22 year average wait for FTB's

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The problem with that is that it therefore suggests that only middle and higher income brackets should be able to afford the absolute cheapest starter homes.

Which doesn't really stack up.

I would assume that sort of sentence comes from someone older who already has a home and rather likes it's value.

what do you think would be an appropriate pricing level for a starter home?

the 'new' starter homes that are built these days, where the rooms are barely big enough to get changed in, are anywhere between £80,000 and £200,000 depending on where u want to live

macaque_2

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Prices may be silly, but the lowest salary earners have never earnt enough to buy.

Hang on a minute! The bulls keep telling us that buying is cheaper than renting. By that logic the lowest earners are in the greatest need of buying. Or are you saying that tax payers should subsidise property for the less well off? I thought the bulls were fans of free market economics.

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

It's fact that people want it all too soon - the young are spoilt and wouldn't dare go without for a number of years in order to get a house and do it up slowly. FTB houses didn't used to be done up ready to live in.

If a person has to save for 10 or 20 years to get a deposit, a first time buyer house is hardly going to be suitable is it?

somethingcorporate

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The problem with that is that it therefore suggests that only middle and higher income brackets should be able to afford the absolute cheapest starter homes.

Which doesn't really stack up.

I would assume that sort of sentence comes from someone older who already has a home and rather likes it's value.

I am 27 so not exactly older, nor do I see why it stacks up. House ownership is a privilege, not a right. Just like Ferrari ownership - if you cannot afford to do it you have to look to the alternative (renting).

Graham_Devon

RUN_RABBIT_RUN wrote: »

what do you think would be an appropriate pricing level for a starter home?

the 'new' starter homes that are built these days, where the rooms are barely big enough to get changed in, are anywhere between £80,000 and £200,000 depending on where u want to live

Well appropriate suggests you are going to try to create the price through regulation methods.

The appropriate price should be the price the market finds, when sensible lending is underway, housebuilders actually build the starter homes, and government intervention isn't propping up prices.

The appropriate price of a starter home sholdn't be the amount the BTL landlord can come up with, based on low supply as builders won't build starter homes because they think they can't make enough money from them, and dependant on how many progressively worse FTB schemes the government can come up with.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham, your thread title is false..... Again.

It's not a 22 year average wait for FTB's.

It's a 22 year wait for low earners.

StixUK

I'm quite happy paying Council Housing rents, but then I am "One of the Lucky One's" - we are becoming a rare breed!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Madness. And as the article says, one of the culprits is house prices, not just the deposit.

OK, lets take a look at this...

They are basing their article on a 20% deposit. And they claim 22 years to save a 20% deposit.

Now if deposits were a historically normal, prudent and sensible 5%, then logically it would only take 5.5 years.

And if house prices were at the historical average of 4 times the average male, mean, salary as opposed to the current level of 4.4 times the average male, mean, salary then it would take 4.95 years.

Clearly, the absurd deposit requirements account for the vast majority of this wait.

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Now if deposits were a historically normal, prudent and sensible 5%,

This is not a historically normal, prudent and sensible level.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

This is not a historically normal, prudent and sensible level.

Of course it is.

I was offered a 95% mortgage in 1990, my parents were offered one in 1967, and in fact 100% mortgages were available at least as far back as 1982.

95% lending has been around and commonly used for at least the last 50 years.

And at no time was this considered to be imprudent or abnormal.

Graham_Devon

shortchanged wrote: »

This is not a historically normal, prudent and sensible level.

At the extreme levels of prudent for Hamish however.