Would you march for more affordable housing?

Emy1501

Deleted_User wrote: »

I'm making fun of the idotic idea that some guy in the North of Scotland is somehow to blame for some future kid in the South East not being able to find somewhere to live because the area is too over populated.

Rather than try to be subtle and make a joke of it I'll spell it out clearly. Take responsibility for your own children. If you live in an area that's so overpopulated that house prices aren't likely to be affordable for your children then if you want to help them then take action now and move to a better part of the country. People do it all the time - they move heaven and earth to live in the catchment area of the best schools, or where their kids will easily find work. Hamish has told you there's affordable housing where he lives. If you really think he's so much better off than you then why not move up there and give your kids a great start in life?

Who is blaming Hamish for HPI on his own? The point is he trying to justify his HPI by claiming how it was so hard from him to buy when he bought and in some weird way HPI is earned. As for moving up to Scotland no thank you. Lets face it it was your banks that got us into this mess with their overborrowing and attitude that debt is great and makes you rich. Just like you and Hamish they lived off their fantasy wealth and are only not bust due to government bailout. I have a feeling that many of you in Scotland are no different. There was an article the other day point out the problems of Scotland and how many of you are living above your means. I think I will stay where I am thanks.

I will encourage my kids to make sure they become well educated to so they can move to a country where the country's wealth is not simply based on HPI.

Also as for affordable housing in the UK. Maybe you could point out some areas in the UK where houses are affordable compared to jobs for the area? Also maybe you could take into account the fact that Hamish is looking for and cheering for100% HPI over the next 15 years in real terms. So we are talking about 2X average male earnings for the area which will make it 4X average earnings in 15 years time? Also don't forget as you have said they have to be in the catchment areas for good schools. Also unlike Hamish I'm not talking about studios or 1 bed flats where you could not swing a cat as lets face it I doubt you or hamish's first owned place was a studio

[Deleted User]

Emy1501 wrote: »

Who is blaming Hamish for HPI on his own? The point is he trying to justify his HPI by claiming how it was so hard from him to buy when he bought and in some weird way HPI is earned. As for moving up to Scotland no thank you. Lets face it it was your banks that got us into this mess with their overborrowing and attitude that debt is great and makes you rich. Just like you and Hamish they lived off their fantasy wealth and are only not bust due to government bailout. I have a feeling that many of you in Scotland are no different. There was an article the other day point out the problems of Scotland and how many of you are living above your means. I think I will stay where I am thanks.

Ah, my mistake. Not just Hamish's fault. Scotland's fault. I hate to tell you this, but the Scots would probably be quite chuffed to know they'd screwed over the English...especially those in the South East.

I will encourage my kids to make sure they become well educated to so they can move to a country where the country's wealth is not simply based on HPI.

Seriously though, this is the right attitude. Know the situation you're in and be realistic. Take steps to make the system work for you. Or move somewhere where there's a system that can work for you. That's no different from what those taking advantage of our current system are doing.

Emy1501

Deleted_User wrote: »

Ah, my mistake. Not just Hamish's fault. Scotland's fault. I hate to tell you this, but the Scots would probably be quite chuffed to know they'd screwed over the English...especially those in the South East.



Seriously though, this is the right attitude. Know the situation you're in and be realistic. Take steps to make the system work for you. Or move somewhere where there's a system that can work for you. That's no different from what those taking advantage of our current system are doing.

I have always been realistic. As I have said my problems with the likes of Hamish and other round the UK is the fact that many of these people are not capable or not willing to work hard enough to save for and fund their own retirement and are therefore relying on the next generation to fund it through HPI. They then want to claim how they have earned and worked so hard for it which is complete rubbish as if they were capable of working hard and saving hard they would not need to rely on HPI for their retirement.

There is a difference between accepting HPI is a fact of life and cheering it to the hiils. Maybe I am wrong but I'm sure you have previously said that you would like HPI to continue above the rate of inflation.

julieq

Emy1501 wrote: »

What hard work though? When my parents bought they paid about 3-4X single wage, when I bought it was 3.5X single wage now its about 7X in my area? What was all this hard work people were doing? Surely its way harder now than then? Why people keep trying to make out how hard it was? Are they just trying to justify their HPI? Why do they need to?

Why not just admit they could not care less about future generations.

Sounds about right, buyers in your area are now in competition with couples, paying interest rates of something around half what your parents paid. Whichever way you play that, prices are at least as affordable to a single person, or twice as affordable to a dual income couple.

What was more difficult pre 1981 was getting a mortgage at all.

It has never been easy to get onto the housing ladder, believe me, and there is competition for places in which people want to live. You may not like it, but that's how it works, couples certainly are going to compete on the basis of both incomes.

The historical norm for securing long term rights of tenure has been leasehold. I'm sure that's the way we're heading, probably 50 or 60 year leases.

wolvoman

No

carolt wrote: »

I can see your points, but disagree.

I think there's plenty they can and should do to sort out the mess they've created.

1. Build loads and loads of social housing.
2. Bring back security of tenure and rent limits for tenants.
3. Remove tax perks for landlords.
4. Insist on income multiples for mortgages.
5. I could go on for hours, but I'll leave it there.

What tax perks?
The tax is the same for any other small business.

Emy1501

julieq wrote: »

Sounds about right, buyers in your area are now in competition with couples, paying interest rates of something around half what your parents paid. Whichever way you play that, prices are at least as affordable to a single person, or twice as affordable to a dual income couple.

What was more difficult pre 1981 was getting a mortgage at all.

It has never been easy to get onto the housing ladder, believe me, and there is competition for places in which people want to live. You may not like it, but that's how it works, couples certainly are going to compete on the basis of both incomes.

The historical norm for securing long term rights of tenure has been leasehold. I'm sure that's the way we're heading, probably 50 or 60 year leases.

My dad left school at 16 with limited qualifications and was not even born in this country. He could get a mortgage in the 70's in the SE so I doubt it was as hard as you would like us to believe. As for its never been easier to get on the housing ladder please do not make me laugh. I got on in in 96 with so much ease it was unbelievable. It would be a real struggle now if I was trying to buy for the first time now.

[Deleted User]

Emy1501 wrote: »

Also as for affordable housing in the UK. Maybe you could point out some areas in the UK where houses are affordable compared to jobs for the area?

And there's the rub. You have all the jobs in the South East but not enough housing and not enough room to build more or expand.

Other parts of the UK (yes, the UK does extend beyond the South East) has affordable housing and more room to build. But fewer jobs.

You can't move the houses to where the jobs are. The only solution is to move the jobs to where the houses are. Until that happens I don't see things changing. HPI is a symptom of the problem ... not the problem.

In the past, people in the north of england and scotland have frequently had to move out of their home towns as mines, shipyards, steelworks etc were closed down. They were forced to move to where the jobs were. So it's nothing new really - just a reversal in their favour.

Also maybe you could take into account the fact that Hamish is looking for and cheering for100% HPI over the next 15 years in real terms.

The reason he gives for this prediction is that there is a huge shortfall of housing and as that can't realistically be addressed prices MUST keep increasing due to supply and demand. Assuming he is correct (I tend to think he probably is) then it is down to each individual to decide whether they want to try and benefit from the situation or remain homeless as a matter of principle. What exactly do you achieve by refusing to pay high prices for property?

I can't speak for Hamish. But I (like you, based upon your previous comment) think it best to understand the situation and make it work to your advantage. There are only so many good jobs, university places and so on - I have no qualms about trying to be one of the people that gets one of them. Would you refuse a well paid job or university education unless EVERYONE on the country could have one too? Why should our attitude to getting a house be any different?

So we are talking about 2X average male earnings for the area which will make it 4X average earnings in 15 years time? Also don't forget as you have said they have to be in the catchment areas for good schools.

You do realise that very many people in this country aren't and never have been in the catchment areas for good schools. There have always been people that didn't have a hope in hell of buying a house - even when they're dirt cheap. So I don't think you can say that anyone HAS to be anything . If you can afford to be then great. If not then you have to make the best of a bad situation.

