How can I afford a property where I live?

AdrianC

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Person_one wrote: »

Working people should be able to buy a home in the place they grew up where their jobs and families are, even just a one bed flat if they're on their own.

I guess the rest of us didn't get the memo!

What's often forgotten is that even the "working people" (gawd, how patronising and archaic is that?) are FAR more likely to own their own homes now than they used to be in the past.

Person_one

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I guess the rest of us didn't get the memo!

(Nor the financial help from their families that you were so fortunate to get.)

Note the word 'should', rather than 'currently can'. Do you not think that in an ideal world they should?

I was fortunate that my parents helped me by allowing me to live at home rent free for a bit in my twenties, yes, but I don't see what that has to do with the fact that housing in the SE is insanely expensive and the situation for low earners is untenable.

Person_one

AdrianC wrote: »

What's often forgotten is that even the "working people" (gawd, how patronising and archaic is that?)

It means people who go to work.

I'm all in favour of more social housing as an alternative to the evils of the private rental market for lower earners, I don't see it happening though, do you?

AdrianC

Person_one wrote: »

Note the word 'should', rather than 'currently can'. Do you not think that in an ideal world they should?

I don't think it's necessarily the highest priority to turn reality into the "ideal world", no. Not while there's famine and war and disease and...

but I don't see what that has to do with the fact that housing in the SE is insanely expensive and the situation for low earners is untenable.

IYHO. If it really WAS an impossibly unsustainable situation, then housing would fall in cost massively, since nobody would be paying those prices, so nobody would be selling.

Zeebs90

I currently live in Reading and am buying my first property with my partner, we are purchasing in Blackwater as there is no way we could get the sort of place we wanted in Reading. The £300 a month we will be saving on rent payments compared to mortgage more than makes up for the commuting costs (about £120 a month!)

Person_one

AdrianC wrote: »

I don't think it's necessarily the highest priority to turn reality into the "ideal world", no. Not while there's famine and war and disease and...


.

Well famine, war and disease don't seem to be very high on many politicians' to do lists either! Making a fortune from BTL and stashing the cash offshore though...

AdrianC

Person_one wrote: »

It means people who go to work.

So if we look at the 18-64 age group as a whole, then that's 30.2m out of a total of 40.8m. Except, of course, that's individuals rather than households. Quite a few of the "economically inactive" 8.9m will either be in households where somebody IS economically active, will be unable to work through illness or disability, or will be in education preparing to be economically active.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/march2016#summary-of-latest-labour-market-statistics

In other words, you seem to be referring to the vast, vast, vast majority of people. Roughly two-thirds of whom own their own homes.

I'm all in favour of more social housing as an alternative to the evils of the private rental market for lower earners, I don't see it happening though, do you?

So if this social housing is going to be so widespread, and so heavily subsidised to reduce the cost, then somebody's going to be paying for that subsidy. Who, how much, and how? Remember: government expenditure already massively outstrips government income.

AdrianC

Person_one wrote: »

stashing the cash offshore though...

Strange, isn't it, how saving money in another country is a good thing when it's inward investment to the UK, but utterly evil when it's "offshore"...

Person_one

AdrianC wrote: »

So if we look at the 18-64 age group as a whole, then that's 30.2m out of a total of 40.8m. Except, of course, that's individuals rather than households. Quite a few of the "economically inactive" 8.9m will either be in households where somebody IS economically active, will be unable to work through illness or disability, or will be in education preparing to be economically active.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/march2016#summary-of-latest-labour-market-statistics

In other words, you seem to be referring to the vast, vast, vast majority of people. Roughly two-thirds of whom own their own homes.



So if this social housing is going to be so widespread, and so heavily subsidised to reduce the cost, then somebody's going to be paying for that subsidy. Who, how much, and how? Remember: government expenditure already massively outstrips government income.

Some of us believe in taxation to fund public services and infrastructure. Even if it means paying a bit more ourselves.

AdrianC

Person_one wrote: »

Some of us believe in taxation to fund public services and infrastructure. Even if it means paying a bit more ourselves.

Lovely, an' all. Now answer the question.

Pay particular attention to the increased mobility of industry in a global economy, and to the Laffer curve in your answer, please.