Houses arent that Dear!!!

silvercar

Is it not possible that houses prices rose to the levels they did as there generally became a greater desire to own a nicer home?

Ever since Thatcher there has been a greater desire to own your own home. Thatcher proved that even those with long term security of tenure and cheap rent would prefer to own. Couple that with poor security of (short term contract) renting, the worry of funding your rent in retirement, the british love for animals (which seems to be incompatable with renting) and you start to understadn why people want to own their own home.

the_ash_and_the_oak

silvercar wrote: »

Ever since Thatcher there has been a greater desire to own your own home. Thatcher proved that even those with long term security of tenure and cheap rent would prefer to own. Couple that with poor security of (short term contract) renting, the worry of funding your rent in retirement, the british love for animals (which seems to be incompatable with renting) and you start to understadn why people want to own their own home.

Yes but they've always wanted to own their own home imo. All the above is just as true in 1971 as today. imo desire hasn't increased but demand has (as a larger and larger section of society has been able to gain access to credit)

kriss_boy

bumpoowee wrote: »

So you plan to never have kids and never lose your jobs?

Which is why I said 'if we were risk takers'.

At present if one of us lost our jobs we could still cover the bills comfortably. To commit to a mortgage of that scale would be dangerous as if either or us did lose our jobs we would need to get another one pronto.

Although at present out mortgage is only 2x our combined income which is probably quite low for new homeowners.

the_ash_and_the_oak

michaels wrote: »

Way I see it - say in real terms incomes have doubled in the last 30 years but food, motoring, holidays are all only up 50% in real terms. Now suppose 30 years ago 50% of disposable went on housing and 50% on everything else - now the 'everything else' could be bought with 33% of income leaving the option to spend 66% of income (if desired) on housing - net result - as incomes rise in real terms the proportion available for housing increases so housing costs are likely to rise as a proportion of income and relative to other spending. The market response would be to build more houses but planning policy prevents this.

agree with lots of this - and have posted similar in other threads. A reduction in the costs of food, fuel, "everything else", income tax (but not other taxes) has allowed a larger proportion of income to go towards loans imo

I don't agree about more houses being needed though. The 'problem' imo is not insufficient housing to live in - and I'm unconvinced of the merits of encouraging a larger and larger section of society to own (imo a balance between rented and owned housing is preferable)

kriss_boy

sjaypink wrote: »

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-23547676.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E724&insId=1&sortByPriceDescending=false&minPrice=150000&minBedrooms=3&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on&pageNumber=1&fromSummary=true&backToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E724%26insId%3D1%26sortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26minPrice%3D150000%26minBedrooms%3D3%26includeSSTC%3Dtrue%26_includeSSTC%3Don
Here we are, found a 'cheap' one. Small semi on large council estate

Is £800pm (£135k mortgage @ 5%) 'not dear'? After you've saved your £25k deposit? Hmmmmm....

well if you and your partner earn 20 odd grand and have a combined after tax monthly salary of around £2500-3000 then is it really that dear?

You've based on that on a 25 year mortgage too, 35 years works out as £680 pm.

the_ash_and_the_oak

if you bought early enough perhaps you could stretch that out to a 40 year mortgage?

mizzbiz

kriss_boy wrote: »

well if you and your partner earn 20 odd grand and have a combined after tax monthly salary of around £2500-3000 then is it really that dear?

You've based on that on a 25 year mortgage too, 35 years works out as £680 pm.

However it is an ex-LA property and chances are it's in a rough area - do a young couple bringing in £40k pa really want to live somewhere like that, and pay £800 per month for the pleasure when their next door neighbour gets £250 housing benefit per month to live in an almost identical one?

That is why houses are overpriced.

sjaypink

kriss_boy wrote: »

well if you and your partner earn 20 odd grand and have a combined after tax monthly salary of around £2500-3000 then is it really that dear?

You've based on that on a 25 year mortgage too, 35 years works out as £680 pm.

To live in a small council house? So, if thats whats achievable for a couple both earing '£20-odd k' a year (average earnings here are £17-£18k) who should be buying this one?
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27610502.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E724&insId=1&sortByPriceDescending=false&minPrice=150000&minBedrooms=3&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on&pageNumber=18&fromSummary=true&backToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E724%26insId%3D1%26sortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26minPrice%3D150000%26minBedrooms%3D3%26includeSSTC%3Dtrue%26_includeSSTC%3Don%26index%3D170

or this one?

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-23733037.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E724&insId=1&sortByPriceDescending=false&minPrice=150000&minBedrooms=3&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on&pageNumber=24&fromSummary=true&backToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E724%26insId%3D1%26sortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26minPrice%3D150000%26minBedrooms%3D3%26includeSSTC%3Dtrue%26_includeSSTC%3Don%26index%3D230

and no, I haven't picked out the most expensive 2 houses in the town to prove my point! http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-25662206.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E724&sortByPriceDescending=true&minPrice=150000&minBedrooms=3&radius=1.0&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on&pageNumber=1&fromSummary=true&backToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E724%26sortByPriceDescending%3Dtrue%26minPrice%3D150000%26minBedrooms%3D3%26radius%3D1.0%26includeSSTC%3Dtrue%26_includeSSTC%3Don

I'm not trying to be picky with you, and I know bombarding a thread with links from one town is not exactly discussion -just displaying why some (me!) still think houses are indeed still too dear in a lot of places

kriss_boy

mizzbiz wrote: »

However it is an ex-LA property and chances are it's in a rough area - do a young couple bringing in £40k pa really want to live somewhere like that, and pay £800 per month for the pleasure when their next door neighbour gets £250 housing benefit per month to live in an almost identical one?

That is why houses are overpriced.

I suppose prices differ too greatly from area to area to really access whats overpriced and whats not. Up in Scotland in my town a nice 2 bed flat in a nice area is only going to set you back 75/80K.

For 400K you could get a detached, 4 bedroom, stone build property in one of the most afluent parts of town that would cost over a million had it been located in central Edinburgh.

the_ash_and_the_oak

this is true tho you could argue wages differ from area to area too?