Also unlike Hamish I'm not talking about studios or 1 bed flats where you could not swing a cat as lets face it I doubt you or hamish's first owned place was a studio

Why do you doubt this? Most people I know started out in tiny places. My first home (read hovel) cost me £6k when the typical 1 bedroom flat was £30k. It was all I could afford. In fairly recent years I think people have been able to borrow silly money and start out in very nice houses - perhaps they did get it easy. And good luck to them. But that was never the norm when I was starting out (25 years ago). Nor was it the norm in my parents time.

moggylover

Yes

Deleted_User wrote: »

The solution is for people that can't get a house in heavily populated to move out to areas where there's less competition for property as it's much more affordable. You could move to any one of the areas in the UK that are less densly populated and therefore affordable.

The reason I give the example of Hamish's home town is that a lot of people seem to be blaming him for their children's plight by being greedy. If people feel that he's got it made then why don't they move up his way? Housing is affordable up there.

If people in the South East were really concerned about the future of their children they'd be flocking to places with affordable housing. Or at least raising their children to have the expectation that they must move away from home as soon as they're old enough (unless they're lucky enough to get the very best paid jobs...or an inheritance). The problem is, I suspect most want the best of both worlds. They want all the benefits that come with living in the South East but not the downsides. So who's being greedy?

As for how practical it is. Well, it's really just a reversal of what we've had over countless generations. It used to be the case that people from all over the UK moved to the cities - particularly the South East, to get work. My dad was brought up in Devon at a time when there was no work. He and his brothers all left home at 16 to find work in London. Had my grandparents been able to make the move when the boys were young it would have been a lot easier. But the boys all managed and did very well for themselves.

It's nothing new having to leave your home town in order to make a life for yourself. Although I suspect it is a new concept to many of those living in the South East.

Ah but Scarter! Therein lies the rub! When your dad and his brothers left home at 16 it was to find WORK in London - because there was none in Devon!

What in Gods name do you expect people to do when they move to the areas with affordable housing - it is "affordable" around here for a very good reason - there is very little work and what there is seldom rises far above minimum wage! The same can be said of most of the areas of the Country that have housing that those from the SE might consider "affordable" but that many locals do not:rolleyes:

We have to persuade the Companies to move first, and some of those who have done so very well out of the last 20 odd years of cheap labour and tacky imports could also try putting some investment into starting Companies in the areas that so desperately need work. Perhaps then there would be a chance to move there - and yes, then your idea (which you will recall I said was common sense;)) would stand a chance of working very well.

That sort of investment in an area would also regenerate it in a way that none of the poncy parks and flashy new buildings provided by EU regeneration handouts are ever going to.


BTW - I live in the South West - far South West, as in Wales and almost as far West as one can go without getting very wet;) - I MOVED here from the South East (Slough) for the cheaper housing 20 years ago:D

Emy1501

Deleted_User wrote: »

And there's the rub. You have all the jobs in the South East but not enough housing and not enough room to build more or expand.

Other parts of the UK (yes, the UK does extend beyond the South East) has affordable housing and more room to build. But fewer jobs.

You can't move the houses to where the jobs are. The only solution is to move the jobs to where the houses are. Until that happens I don't see things changing. HPI is a symptom of the problem ... not the problem.

In the past, people in the north of england and scotland have frequently had to move out of their home towns as mines, shipyards, steelworks etc were closed down. They were forced to move to where the jobs were. So it's nothing new really - just a reversal in their favour.



The reason he gives for this prediction is that there is a huge shortfall of housing and as that can't realistically be addressed prices MUST keep increasing due to supply and demand. Assuming he is correct (I tend to think he probably is) then it is down to each individual to decide whether they want to try and benefit from the situation or remain homeless as a matter of principle. What exactly do you achieve by refusing to pay high prices for property?

I can't speak for Hamish. But I (like you, based upon your previous comment) think it best to understand the situation and make it work to your advantage. There are only so many good jobs, university places and so on - I have no qualms about trying to be one of the people that gets one of them. Would you refuse a well paid job or university education unless EVERYONE on the country could have one too? Why should our attitude to getting a house be any different?



