Priced out generation fights back

System

I also lived with parents to buy, in fact I moved out of rented and back in, and became a hermit for 14 months while I saved, sacrifices that the majority wouldn't dream of making.

ukcarper

I was quite surprised to find that a couple where the man earns £25k and the woman earns £15k with a £20k deposit could buy a very similar house to the one I bought in 1972.

That house was £8k then and I was earning average wage and my wife just over half of what I was earning. If the house’s prices had just increased in line with wage inflation it would be about £135k whereas it’s £180k.

I struggle to get mortgage big enough to buy it then so that does show how you can borrow more money now and I wonder what effect that has had on prices

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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.

Of course there is - not sure where you get that? Obviously, new people become renters eg graduates etc, and people cease to be renters eg buy, emigrate etc etc. My point was that RTB was the main cause of net numbers in social renting going down.

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.

But if might-be renters have bought, then they don't need a property to rent.

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.

i would argue as in the scenario above, it's simply replaced the sell off of social housing.

How has BTL replaced the sell-off of social housing in this example? Surely her home is now privately owned. Someone still lives there, but it's an owner. I'm not clear how this makes what I think (?) is your point, that BTL replaced social housing. In this case it didn't. Home ownership replaced social housing, just as Maggie always intended. Am I missing your point?


should we get out the graph that depicts that?

Feel free - always a sucker for a graph.

econo_2

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

Some good points are made here. BTL landlords should be taxed properly so as to make this sort of socially undesirable speculation prohibitive.

Sorry Doc but yet again this type of comment is not only misleading as this area is minuscule when related to the whole of the housing market but is also just so simplistic a view to fix it by just taxing one group of people more.

I think most are just about sick and tired of being taxed to death and I wouldn't want to see even your richest millionaires paying anymore- WE ALL get taxed to hell and back as it is.

The fact is, our housing shortage and thus ridiculous pricing is and will continue to be down in the main to an appalling immigration problem and programme.

I recall when the population was about 55 million and now daily these cretinous politicians talk about management of 70 million as if they should get a medal for not seeing it grow higher than that!

Not rocket science is it.

carolt

So where are the 15 million homeless people, econo?

Pobby

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Thatcher did the right to buy thingy but as I recall the local authorities were banned from using the cash for more social housing. Can anyone recall why that was? Or did the old gal have a couple of BTLs?

StevieJ

econo wrote: »

The fact is, our housing shortage and thus ridiculous pricing is and will continue to be down in the main to an appalling immigration problem and programme.

I recall when the population was about 55 million and now daily these cretinous politicians talk about management of 70 million as if they should get a medal for not seeing it grow higher than that!

Not rocket science is it.

No it isn't, if you consider that immigration is probably the best way of rebalancing the UK age profile to counter the Baby Boomer pension problem.

StevieJ

Pobby wrote: »

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Thatcher did the right to buy thingy but as I recall the local authorities were banned from using the cash for more social housing. Can anyone recall why that was? Or did the old gal have a couple of BTLs?

She didn't agree with social housing, the theory was if most people owned their own homes and invested in the stock market the Tories would be in power forever :eek:

Davesnave

roddydogs wrote: »

Would anyone in their 20s now really want to "Swap" back to the 1970s? even if you could afford a house then? No computers, Flat screen, No Mobiles, colour tellys were about £3,000 in "Real" Terms, (4 Channelsonly )everything else is "Cheap" in comparison to then, ie Cars, Foriegn Holidays, consumer Electronics. Would you really want to go back to that?

Sadly not anywhere near my 20s, but I'd go back, especially if I could see The Who do 'Tommy' for 50p again.....Oh, and to have another crack at Linda Tugwell.....Black & white telly would be a small price to pay for that!

sticky23

My situation certainly falls under the category "priced out"...

1. Both me and my partner are self-employed and earn in the region of £25000 each.
2. We both have student loans, and I also had a loan for my post-grad (couldn't get funding) in the region of £20000. I have managed to pay that off in the last two years, but this has obviously meant that we have no savings.
3. We live in London; our business means that we HAVE to be here.
4. We rent privately. £1000 a month for a two bedroom flat in a run down area. The second bedroom is neccesary because of my business. The one-bedroom flat that we lived in before (330 sq feet!!!) was £850 a month. We left when the landlord tried to out the rent up - he subsequently had to let it out for much less than we had ever paid...
5. No bank of mum and dad.


We're both 30. Babies are out of the question as long as we have no security of tenure. We have been chucked out of flats twice, because the landlord wanted to sell. Rents can and will go up yearly..

Incidently I work with a man in his early 50's. We were talking about housing, and he told me how he'd got a housing association flat in the 90's, swapped it for a 3 bed council flat, used the right to buy, and now owns a 2 bed flat in London as well as a house in Hampshire. When I mentioned how much we pay in rent (which is probably less than his mortgage on both properties), he incredulously said: "Why don't you just get a Housing Association Flat?"

I didn't answer "BECAUSE YOUR GENERATION HAS BOUGHT MOST OF THEM UP!!!"

He'll realise what the problem is, when his kids are in a similar situation in a few years time, and he'll have to re-mortgage to give them a deposit... That unfortunately isn't an option for me and my partner...

What effectively has happened is that housing (read wealth) will be passed from generation to generation, and the people like me and my partner who are from the working class don't stand a chance. Even if we have access to borrow money for education...

Welcome to the Victorian age once again...