a new area in order to take a job, you usually can just make micro-interest repayments on your house and let-it-out... and go buy or maybe rent in a new location where there is a job to be had... but it is building up some seriously imbalances on top of imbalances for a very negative economic outlook in some areas.

dopester

Generali wrote: »

Slightly under 50% of houses have a mortgage.

That doesn't mean much to me. Not if someone presents it in a way to say over 50% of home owners have no mortgage, and implying that has a bearing on supporting current values

I've owned shares in the past. Bought them without borrowing any money.

It didn't stop the my shareholdings in some companies rising, or sometimes falling, on any given day, by the actions of active buyers and sellers who were actively transacting in the market.