Age of home ownership coming to an end...

FATBALLZ

phil_b wrote: »

A cultural shift to long-term renting isn't as ridiculous as some people might think. It's very normal in other parts of Europe. In Germany a lot of people rent for their whole lives and take the kitchen etc with them when they switch rental, literally, the sink and all!

The difference being that in Europe tenants are not seen as scum with laws backing up that viewpoint.

Davesnave

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Divide widening between [STRIKE]property[/STRIKE] haves and have nots.

We could simplify your comment thus, and it would still be correct.

Bearing in mind that this is not continental Europe, with different tenancy laws and traditions, but the UK, with home ownership a
legitimate aspiration for the majority, how long do you think it will be before the have-nots decide to make things less comfortable for the haves?

In my book, as a certain Mr M Luther King once put it, 'How long? ...Not long!'

IveSeenTheLight

Davesnave wrote: »

We could simplify your comment thus, and it would still be correct.

Bearing in mind that this is not continental Europe, with different tenancy laws and traditions, but the UK, with home ownership a
legitimate aspiration for the majority, how long do you think it will be before the have-nots decide to make things less comfortable for the haves?

In my book, as a certain Mr M Luther King once put it, 'How long? ...Not long!'

Could this be why the government have taken measures to try and maintain the opportunity for people to own their own property.

The answer is simple, build more properties to cater for the demand then house prices would not inflate as much.

Simply tightening credit only limits the demand which can control HPI but also severly restricts asperational homeowners

Arcaine

Just a point but if houses cannot be bought by people who are on an average wage, then surely houses cannot increase much more in value because the same people would not be able to afford the rent on those same houses? The landlords simply will not be able to make enough out of the tenants to cover the mortgage they have to pay for the property.

wymondham

OK I see what it's getting at, but why does it seem to slate renting? - there is nothing wrong with it - it is there for a purpose. Those that can afford buy, those that cannot, or choose not to buy, rent, thats how it's always been and how it always will be - there is nothing wrong with that so why does it almost insinuate a two tear social system? The fact that the number that cannot afford to buy is increasing rapidly is just a sign of the times at the moment - things will rectify themselves ... eventually!

If I had my time again I would personally rent in this day and age as the cost to buy is ridiculous. The mortgages are so high that I see little difference in renting to buying in this climate...

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The price of an asset class can never be good or bad. Only a function of supply and demand.

Of course the price of an asset class can be a good or bad thing. Foodstuffs are assets and I believe you can trade and speculate on the prices of oranges, milk, wheat, oils, coffee etc., things that people need on a daily basis. If the supply of all of these things contracted and the price substatially went up then what you'd have is 'good' and 'bad'. 'Good' for the (relatively) few people who deal in these commodities and pretty awfully 'bad' for the majority who rely on these things to live. Therefore, the price of the asset is 'good' and 'bad'.

Taking the same approach to houses, if you asked the general public whether it's a good or bad thing whether there's becoming a two tier society of 'haves' and 'have nots' when it comes to property, as you put it, most would say that this is a bad thing. I know you wouldn't, but the majority of people would.

As much as you say a house is an asset like any other, it clearly isn't. Sure, they go up and down in the same way, they are subject to the same supply and demand rules and you can therefore treat them the same way if you wish. But most people still see the primary reason for owning a house as somewhere to live, with the secondary reason sometimes to make money (BTLers, speculators or just homeowners who want to make money). Therefore they are a different asset class because they are viewed as such by the vast majority of people. Just not you.

zappahey

Davesnave wrote: »

Bearing in mind that this is not continental Europe, with different tenancy laws and traditions, but the UK, with home ownership a legitimate aspiration for the majority,

Tradition? It's only fairly recently (second half of the last century) that the majority in England has owned their own home.

Probably later than that if you take the UK as a whole

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

drc

I think if this is really the case (and from what I can tell as a long term renter, it is), then a big change need to be made in order to provide a lot more security to renters and make the whole area of renting much more attractive and affordable. At the moment it seems that LL have it all their way - they get to charge massive rents, they can remove a tenant with 2 months' notice, a tenant never has more than 6 months to 1 year of "security" in their property, LL's can more or less dictate what a tenant does or doesn't do with "their" property and they can turn up at the property after giving very little notice and demand regular inspections.

When I told my sister who lives in Germany that our LL inspects our flat every three months she couldn't believe it. And she was shocked that we pay such high rent for this "priviledge".

Something needs to change and soon.

Davesnave

zappahey wrote: »

Tradition? It's only fairly recently (second half of the last century) that the majority in England has owned their own home.

Probably later than that if you take the UK as a whole

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

Yeah, I knew someone would raise that, but the majority of those alive now only remember the period since WW2, so I think that a high & increasing level of ownership is now the relevant 'tradition.'


Housing

: The rate of owner-occupation has increased from 10% to 68% from 1914 to 1999.

Davesnave

Cleaver wrote: »

Taking the same approach to houses, if you asked the general public whether it's a good or bad thing whether there's becoming a two tier society of 'haves' and 'have nots' when it comes to property, as you put it, most would say that this is a bad thing.

And the worst thing is that it's becoming very much a division between the old & the young.

Near me, a couple of youngsters have taken the matter into their own hands with a kind of civil disobedience that could be emulated up & down the land. They bought a small plot of poor grade land, stuck a caravan on it and have a friend with a crane move it from time to time, so it isn't 'static.' The council don't like this and want them out, but the argument could take years.

Meanwhile, they are living rent free, and no doubt building-up a deposit...

What if groups of youngsters got together and did similarly? These wouldn't be the usual guys whose ambition is to set up an alternative community in the woods somewhere, but like-minded individuals who want to short-circuit the economics which cause them to pay landlords for umpteen years, until they have the 'privilege' of jumping on the ladder.

Could be the next Big Thing!