Priced out generation fights back

carolt

misskool wrote: »

I'm not arrogant, merely pointing out that perhaps other people should have a different point of view than yours. I don't post so people hit the thanks button in awe of my wit and wisdom, it's just my "arrogant" POV

I suspect Graham may have been referring to this line?

"I'm not going into a fatuous discussion with you."


Didn't exactly suggest your respect for his 'different point of view'...

IveSeenTheLight

misskool wrote: »

Actually, the one thing I agree with you is that housing stock should be prioritised. Social housing should be increased and there should be more houses instead of flats so people can be settled for longer. The whole moving up a ladder thing would negate the prices inflating too rapidly. If people did what they used to do which is buy one house for life, that would help. If there was enough social housing, then the right people would get help instead of being at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords and councils wouldn't have to pay rent to private landlords.

I agree with most of this but there are a section of people who don't want houses in the countryside but want to be in the city centre. Being integral part of the city.

Many people want to live this life when their in their 20's / early 30's and then move when they want to settle down

There needs to be accomodation for both

Graham_Devon

carolt wrote: »

I suspect Graham may have been referring to this line?

"I'm not going into a fatuous discussion with you."


Didn't exactly suggest your respect for his 'different point of view'...

You suspect correctly :cool:

But you missed out the "here we go" starting line!

misskool

carolt wrote: »

I suspect Graham may have been referring to this line?

"I'm not going into a fatuous discussion with you."


Didn't exactly suggest your respect for his 'different point of view'...

Maybe it's because he was starting an argument for the sake of it?

The woman earns more than the median salary and yet she can't save. WHY?

A person earning above the average/median salary has a larger disposable income and no matter how you spin the SOA, there are always places to cut down. When pointed out he was wrong, he was merely dismissive and did not bother to include the full SOA.

It's difficult to have a proper discussion when you can pre-empt their next move , especially as this is GD.

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In your opinion it's meaningless as you cannot argue that there are less rental properties as a percentage today than there was historically.
BTL has merely replaced with better stock the social housing that was sold off.

Tenants now have a better standard of property than historically.

You believe that properties are ineficiently utilised, yet we can show that there is a higher percentage of owner occupiers than from decades previously.

I'm not denying that BTL has increased, but I am saying that the percentage of rental properties now as opposed to decades ago has lowered.

Quite simply put, the number of properties for both private and rental use has not increased in line with the demand for property.

Sort this out and you'll go a long way to stabalising house prices and rental prices.

Some of this I'd agree with; I'd disagree that BTL has replaced social renting, though - RTB has meant that many of those who used to live in social housing still do; they haven't even moved, they just own it now.

But renting privately, due to the growth in BTL, has replaced buying for many would-be FTBs.

Which takes us back to the OP, and the need for their campaign.


Though I do agree with dopester - they're just not angry enough.


Yet.

Graham_Devon

misskool wrote: »

Maybe it's because he was starting an argument for the sake of it?

The woman earns more than the median salary and yet she can't save. WHY?
.

You call that starting an argument?

You asked why, I put some figures down to try and explain. You call that me trying to start an argument?

Well you live and learn

When pointed out he was wrong, he was merely dismissive and did not bother to include the full SOA.

I don't see the need in all honesty. We all pay for our lives, and surely we all understand that different people have different things and circumstances to pay for.

I couldn't possibly list a full SOA for someone who I do not know, do know know where they live, do not know their circumstances. But I can take a rough guess based on averages.

carolt

misskool wrote: »

Actually, the one thing I agree with you is that housing stock should be prioritised. Social housing should be increased and there should be more houses instead of flats so people can be settled for longer. The whole moving up a ladder thing would negate the prices inflating too rapidly. If people did what they used to do which is buy one house for life, that would help. If there was enough social housing, then the right people would get help instead of being at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords and councils wouldn't have to pay rent to private landlords.

Agree with you 100% on this.

I think the group mentioned in the OP could usefully focus on supply as well as demand in their campaign - presumably they don't want to spread themselves too thin.

StevieJ

misskool wrote: »

I'm not going into a fatuous discussion with you.

We have all been there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhvAs5GsMPw

ukcarper

andykn wrote: »

The article seemed to have the misconceptions and unrealsitc expaecations prevalent on HPC, that you should be able to save enough money while renting a flat on your own to be then able to buy an "average" property as an FTB.

My parents lived with their parents until they bought, I was in flatshares before I bought so I could save a deposit equivalent to 100% of my gross salary (not 25% like "Katy") and subsequently had lodgers for 10 years.

This is a very good point I lived with my parents until I was able to buy. My stepson stopped renting a house and rented a room in a house so that he could save.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Some of this I'd agree with; I'd disagree that BTL has replaced social renting, though - RTB has meant that many of those who used to live in social housing still do; they haven't even moved, they just own it now.

Similar as the FTBer is to the property market, in your scenario is there to be no new influx of people to the rental market.

True the property which was rented and now owned does not need a new tenant, however when the ownership is completed, its not available for the next renter.

I know a similar perfect example.

My Grandmother in Law had a council rented property. The counil would not modernise to help with her living as she grew older, so the property was bought under RTB and rennovated.

A few years later, the GIL passed away and that property instead of returning to social housing was sold on to private housing.

carolt wrote: »

But renting privately, due to the growth in BTL, has replaced buying for many would-be FTBs.

i would argue as in the scenario above, it's simply replaced the sell off of social housing.
should we get out the graph that depicts that?