Forum Home» Debt-Free Wannabe

MSE News: 22-year wait for low earners to buy first home

New Post Advanced Search

MSE News: 22-year wait for low earners to buy first home

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Debt-Free Wannabe
18 replies 3.4K views
MSE_GuyMSE_Guy MSE Staff
1.7K posts
I've been Money Tipped! Newshound! Chutzpah Haggler
edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Debt-Free Wannabe
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Low earners will not see disposable income approach pre-recession levels until 2020 at best, a report warns ..."
«1

Replies

  • residential property in this country is still wildly over-valued - sooner or later it will crash
  • I am not sure why people on very low incomes should expect to own their own home. Home ownership is not a human right, despite what many think.
    Thinking critically since 1996....
  • ConsumeristConsumerist Forumite
    5.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    lolat332 wrote: »
    residential property in this country is still wildly over-valued - sooner or later it will crash
    If it wasn't for the chronic housing shortage, I would agree with you. As things stand, I'm not so sure.

    For first-time buyers, a house-price crash would be a boon but then we get vast numbers of home owners in negative equity who would be trapped with their current mortgage lender at rates they can't afford.

    Seems to me that first-time buyers would be buying repossessed properties.
    >:)Warning: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  • PincherPincher
    6.6K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    1. Europeans have freedom of movement and work.

    2. We are obliged to help Greece, Italy, Portual and Spain.

    3. Benefit claimants need jobs and housing.

    4. Overseas call centres can be anywhere.

    5. People want UK call centres, but only because they want someone who can speak English properly.

    The UK government buys or rents properties in depressed European regions, including places where birthrate have collapsed. Instead of relocating civil service departments, we give tax incentives to businesses willing to set up suitable operations such as call centres at these places.

    Concentrate on towns near airports that Ryanair and EasyJet can operate out of.

    British being what they are, they will need places to have raves.
    We mark out plots to be used in rotation. After each party, the plot is burned down, and the bottles, rubbish and needles are swept up for disposal. The flora and fauna are then allowed to recover on that plot.
  • ConsumeristConsumerist Forumite
    5.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Pincher wrote: »
    1. Europeans have freedom . . . etc.
    Have you posted in the wrong thread?
    >:)Warning: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  • PincherPincher
    6.6K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Have you posted in the wrong thread?


    The idea is to give people council housing at a lower cost, with jobs thrown in. If the scheme takes off, people will even buy in Greece etc. Take advantage of collapsing Euro and housing market, and call it aid. If these counstries recover, the UK government sells the properties for a profit. Similar to bailing out banks for shares that might make UK Plc some money in the future.
  • bluenose1bluenose1 Forumite
    2.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    I am not sure why people on very low incomes should expect to own their own home. Home ownership is not a human right, despite what many think.

    Quite often people on low incomes are paying more on rent than what they would if they could get the deposit required for a mortgage. I don't see why in a rich country like ours a third of households have an income so low that it will take them over 20 years to save for a deposit.

    I think the main beneficiaries are the landlords who can charge ridiculous rents and there should be schemes to help pay for deposits, after all if we can bail the Bankers out.
    Money SPENDING Expert

  • ReadingTimReadingTim Forumite
    3.7K posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    bluenose1 wrote: »
    I think the main beneficiaries are the landlords who can charge ridiculous rents and there should be schemes to help pay for deposits, after all if we can bail the Bankers out.

    We used to have a scheme that helped pay for deposits - it was called the 100% (or even 120%) mortgage, and it was such a success that it caused a financial crisis, which resulted in "the Bankers" needing to be bailed out.
  • jamesdjamesd Forumite
    24K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The headline figure about the time it takes to buy a home is for a house, not a flat, so the core of the claim is largely false if it was about the more useful measure of owning your own home. Not that that's required, renting is fine for many people.

    They also seem to assume that people aren't really very interested in owning their own home, putting only 5% of income towards saving for the deposit.

    Part of the underlying source for this appears to be Essential Guide to Squeezed Britain published by the Resolution Foundation, an advocacy group campaigning to improve the lot of those with incomes in the 10% to 50% portion of all incomes.

    63% of their target population own their own home, 21% are private tenants and 16% are in social housing.
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ReadingTim wrote: »
    We used to have a scheme that helped pay for deposits - it was called the 100% (or even 120%) mortgage, and it was such a success that it caused a financial crisis, which resulted in "the Bankers" needing to be bailed out.

    Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

    UK mortgage lending standards had absolutely nothing to do with the global financial crisis and freezing up of international credit markets.

    Nor did mortgage lending standards have anything whatsoever to do with banks such as Northern Rock needing to be nationalised. That was purely down to their business model of borrowing short and lending long, which became impossible once the global money markets froze.

    It would have made not the slightest bit of difference if UK banks had been lending at 80% LTV all along, they still would have needed bailouts, and they still would have been nationalised.
    “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”
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support