Britons forced in to 'modern day slavery' by soaring house prices!!

Gorgeous_George

My post (above) crossed with the later three posts. I agree that the RTB scheme has been a disaster for later generations. The Tories forced Local Authortities to sell their housing stock at heavily discounted prices with the sole reason of 'buying' votes - and it worked. They also sold our utility companies to buy even more votes. Sadly, the Labour Party have continued these policies.

Nice little earners for those 'lucky' enough to live through the Tory years.

Low IRs should have meant low mortgage payments for all. Instead, house prices rose. It's madness. Low IRs didn't lead to cars costing double so why houses. I can only conclude that people pay what they can afford to pay rather than what a house is worth.



GG

sal-ad_daze

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I don't think that any sane person would say house prices are not too high and the reason is simple. There are not enough houses to meet market demand from those who wish to buy.

a. Build 500,000 new homes (proper homes, not flats) and the market will settle to a more reasonable level.:)

GG

Include subsidised homes for key workers in all areas to enable people who work in vital but low paid jobs the chance to own DECENT homes in DECENT areas.

My daughter has just qualifed as a teacher and starts her first job in September, there is no way on this earth she can afford her first home. She's stuck throwing money away on a rented flat where her home is not her own because she's restircted by the LL rules.

I'll stop there before I get on my soapbox and that's not good on a first post!

Gorgeous_George

I don't like the idea of subsidised homes. Homes should be affordable. I'm not sure how much a teacher earns (I know they get lots of holidays ) but I would guess in the region of £25K. So prices should be nearer 3 times salary for a one bedroomed flat (£75K), four times for a two bed terraced (£100K) and five times for a three bed semi (£125K) and so on.

The problem with key workers is who decides who qualifies?



GG

sal-ad_daze

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I don't like the idea of subsidised homes. Homes should be affordable. I'm not sure how much a teacher earns (I know they get lots of holidays ) but I would guess in the region of £25K. So prices should be nearer 3 times salary for a one bedroomed flat (£75K), four times for a two bed terraced (£100K) and five times for a three bed semi (£125K) and so on.

The problem with key workers is who decides who qualifies?



GG

My Bold

Take off at least £6k for an NQT (newly qualified teacher) so once the repayments to the student loan company and taxes are taken out you can see there's not a lot left!
Daughters' problem is that her school is in an area that is 'working class' and is the only type of area where she could even hope to afford something. As you can imagine she's not overjoyed at the prospect of living side by side with her students but prices soar within a couple of miles so there's really nothing doing:sad:

I would say that key workers are people who work in 'government service industries' who's salaries are controlled by the government who link them to inflation or below inflation. For example, Nurses, Firefighters, police, teachers etc.

Guy_Montag

sal-ad_daze wrote: »

My Bold

Take off at least £6k for an NQT (newly qualified teacher) so once the repayments to the student loan company and taxes are taken out you can see there's not a lot left!
Daughters' problem is that her school is in an area that is 'working class' and is the only type of area where she could even hope to afford something. As you can imagine she's not overjoyed at the prospect of living side by side with her students but prices soar within a couple of miles so there's really nothing doing:sad:

I would say that key workers are people who work in 'government service industries' who's salaries are controlled by the government who link them to inflation or below inflation. For example, Nurses, Firefighters, police, teachers etc.

I strongly disagree with key worker subsidies. There wouldn't be a problem if prices weren't so stupid. My Dad didn't need keyworker housing as a newly qualified teacher, he bought a nice house on one salary to bring us up in. If a nurse is a keyworker is a hospital cleaner? If a hospital cleaner, how about the plumber that's contracted in by the hospital? What about the canteen staff, are they key-workers? So everyone that works in a hospital? Does that mean a senior consultant is a key-worker in need of subsidy? It's a joke, the underlying problem is high house prices & subsidising housing for will make it worse for the rest of us.

Out of interest as an engineer in a univsersity department - should I get key worker housing in your world?

meanmachine_2

sal-ad_daze wrote: »

Include subsidised homes for key workers in all areas to enable people who work in vital but low paid jobs the chance to own DECENT homes in DECENT areas.

SUbsidised homes are NOT the answer, they're part of the problem.

Still, the NUT have the right idea - demand 10% pay rise, and turn property inflation into a political issue.

Quite right too. About bloomin time!

Melissa177

Public sector pay has risen dramatically - but not enough in some areas for people to buy their own houses.

What is driving the house price rises is:

- We're not building enough houses

- People are expecting to be able to afford to buy a house on their own.

The previous generation would marry, and buy a modest house with their partner on their income. Even in London, a couple each on 20K and with a 10% deposit could afford a 160K property. It might be a bit tough, and you might only get a small flat in an undesirable area, but that's how the property ladder works. It's always been tough for people to get on the ladder. The market wouldn't be sustaining these sorts of prices if people were genuinely "priced out of the market".

I do think we need to build a lot more homes, and a lot more family homes at that, particularly in the South East. Flats just won't cut it.

Melissa177

Addendum: one thing that we have all neglected to mention is the amount of tax that the government takes from us. About 50% of my income goes to the government. If they reduced that, we'd all have a lot more money to play with, and they wouldn't have to think up silly schemes like tax credits etc, as Guy's signature says!

sal-ad_daze

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I strongly disagree with key worker subsidies. There wouldn't be a problem if prices weren't so stupid. My Dad didn't need keyworker housing as a newly qualified teacher, he bought a nice house on one salary to bring us up in. If a nurse is a keyworker is a hospital cleaner? If a hospital cleaner, how about the plumber that's contracted in by the hospital? What about the canteen staff, are they key-workers? So everyone that works in a hospital? Does that mean a senior consultant is a key-worker in need of subsidy? It's a joke, the underlying problem is high house prices & subsidising housing for will make it worse for the rest of us.

Out of interest as an engineer in a univsersity department - should I get key worker housing in your world?

I agree prices are stupid!
When your dad bought his home, houses were still affordable - as was our first home- and could be purchased on a single wage.
I don't think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Consultants would qualify as Key workers because most of them aren't just employed by the NHS and their second jobs probably earn them enough to pay the mortgage on their fully detached gated homes easily.
Key workers are, to my mind, anyone who works in government employment with restricted pay rises and nationally structured salaries so yes, hospital cleaners would qualify; and if you are paid the same way then yes you do!
It's the higher wage earners who are investing in buy to let property that are putting housing out of the range of the above mentioned people, not to mention 2nd homes in 'holiday' areas. If I had my way a house unoccupied for 2/3rd's of the year or more would be compulsory purchased and sold on for local benefit.

Guy_Montag

Melissa177 wrote: »

Addendum: one thing that we have all neglected to mention is the amount of tax that the government takes from us. About 50% of my income goes to the government. If they reduced that, we'd all have a lot more money to play with, and they wouldn't have to think up silly schemes like tax credits etc, as Guy's signature says!

I was recently shocked to do some somes on one of the govt. websites to find that tax credits are not just a refund of taxes (as I thought), but just state handouts, my above median salary after tax is only marginally more than an unemployed, 18y/o single mother. Gah - if I could I'd just get knocked up & live off the state for the rest of my life.