You do realise that very many people in this country aren't and never have been in the catchment areas for good schools. There have always been people that didn't have a hope in hell of buying a house - even when they're dirt cheap. So I don't think you can say that anyone HAS to be anything . If you can afford to be then great. If not then you have to make the best of a bad situation.



Why do you doubt this? Most people I know started out in tiny places. My first home (read hovel) cost me £6k when the typical 1 bedroom flat was £30k. It was all I could afford. In fairly recent years I think people have been able to borrow silly money and start out in very nice houses - perhaps they did get it easy. And good luck to them. But that was never the norm when I was starting out (25 years ago). Nor was it the norm in my parents time.

Could you please tell me where these 1 bed flats for 30K were 25 years ago? My Parents bought a 6 bed semi in South London for 50K 25 years ago. Now worth about 500K. I highly doubt therefore that a 1 bed flat was 30K 25 years ago especially when you could pick up in South London for that prices under 15 years ago.

The reality was my parents never had to borrow silly money to buy. They could afford their six bed semi on 3-4x dads wage even though he was not a professional. They also did not have to try and bring up their kids in a flat and neither did anyone else I know. Back then few people who worked and earned reasonable money had to bring their children up in flats. Mosts were able to buy at least a 2-3 bed terraced

Don't get me wrong high house prices are a part of life but lets not pretend that things were really hard 25 years ago when you started out. As I said in 96 when I started out a 10% deposit was not even 50% of wage and borrowing was about 3-4x now it would be about 80% and at 6-7x.

As for schools yes I do realise that but I would say that people earning good money especially well above the national average should be able to buy a property in a decent location.

Anyway for me the time will come where property is affordable again. As I say debt is not wealth. It is something many will find over the next 30 years when come to try and cash in their pensions. Too many are not saving for a decent pension and relying on property to save them. The problem is that too many people trying to downsize at the same time wil could problems. Unlike today where downsizing is lifestyle and not a necessity in 20-30 years time it will be for those 30-40 somethings of today who want to live for today and not for tomorrow. When they come to downsize many will become forced sellers as many will not have a pension otherwise.

dopester

No

Emy1501 wrote: »

It is something many will find over the next 30 years when come to try and cash in their pensions. Too many are not saving for a decent pension and relying on property to save them. The problem is that too many people trying to downsize at the same time wil could problems. Unlike today where downsizing is lifestyle and not a necessity in 20-30 years time it will be for those 30-40 somethings of today who want to live for today and not for tomorrow. When they come to downsize many will become forced sellers as many will not have a pension otherwise.

I think what you are describing is going to feed through much sooner (not for those who are just 30ish onwards now)... with ever more baby-boomers relying on the value of their property to fund their retirement. It doesn't take many to sell at ever lower prices to drive down values of those who are not selling.

That is how markets work. The values of homes in any area can only be valued as comparable to what homes are actually selling for in the active market. Even if you're not selling, what others sell for, impacts on the value of your home.

For older owners, housing has been a substitute for financial savings. Before these paper windfalls generated since the seventies can be converted to cash, however, new buyers must be found.

Most buyers will not have sufficient cash reserves to pay 50 percent down. Therefore mortgage lenders will have to absorb a growing share of the housing market for prices to remain stable. They are unlikely to do this. Losses on real estate loans will be the main cause of increasing losses in the banking system. Creditors normally react to rising losses by curtailing lending, imposing higher qualifications on borrowers, and raising loan rates higher than they would be otherwise.

As this trend becomes apparent, ageing homeowners, who are depending on their homes to provide retirement security, will try to sell. Paul Hewitt estimates that "the predicted trade-up market among the Baby Boom generation (born 1946-1964) may nor fully materialise if a growing number of middle-class boomers elect to remain in housing they consider merely adequate, rather than risk their equity in larger luxury homes."

A combination of demographic trends, the deflationary fallout from the end of the Cold War, and the decay of infrastructure in urban areas could make housing perform poorly. This would hit the middle class hard, endangering the savings of millions. It could be just one of several factors contributing to the evaporation of retirement.