Corbynomics: A Dystopia

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

Racist is believing that 9 million people actually live in properties;
and that demand is influenced by the people that live in properties
and that price is related to supply and demand.

Of course the number of people isn't the sole cause of the UK housing issue but only somewhat foolish people, believe the problem would be unchanged if there were 9 million fewer people in the UK.

Without migration over the last 200-300 years the UK would likely have tens of millions more people living here

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

It tells you a great deal, but no, not everything.

With the key phrase being "near me". Not all property is near you.

BTW, daughter and two friends were paying a total of £825pcm in rent versus £200 now in mortgage interest but she did have a 20% deposit. The remaining £100k mortgage would just about work on one average UK wage.

Of course, she could have gone terraced rather than a semi, and she didn't need an end plot with lots of off street parking, nor did she need to be within walking distance of the teaching hospital, but these are all nice to haves.

I didn't say there was a problem everywhere but raw mortgage affordablity Data tell you very little.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Who said that the local terrace homes are affordable for only the median wage? They are in most the country affordable for a couple on minimum wage.

£100k at 2.4% interest is only £200 per month. The local councils charge £350-600 a month. So to buy a £100-120k property costs less than to rent off the council. If thatvis not the definition of affordable what is?

Find me one in the South East the cheapest in my area is £280k and I'm not in London. As I said I don't think there is a problem everywhere but its very bad in some parts of the country. I know some people think that low paid workers are not entitled to reasonable accomadation but I do and a basic 2 bed renting at £950 a month puts it out of reach for a very large number of people unless they claim housing benefit.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

raw mortgage affordablity Data tell you very little.

They do if someone says 'These so called 'affordable' houses are unaffordable for an increasing number of people." and you want to test how true this statement is.

Mortgage affordability is a key part of this testing. Those who think otherwise might like to bear in mind what view they might be expressing if interest rates were at 10%+: I'm pretty sure that this would be used as evidence of unaffordability, so surely lower interest rates move us significantly back towards affordability?

And moving on from there we've seen that house prices in much of the country are such that most working people can buy something suitable. It may not be a palace, and might even be an ex council house, but they'll be paying less to live there than if they rented from the council.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

Find me one in the South East

Two bed terrace, in the South East, £110k.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42647814.html

White Capri not included.

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

Two bed terrace, in the South East, £110k.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42647814.html

White Capri not included.

Dover is as bad as being up north try Surrey

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

They do if someone says 'These so called 'affordable' houses are unaffordable for an increasing number of people." and you want to test how true this statement is.

Mortgage affordability is a key part of this testing. Those who think otherwise might like to bear in mind what view they might be expressing if interest rates were at 10%+: I'm pretty sure that this would be used as evidence of unaffordability, so surely lower interest rates move us significantly back towards affordability?

And moving on from there we've seen that house prices in much of the country are such that most working people can buy something suitable. It may not be a palace, and might even be an ex council house, but they'll be paying less to live there than if they rented from the council.

You've got to earn enough to get a mortgage for it to matter and I'm not talking about the people who can afford to buy. If you earn £25k and can only borrow £100k and the cheapest flat is £150k it doesn't help you that the mortgage payments are less than they were.

Much of the country is not all of the country and a significant proportion of the population live in areas where property is not affordable.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

You've got to earn enough to get a mortgage for it to matter and I'm not talking about the people who can afford to buy. If you earn £25k and can only borrow £100k and the cheapest flat is £150k it doesn't help you that the mortgage payments are less than they were.

Isn't that then down to personal preferences?

i.e.

- your life choices have meant you earn £25k a year.
- you want to buy in an area where the cheapest property is £150k and you can only borrow £100k.

Is it really that we need to build housing in that area to satisfy that need or does the individual need to reorient their preferences to suit the life choices they have taken? Perhaps they should accept that they need to commute that bit more.

I know far more people who make do with what they've got and what they can get than those who would think that something needs to change.

Having said that I would agree that the rate of house value increase has been adversely affected by inward migration and availability of cheap credit.

I don't think building more housing in those areas where the cheapest flat is £150k is going to solve the problem. They might be worth £100k with a subsidy and then be re-sold later for an increased price disproportionate to the amount originally paid. They won't remain affordable, they'll just be a boon for whoever bought them first. I would propose it's down to the individual/s to reassess their preferences and make appropriate sacrifices.

There are people (I was one) who lived with their parents for 2 years or so to build up a deposit and buy what they could afford in an area they can afford rather than what they would like where they would like it.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

Dover is as bad as being up north try Surrey

So the issue isn't so much price as snobbery?

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Isn't that then down to personal preferences?

i.e.

- your life choices have meant you earn £25k a year.
- you want to buy in an area where the cheapest property is £150k and you can only borrow £100k.

Is it really that we need to build housing in that area to satisfy that need or does the individual need to reorient their preferences to suit the life choices they have taken? Perhaps they should accept that they need to commute that bit more.

I know far more people who make do with what they've got and what they can get than those who would think that something needs to change.

Having said that I would agree that the rate of house value increase has been adversely affected by inward migration and availability of cheap credit.

I don't think building more housing in those areas where the cheapest flat is £150k is going to solve the problem. They might be worth £100k with a subsidy and then be re-sold later for an increased price disproportionate to the amount originally paid. They won't remain affordable, they'll just be a boon for whoever bought them first. I would propose it's down to the individual/s to reassess their preferences and make appropriate sacrifices.

There are people (I was one) who lived with their parents for 2 years or so to build up a deposit and buy what they could afford in an area they can afford rather than what they would like where they would like it.

If you accept that you need people to do these lower paid jobs in the area where property prices are high you need accomadation for those people. I'm not saying everybody should be able to buy just that accomadation needs to be available.

I don't see anything changing, the only things that could change things, a massive house building program in effected areas or somehow distributing work more evenly around the country will not happen.