How can house prices be so high it's so unfair on the young stars

Conrad

AndyGuil wrote: »

People who will "get what they want" will achieve this through working and building it up over time. It just takes time and effort, as it always has done.

This.


A typical day for me today - sorting a Polish business owners needs. He's been here 12 years, started working at the bottom, now owns 2 building firms and is buying 3rd house having let the first and about to let the second out.


I cannot stress how everyday this is. Yesterday was a Kebab shop worker. Same story, came here with nothing, now owns one shop with flat about outright both of which are let out and owns two houses let out and now buying another freehold shop and has considerable savings.

I realise people will not believe this but he's still 'just' a kebab shop worker, working in someone elses shop.


Hard work and saving is ALL it requires.

Conrad

Bloke1664 wrote: »

I'm not totally sure, but the girl who bought my house when I sold recently was about the same age as me when I bought it c12 years before, but she could only afford it as mummy & daddy gave her £500k towards it (and randomly she also works in the same industry as me).

I wonder if its a combination of the first round of inheritances just going to increase house prices as well as the affluent immigrants pushing prices up for London?

Have to admit I am a little confused as to how a 2 bed in zone 2 can be worth £500k, where 10yrs ago they were £250k, it certainly has come from income inflation and income multiples alone.

From my work I can tell you that Bank of Mum and Dad plays a much bigger role than in the past - but the bashers of the boomers never mention this new gifted wealth so many of the young enjoy.

PDC

Never mind the young stars what about the other young people

Idiophreak

floridaman wrote: »

I see your point I don't blame current home owners - more houses should be built though to hopefully bring prices down or wages should go up

If you want to bring house prices down, one rule:

1) Nobody is allowed to own homes for (guaranteed) profit.

In practical terms, that means anyone letting a house gets 0% yield - and anyone that buys a place pays 100% tax on any profit made within (say) 3 years.

Councils can run the rental market, probably buying up all the properties needing work (that developers would normally take on). People can buy houses. Done.

Something like 3.5m houses released back on to the market for people to buy to live in, not make money off. Less competition for houses from serial buyers and developers.

Achieves the same thing as building more houses, but without eating into the country's green spaces.

LucyGoose

Conrad wrote: »

Hard work and saving is ALL it requires.

I agree entirely. I regularly work 60 hour weeks and have done for the past year. I have an old phone and I cycle to work. I only go out for meals when I have a voucher. As such my partner and I are just about to buy our first home after living off one of our salaries for the year and saving the other.

Plenty of people my age have flash cars, large TV's and fancy phones, yet they wonder why they have no savings or their own home.

Conrad

What happened to the 'lets learn to love renting like the Germans do' mantra?

IveSeenTheLight

floridaman wrote: »

This country has so many hard working young. It breaks my heart to see them renting. How can house prices be so high? It's so unfair. The young should refuse to work/go on strike in protest.

That's a bit harsh.

Refuse to buy if they want, but why go on strike?
This is not the 70's you know.

If you want properties to be more cheaper (they are already historically affordably low), then you need to lobby for more properties to be built

CLAPTON

Idiophreak wrote: »

If you want to bring house prices down, one rule:

1) Nobody is allowed to own homes for (guaranteed) profit.

In practical terms, that means anyone letting a house gets 0% yield - and anyone that buys a place pays 100% tax on any profit made within (say) 3 years.

Councils can run the rental market, probably buying up all the properties needing work (that developers would normally take on). People can buy houses. Done.

Something like 3.5m houses released back on to the market for people to buy to live in, not make money off. Less competition for houses from serial buyers and developers.

Achieves the same thing as building more houses, but without eating into the country's green spaces.

how does this make more properties without building?

Running_Horse

floridaman wrote: »

The boomers went on strike and got everything they wanted time for the young to do the same

You mean like the miners? Then there were the steel workers, or the dockers, or even the dustmen. That striking business worked out just fine with those boomers getting everything they wanted...apart from a job.

92203

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you want properties to be more cheaper (they are already historically affordably low), then you need to lobby for more properties to be built

Houses are not at a historic low from a cost perspective. The cost of serving a mortgage (interest rates) is at a historical low, so your statement only applies to people who got on the ladder pre-boom. They not only benefit from having significantly less capital to repay, but also better mortgage rates due to a lower LTV.

For people who didn't own a property before the boom and as a consequence didn't get gifted a significant sum of tax free unearned money, your statement simply doesn't ring true. In many instances, post-boom buyers are having to pay twice as much for the same house.

Ultimately, this means that those who buy a house today will have to earn more, have better jobs, and ultimately work harder than someone who brought an equivalent house pre-boom

Welcome to the inter-generational apartheid of Great Britain.