Is property in a bubble?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Why would you compare now to a record high year? Why is that reasonable?

Surely if you do that then disappointment is just a matter of time as you simply can't keep growing ownership to 100%

If the number of homeowners is falling it stands to reason that fewer people are buying.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

If the number of homeowners is falling it stands to reason that fewer people are buying.

So what’s the problem with that?

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

So what’s the problem with that?

I suppose that depends on where you are sitting but I feel that if people are earning are working full time in a reasonable job if they want to buy they should have a good chance of buying it they are prepared to put in the effort. That's not the case now and with the present cost and security of renting it's not a good alternative when you have children.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

If the number of homeowners is falling it stands to reason that fewer people are buying.

Yes but the fact it has gone down does not in itself mean things are bad. If ownership was 100% and it fell yo 99% would 99% ownership be bad just because it was 100% some time before?

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I suppose that depends on where you are sitting but I feel that if people are earning are working full time in a reasonable job if they want to buy they should have a good chance of buying it they are prepared to put in the effort. That's not the case now and with the present cost and security of renting it's not a good alternative when you have children.

Private rental is a transitional tenure so most renters do buy or go into social

Also property in most the country is affordable even for a couple on minimum wage.
In most the UK property prices are close to cost or even below cost in some cases. That effectively means in places like Birmingham a Victorian terrace hasn't gone up in trial price over the last 110 years.

Outside of London there really isn't a problem and in London the problem isn't high house prices the problem is high construction costs a large part of which is down to ruels and regulations

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Private rental is a transitional tenure so most renters do buy or go into social

Also property in most the country is affordable even for a couple on minimum wage.
In most the UK property prices are close to cost or even below cost in some cases. That effectively means in places like Birmingham a Victorian terrace hasn't gone up in trial price over the last 110 years.

Outside of London there really isn't a problem and in London the problem isn't high house prices the problem is high construction costs a large part of which is down to ruels and regulations

I agree the problem does not apply to the whole country but covers more areas than you admit. I bought my first property in the 70s at a time when prices were very high, I was earning above average wage, if I was in a similar position now I would not be able to buy a similar property in fact I would struggle to buy at all. There are many people who would have been able to buy in the past who can't now and as there is not enough social housing they will be forced to continue renting.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Yes but the fact it has gone down does not in itself mean things are bad. If ownership was 100% and it fell yo 99% would 99% ownership be bad just because it was 100% some time before?

In itself it's not a big problem its cost of renting and the difficulty of getting security of tenure in rental market that makes it a problem.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

In itself it's not a big problem its cost of renting and the difficulty of getting security of tenure in rental market that makes it a problem.

These are pretend problems your just grasping at straws to not let go of your misconceptions

£120k property in Birmingham to buy with a 25 year mortgage is £540 per month to rent the same is £550 per month so arguing that renting is unaffordable is simply a lie

In London a £500k property costs £2,243 per month to buy or £1500 per month to rent so renting is cheaper.

Yes I understand if you buy you own outright in 25 years while with the rental you don't. But your point was cost of renting is the problem clearly it isn't as the cost of buying is typically more. We haven't even talked of the other cists of buying like £15k stamp duty in London vs soon to be £0 letting agent fees.

As for no security of tenure this is true but also irrelevant. When I rented for 9 years the longest I stayed in one place was 2 years and often just 13 months I didn't want a lifetime tenancy. This is true for most renters as I keep saying 75% of renters buy or move to social in 10 years or fewer

There really isn't s problem
I know where you are coming from ten years ago I would have been in your side cheerleading you on but now that I know more I see the market is functioning logically and reasonably.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree the problem does not apply to the whole country but covers more areas than you admit. I bought my first property in the 70s at a time when prices were very high, I was earning above average wage, if I was in a similar position now I would not be able to buy a similar property in fact I would struggle to buy at all. There are many people who would have been able to buy in the past who can't now and as there is not enough social housing they will be forced to continue renting.

Yes I understand fully heat you are saying because 5-10 years ago I was saying the exact same things.

But you would be wrong just as I was wrong.

I've tried explaining multiple times. Let me try ask you a couple of questions maybe u will have more luck

Is short term private renting a problem? Eg kids at university recent migrants people moving around the country etc?

If short term renting isn't a problem, then what proportion of people rent privately Long term?
Is that number a problem? Can that number be reduced if so how much?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

These are pretend problems your just grasping at straws to not let go of your misconceptions

£120k property in Birmingham to buy with a 25 year mortgage is £540 per month to rent the same is £550 per month so arguing that renting is unaffordable is simply a lie

In London a £500k property costs £2,243 per month to buy or £1500 per month to rent so renting is cheaper.

Yes I understand if you buy you own outright in 25 years while with the rental you don't. But your point was cost of renting is the problem clearly it isn't as the cost of buying is typically more. We haven't even talked of the other cists of buying like £15k stamp duty in London vs soon to be £0 letting agent fees.

As for no security of tenure this is true but also irrelevant. When I rented for 9 years the longest I stayed in one place was 2 years and often just 13 months I didn't want a lifetime tenancy. This is true for most renters as I keep saying 75% of renters buy or move to social in 10 years or fewer

There really isn't s problem
I know where you are coming from ten years ago I would have been in your side cheerleading you on but now that I know more I see the market is functioning logically and reasonably.

To buy that £500k property with 10% deposit you would need a joint income of £110k

If you have children you need security of tenure.

That 75% is historic not future