Millions give up on owning property

ruggedtoast

debtistheft wrote: »

I would argue that you have greater control over your dwelling if you are able to leave it and move to another without spending thousands of pounds to do so. You have greater control over your finances if you are more mobile; either to relocate due to better job opportunitites or to relocate because of changes to your personal or financial circumstances.

I would rather have a feeling of well being from knowing that if I lose my job or get too ill to work that I can relocate to a more prosperous area for a job or more to a cheaper one while I recover than I would get from having a well tended garden that I have grown for the next person to enjoy. If you like gardens then go to a park or country house, they are free for the most part.

There are pros and cons to both. What you describe would be fine if we had European style tenancy laws, or renting was much cheaper than it currently is.

Once you have kids, existing from one 6 month AST to the next starts to really grate. Although you're quite correct that being shackled to a mortgage is an unwelcome worry. Its ok if the bank let you rent the place out if you need to move for work, but otherwise its a major headache.

debtistheft

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There are pros and cons to both. What you describe would be fine if we had European style tenancy laws, or renting was much cheaper than it currently is.

Once you have kids, existing from one 6 month AST to the next starts to really grate. Although you're quite correct that being shackled to a mortgage is an unwelcome worry. Its ok if the bank let you rent the place out if you need to move for work, but otherwise its a major headache.

This is the whole point of my argument. If we had european style tenancy laws people whould not feel like second class citizens if they rent. They will only get european style tenancy laws if there are enough people renting to make a difference to politicians lobbying for votes. I want property to be outside the finances of ordinary people so that we move toward a European model ratehr than an American model for housing.

Look at the countries that have gone or nearly gone bust. Property booms lie at the heart of all of them.

ruggedtoast

debtistheft wrote: »

This is the whole point of my argument. If we had european style tenancy laws people whould not feel like second class citizens if they rent. They will only get european style tenancy laws if there are enough people renting to make a difference to politicians lobbying for votes. I want property to be outside the finances of ordinary people so that we move toward a European model ratehr than an American model for housing.

Look at the countries that have gone or nearly gone bust. Property booms lie at the heart of all of them.

Well I agree with you about the tenancy laws. I'm not sure that ordinary people being priced out of property ownership is going to achieve that however.

Historically, the proletariat being priced out of property ownership hasnt led to anything other than horrific inequality and slumlord exploitation. (Source, everything Dickens ever wrote)

One of the reasons tenancies are so insecure is because it suits wealthy investors. Tenants get shafted while landlord investors are protected for exactly the same reason that the Lloyds 'names' were bailed out while Farepak customers lost almost every penny.

ukcarper

dtsazza wrote: »

I don't agree with that argument - if it's possible for FTBs to save up a 5% deposit, it's just as possible for them to save up a 20% deposit, only it'll take four times as long.

They're going to have to save up 100% of the property value anyway over their lives in order to pay off the mortgage (in fact more likely 130-160%); having to get an extra 15% before taking out the mortgage is merely going to push back the start date of the mortgage, not necessarily the end date (more saved up in advance => less to pay overall, and in fact lower total interest paid because of this, ceteris paribus).

So it doesn't make it "more or less impossible", it just means that a greater proportion of the saving towards the house occurs pre-mortgage rather than intra-mortgage.

(I think the entitlement mentality has crept into homeowning to an overarching degree. To my mind, unless you have the cold hard cash available to buy a house, you're always effectively relying on the discretion of others. If you can persuade someone to lend you several hundred thousand pounds - great, good for you, you get to live in the house sooner albeit with a greater overall cost due to interest. However, it's not like anyone has a right to be loaned money.

The "goalposts" are fundamentally at saving 100% of purchase price; private businesses are likely to make mutually beneficial offers below that, but there's no moral or economic law that says these offers must exist or be accepted.

And in case anyone wonders - I'm a prospective future FTB currently renting, not someone who wants to "pull up the ladder" from the "have-nots".)

That’s true in a stable market but in a rising market you sometimes can’t keep up with the increase in house prices.

