We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Priced out generation fights back
Comments
-
Feel free - always a sucker for a graph.
Here's your graph. You can see that in 1981 the percentage of rental property was approx 45% of the market.
Go back further and in the 50's 50% of property was rented from private renters.
Even now I believe that BTL is only approx 11% (of mortgage anyway)
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.
Where would new renters go if private rental did not increase?
I'm agreeing that BTL has increased, I just don't think it was as sufficient to cause a FTB shortage.
To clarify, without BTL, you possibly would have seen owner occupancy even higher than it is at present, however there would be a major rental problem with little or no options for people to rent. More people than now would be stuck at home with parents rather than having the choice to move out.
What would happen to those that still could not afford to buy and there was no renting options?
I believe I answered this by the loss of property to the next generation of rentersBut if might-be renters have bought, then they don't need a property to rent.
I believe you are missing the point. Your looking at it from a current perspective but not from a progressive moving forward.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?
My GIL story reflected that she bought here property and therefore no longer needed the social house to rent. When she passed on however that property was no longer available to the next generation of social renters.
This is backed up by the fact that the government are subsidising private rental, because they do not have enough social housing stock.
Hopefully the graph above clarifies that in 1981 the total rented property was 45% of the property market but in 2005 only approx 30% of property was rented.
The increase in BTL has not sufficiently replaced social housing decrease, meaning there are less properties available now for rent than 30 years ago.
This is partially why rents are also relatively high in many areas.
this could be resolved by increasing both supply of owner occupancy and rental properties:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
In case you hadn't already worked it out - the entire global financial system is predicated on the assumption that you're an idiot:cool:0
-
I always find your comments so constructive, Jonbvn.
Thank you for that little gem.
0 -
If you want to get rich and afford a nice house, become a politician. This is just one of six properties that our ex-PM has taken off the market, presumably with the help of his consultancies in banking and oil:
A snip at £4,000,000.0 -
If you want to get rich and afford a nice house, become a politician. This is just one of six properties that our ex-PM has taken off the market, presumably with the help of his consultancies in banking and oil:
A snip at £4,000,000.
Looks like the kind of place our lot would want as a FTB property.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Another one from Tonys port folio. He bought it up as a doer upper but as you can see his DIY skills ( like his policies ) leave some thing to be desired.
This one is sited in the ever popular area of Hackney Wick. Realistically priced at £350,000, it reflects the benefits of the HPI that the London olympics will bring.
Ideal investment as it is estimated that during the Olympics it will rent at £30,000 a day.0 -
what can I get for a mortgage of 60k with a 6k deposit?This is WAY more fun than monopoly.0
-
what can I get for a mortgage of 60k with a 6k deposit?
Numerous properties in the North of England, Scotland or Wales.
Not a lot in the South East.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
80k + 10 k will get you a flat in north hampshire0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards