Corbynomics: A Dystopia

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

Not my town, but how about Farnham for commuting in to London?
EDIT: Or preferably working locally.

Search for 2 bedroom houses below £300k returns 0 results.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?searchType=SALE&locationIdentifier=STATION%5E3419&insId=1&radius=1.0&minPrice=&maxPrice=300000&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=&displayPropertyType=houses&maxDaysSinceAdded=&_includeSSTC=on&sortByPriceDescending=&primaryDisplayPropertyType=&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=&oldDisplayPropertyType=&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=&newHome=&auction=false

Then people who can't afford to buy in Farnham don't buy in Farnham?

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Then people who can't afford to buy in Farnham don't buy in Farnham?

That wasn't the question asked.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

That wasn't the question asked.

I just don't buy into this affordability myth as much as others do. Some areas are beyond my income, should I be subsidised to live there if I work there or if I wish to live there?

It's all moot to me. No one has really answered why it should be the case that people are subsidised to live there either by affordable housing or by housing benefit. If the council already owns property in the area then fine, that's the social housing. That stock should be kept at an acceptable level and that's the extent of it. For everyone else if you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

I drive around in an MG ZR, and I'm a higher rate tax payer. I chose to put my money into my home before my status symbol of a BMW or Audi. Because of that I've got a 4 bed detached home that I'll stay in for the next 30 years I hope.

If low income earners cannot afford to live in the area they work, they either commute or they find another job that pays more and makes it work or one that doesn't involve a commute. Then if that area, like yours of Farnham, requires cleaners they'll need to pay higher wages to attract people to want to commute or make it viable to live there.

Personal choices, nothing more.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I just don't buy into this affordability myth as much as others do. Some areas are beyond my income, should I be subsidised to live there if I work there or if I wish to live there?

It's all moot to me. No one has really answered why it should be the case that people are subsidised to live there either by affordable housing or by housing benefit. If the council already owns property in the area then fine, that's the social housing. That stock should be kept at an acceptable level and that's the extent of it. For everyone else if you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

I drive around in an MG ZR, and I'm a higher rate tax payer. I chose to put my money into my home before my status symbol of a BMW or Audi. Because of that I've got a 4 bed detached home that I'll stay in for the next 30 years I hope.

If low income earners cannot afford to live in the area they work, they either commute or they find another job that pays more and makes it work or one that doesn't involve a commute. Then if that area, like yours of Farnham, requires cleaners they'll need to pay higher wages to attract people to want to commute or make it viable to live there.

Personal choices, nothing more.

I agree with that. Housing benefit distorts things. But as I say, that wasn't the question asked, I was just giving an example area to see what cells makes of it.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Not my town, but how about Farnham for commuting in to London?
EDIT: Or preferably working locally.

Search for 2 bedroom houses below £300k returns 0 results.

farnham + 1 mile rightmove search

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54691429.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54382957.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42131661.html

1 Bed Flat for £135k. Put £15k down. Borrow the rest = £200 per month interest

2 Bed Flat for £150k. Put down £15k borrow the rest at 2% = £225 per month interest

3 Bed House for £250k. Put down £25k borrow the rest at 2% = £375 per month interest


By comparision the council rents in guildford (The ons excel sheet doesnt do just farnham so I searched the nearest place) is £513* per month. Or if you want to look at the England average its £330 per month for a 1 bed social flat. £370pm for a 2 bed. £410 for a 3 bed


So yes even Farnham + 1 mile is cheaper than social rents in the local place, hell its cheaper than the average social rent for all of England

AND DONT FORGET YOUR ARE FIXING YOUR COSTS WHILE THE EVIL SOCIAL LANDLORDS KEEP PUTTING THE RENTS UP EVERY YEAR!!!

* I had to project foward the rents to the most recent tax year as its only got 2014/15 data I simply took the social rent increases of the last two years and projected that forward seems reasonable to me

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

I agree with that. Housing benefit distorts things. But as I say, that wasn't the question asked, I was just giving an example area to see what cells makes of it.

Yeah apologies if you thought I was attacking you, I wasn't and didn't mean it to come across like that at all.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

I agree with that. Housing benefit distorts things. But as I say, that wasn't the question asked, I was just giving an example area to see what cells makes of it.

How does hosing benefit 'distort things'?

The government could go out and buy half a million lower end private homes off estate agents in a matter of months. Slap a social label on it and move half a million households in the private rental sector into this new now-social-ex-private housing. then pay the housing benefit to itself. Is that better, worse, the same? And what would the result be for rents and prices?

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

There are many other areas I could have chosen. You could argue that Surrey is nicer but bear in mind that I have been to Croyden.



Definitely. The city I live in his many "millionaires' row" areas but also swatches of back-to-back terraces. Those on a limited budget need to look at the latter, or maybe an outlying town. Folding their arms and sticking out their bottom lips won't magically make their budget stretch to an 8-bed detached in a nice area.

The problem is it's not like that in the south east the cheap areas like dove are miles from the more expensive areas. The area I live in is probably the cheapest part of Surrey that's why I moved there and the cheapest area near me is in Hampshire and a 2 bed house is £250k.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

The median full time male wage is something like £37k pa, the median full time female wage is lower but still in the 30s. The two combined can easily get a £250k mortgage

Even a couple on £25k each can get a £250k mortgage at the limit of 5x joint income.

But who is talking about £250k plus deposit homes?
The average terrace in most the regions of the uk is much closer to £100k


why not post your town and we can have a look at whats available for the same sum as the local social rent

Your still talking about median what about people earning less than that.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I just don't buy into this affordability myth as much as others do. Some areas are beyond my income, should I be subsidised to live there if I work there or if I wish to live there?

It's all moot to me. No one has really answered why it should be the case that people are subsidised to live there either by affordable housing or by housing benefit. If the council already owns property in the area then fine, that's the social housing. That stock should be kept at an acceptable level and that's the extent of it. For everyone else if you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

I drive around in an MG ZR, and I'm a higher rate tax payer. I chose to put my money into my home before my status symbol of a BMW or Audi. Because of that I've got a 4 bed detached home that I'll stay in for the next 30 years I hope.

If low income earners cannot afford to live in the area they work, they either commute or they find another job that pays more and makes it work or one that doesn't involve a commute. Then if that area, like yours of Farnham, requires cleaners they'll need to pay higher wages to attract people to want to commute or make it viable to live there.

Personal choices, nothing more.

Using your argument well all just move up north and leave the south devoid of all services.