[Deleted User]

Id like to know, if we had european tenacy laws, what would happen to some 70 year old who didnt have enough savings to pay the rent ! where as if they had been paying a mortage would/could be living in a property without mortgage payments by the time they are that old.

how do you expect people to save and be able to pay maybe 20 to 30 years of rent after after retirement and also pay there cost of living.

mustrum_ridcully

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well I agree with you about the tenancy laws. I'm not sure that ordinary people being priced out of property ownership is going to achieve that however.

Historically, the proletariat being priced out of property ownership hasnt led to anything other than horrific inequality and slumlord exploitation. (Source, everything Dickens ever wrote)

One of the reasons tenancies are so insecure is because it suits wealthy investors. Tenants get shafted while landlord investors are protected for exactly the same reason that the Lloyds 'names' were bailed out while Farepak customers lost almost every penny.

The proles can't even depend on an allegedly socialist government to reverse the inequalities - too many champagne socialists with fingers in the BTL pie? The only thing that Labour did for them was the TDS and even then they didn't get the legislation quite right (or perhaps judges are also BTL LLs).

Conrad

debtistheft wrote: »

If you like gardens then go to a park or country house, they are free for the most part

.

I attatch great emmotional value to putting down roots in a property. My children have grown up with the same neighbours, pop in and out of one anothers homes, we've made the place our own, put our stamp on our little corner of the Earths crust, grow veg, paint silly cartoon insect characters on the kids walls, roll back a few turfs to make a sand / rock over to cook a joint on a warm summer evening, built a modest recording studio etc. It's ours albeit with the aid of a large mortgage, but that for us is a price well worth paying. To be frank the Brits are amongst the wealthiest on Earth, and on my trips to Germany there was a distinct slightly depressing less well off feel to most places, so somehow your whole view is misplaced. Go anywhere in the world and you always find a Brit. We use property wealth to our advantage, and so far it's worked well. Ok we have the odd bubble, but in the round most of us benefit.

If the Germans are richer, it's not apparant. Visit foreign property developments from Morocco to Dubai and you find it's Brits doing the investing. Germans feature a lot less. So where is all this wealth of thiers that you imply must be bountiful given they dont plough it into property?

You attatch prime value to other things, such as building a cash pile, and the ability to move more easily if you loose your job / health.

For me the whole point of life is family and putting down stable roots, so this dismissive talk of 'all that money JUST for shelter' is well misplaced.

Your life seems to be dominated by the aquisition of money tickets, almost as an end in itself, whereas my mlife is much more concerned with a day to day enjoyment of ones own little castle.

jamespmg44

new_home_owner wrote: »

reading some of your earlier post's you say you graduated from university in 2003 and you bought a house in 2004, are you one of the house buyers who had a large deposit from daddy and mommy?

No, didn't get a penny from my folks - I had worked when I was at university rather than disappearing for long summer holidays and then took every single hour of overtime going for a year to get as big a deposit as possible for a house.

No going out for meals, no going out clubbing, no new clothes and no holidays then we put down a 20% deposit for our house entirely funded by our own hard work and sacrifices. (our being me and my fiance (now wife))

jamespmg44

new_home_owner wrote: »

i think a reasonable deposit is 10 or 5 percnt of a 150,000 pound house, just because banks made mistakes of giving 100 -125 percent mortgages, 5 to 10 percent as been the average deposit for years, the banks lent to people who had nothing, why should people who have a decent deposit be punished>?

A 5 or 10 percent deposit combined with some falls in house prices and people could very easily find themselves in negative equity.

20 percent protects both the house buyer and the mortgage lender. 100% mortgages should never have been given, let alone 125%.

debtistheft

sky190176 wrote: »

Id like to know, if we had european tenacy laws, what would happen to some 70 year old who didnt have enough savings to pay the rent ! where as if they had been paying a mortage would/could be living in a property without mortgage payments by the time they are that old.

how do you expect people to save and be able to pay maybe 20 to 30 years of rent after after retirement and also pay there cost of living.

How many pensioners are in receipt of benefits because they piled so much money into their houses instead of personal pensions that they cannot support themselves? How many live in delapidated houses that they might well own outright but cannot afford to maintain?

Why do you people think that the alternative to buying a house is to spend all your money and be penniless when you are older?

Can you not see that over 30 or 40 years of working life you ca either pay your money into the capital of your house or save that same money in an investment. Your equity pays for a roof over your head or your investments pay for a roof over your head. There is no difference.

Its not rocket science.