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!
Age of home ownership coming to an end...
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Why would it be unlikely to happen, considering the shift to mass rentals we are talking about?
What makes the owners so special in this country?
It's also not a bears wish list. Can you actually argue the points?
I could imagine putting such laws against property owners would effect those making the laws.
The thing that I find odd is the laws for tenants and landlords, both sides are just as bad as each other in my opinion.
Good and bad apples everywhere you go0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »
What makes the owners so special in this country?
We own all the property, we are the majority, we live in a democracy, and we vote in our self-interest.Can you actually argue the points?
Sure.1. If we did go down the route of renting instead of owning, we would need measures put in place to give some security to the tennant, much like Europe.
Why would we "need" those measures? You can have a secure lease on a property today, there is no law banning them. If the market demands them, and tenants are willing to pay for them, then they will happen.
I don't see any government reducing property owners rights to pander to the desire (not need) for enhanced security of tenure.2. Rent's do have an upper limit. That is, what people can pay, out of their wages. This is very different to what the housing market has seen over the past decade. I.e. the limit is what you can borrow.
But the limit you can borrow is already constrained by what you can pay, "out of your wages".
And in a society that does not build enough houses to keep pace with growing population, the inevitable consequence is more people living to a house. Which means more earners per house. Which means a higher average household income, and thus a higher rent that can be supported.3. Opportunistic landlords would simply be wiped out of the market. You cannot be opportunistic when your tennants have say 3 year terms. The landlords would be, in essence, locked in to the deal, unlike now.
Landlords are already locked into a deal for 6 months or a year. But again Graham, you have failed to show me a single part of the governments manifesto that proposes ALL tenancies MUST be 3 year secure deals. And such tenancies would disadvantage many renters too you know.....4. Rents would HAVE to be lower than they are now. People would still need to be able to save and plan their retirement. They would have no asset as their retirement plan. So for rents to be lower, asset prices would have to be lower.
Rents don't HAVE to be lower just because it's on a bears wish list... And with an increasing population, and not enough houses, rents are rising rapidly at the moment, faster than wages, and will continue to do so over the long term.“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 -
funny that me too...I was going to raise a similar issue/question
naughty bulls - are you going to tell them off?The question is - Why do the bulls "celebrate" property shortgage in the UK and therefore rising house prices ?
i put the same question to you the other day regarding fuel consumption but predictably you disregarded it as immature and irrelevant... but now we using food in your analogy... well done...I mean, if there was a food shortgage, not enough for people to starve, but for more and more people to have to live off small rations or poor quality food, would there be so much support for that particular situation ? Would there still be some people who support the best/most food being bought up by the wealthiest, and disagree with those who oppose the situation ?
all these people that think about their children and house prices... do they stop using fuel because each time they fill there car up with fuel they are robbing their own children of using fuel in the future...0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »We own all the property, we are the majority, we live in a democracy, and we vote in our self-interest.
But you are talking about the majority of property being rented. Yes? Therefore, the majority would not own property? No? If we were mostly renters, the renters would be the majority.
Call me Mr Muddle if you like.
Again, we are on a topic discussing the liklihood of home ownership reducing, and rentals increasing.Why would we "need" those measures? You can have a secure lease on a property today, there is no law banning them. If the market demands them, and tenants are willing to pay for them, then they will happen.
I don't see any government reducing property owners rights to pander to the desire (not need) for enhanced security of tenure.
Many families, many settled people, want security. Not the propsect of being told they now have to vacate their home, always on the backburner.
Extrodinary, I know, but if we are moving over to a system whereby renting is the new owning, people will want security, and to call a home, a home.
No, it's not. May I introduce you to something called self cert? Or interest only, which allows you to extend your affordability. After that, may I introduce you to various lenders criteria, where one lender will lend you more than another.But the limit you can borrow is already constrained by what you can pay, "out of your wages".
Sometimes, I do wonder why you act as if you have no clue what you are talking about.
Rent has nothing like that. With rent, if the rent is £600, you can either afford that payment each month, or you can't, simple as that. Theres no options here. No criteria here. It's £600, your wages must pay it. Done.
Apart from the fact that society has gone COMPLETELY the other way, with less people in houses, I think your point here is somewhat fantasy.And in a society that does not build enough houses to keep pace with growing population, the inevitable consequence is more people living to a house. Which means more earners per house. Which means a higher average household income, and thus a higher rent that can be supported.
A year simply isn't enough. Not to families who have kids going to schools etc. If we are to move to a rental based system, a year is useless.Landlords are already locked into a deal for 6 months or a year.
No one has even mentioned a manifesto, or indeed, asked me to show them it. So it's no surprise that I have failed to do so. The very fact we are talking hypothectical situations seems to have escaped you so you have gone for the desperation option of trying to tell me I have failed to show you something you never asked me to show you....and even if you did, we both know, I couldn't.But again Graham, you have failed to show me a single part of the governments manifesto that proposes ALL tenancies MUST be 3 year secure deals. And such tenancies would disadvantage many renters too you know.....
Rubbish.Rents don't HAVE to be lower just because it's on a bears wish list... And with an increasing population, and not enough houses, rents are rising rapidly at the moment, faster than wages, and will continue to do so over the long term.0 -
How long do you envisage this being the case? And what happens when the balance switches (as the OP suggests) with property owners being the minority?HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »We own all the property, we are the majority, we live in a democracy, and we vote in our self-interest.We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. Carl Jung
0 -
less people will own more property - back to the pre-1970 and 1980 days... probably means higher yields as a smaller group will be in control of rents plus a higher demand for rentals...Graham_Devon wrote: »Why would it be unlikely to happen, considering the shift to mass rentals we are talking about?
that's pretty obvious - they can make you move home in 1 month on an AST...Graham_Devon wrote: »What makes the owners so special in this country?0 -
a generation or more likely two i would have thought but that's without home ownership increasing at any point in the future because it won't go down in a straight line - since 2005 it's dropped about 2% from about 70%.How long do you envisage this being the case? And what happens when the balance switches (as the OP suggests) with property owners being the minority?0 -
So far as I see, Hamish (and likely others) appear to want the following:
- Less people owning, instead renting.
- The contol to stay with the owners, and the government to keep it this way, even if owner occupancy was less than rented occupancy.
- Rents to keep increasing
- Their assets to keep increasing
- More people in the same house to enable those rents to keep increasing.
- The rules and regs surrounding rentals to be in favour of the owners.
Or In other words, I could have said,
So far as I see, Hamish (and likely others) appear to want the following:
- It all.0 -
How long do you envisage this being the case? And what happens when the balance switches (as the OP suggests) with property owners being the minority?
At the moment, 68% of households are owner occupied. Around 15% are private rented, and 17% social housing.
You're talking several decades at the very least before you approach 30% private rented, which would still leave 53% owner occupied.
My best guess would be sometime around 2050 before the majority live in rented, perhaps longer.
It took 100 years to move from 90% rented to 30% rented. It will take just as long the other way.“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 -
And so if policy (& then to some extent wealth distrubution) changes are decided by the 'majority' of the time we are talking about moving away from the recent 15-20 yr boom & bust crash cycles, towards 100 yr pendulum like ownership % cycles. hmmma generation or more likely two i would have thought but that's without home ownership increasing at any point in the future because it won't go down in a straight line - since 2005 it's dropped about 2% from about 70%.We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. Carl Jung
0
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
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards