Home Ownership at Lowest Level for 30 Years

davomcdave

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2997977/home-ownership-plunges-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/

HOME ownership has plunged to the lowest levels since the days of Margaret Thatcher in the mid-1980s, official figures revealed yesterday.

Just 63 per cent of Brits own a home, while the number of people forced to rent has soared by a million since 2010.

The rate of young people renting is higher of course. Almost half of people aged 25-34 now rent.

If you're a landlord you face huge political risks IMHO.

ukcarper

davomcdave wrote: »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2997977/home-ownership-plunges-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/



The rate of young people renting is higher of course. Almost half of people aged 25-34 now rent.

If you're a landlord you face huge political risks IMHO.

What do you mean by your last statement?

davomcdave

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you mean by your last statement?

The more people that rent rather than own their own property the more likely it is for politicians to pass laws that favour renters over landlords. We've already seen the tax laws change to make BTL less attractive as an investment.

ukcarper

davomcdave wrote: »

The more people that rent rather than own their own property the more likely it is for politicians to pass laws that favour renters over landlords. We've already seen the tax laws change to make BTL less attractive as an investment.

Yes but if more people are renting they can't do anything to discourage landlords completely a balance needs to be strict that keeps landlords happy.

davomcdave

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes but if more people are renting they can't do anything to discourage landlords completely a balance needs to be strict that keeps landlords happy.

Not really. We've had rent controls and security of tenure in the past when renting was at higher levels than now.

movilogo

Most lawmakers are landlords themselves. So I'd be surprised if they try to screw the landlords.

Yes, Osborne did try that with mortgage interest non-deductible but that affected only 20% or so landlords.

PS: I read somewhere home ownership is predicted to fall to 50% level by 2025.

ukcarper

davomcdave wrote: »

Not really. We've had rent controls and security of tenure in the past when renting was at higher levels than now.

That's not true the number of retal properties was falling before the new rules were introduced. The number of private rental properties available to rent as opposed to being rent already was very low in the 70s.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that the rules can't be changed to benefit tenant more, but the changes will not have to be so great it reduces the number of landlords significantly.

davomcdave

ukcarper wrote: »

That's not true the number of retal properties was falling before the new rules were introduced. The number of private rental properties available to rent as opposed to being rent already was very low in the 70s.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that the rules can't be changed to benefit tenant more, but the changes will not have to be so great it reduces the number of landlords significantly.

If Corbyn wins (:rotfl:) he has proposed rent controls.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/22/corbyn-mcdonnell-and-labour-propose-the-worst-of-all-economic-policies-rent-control/

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, his Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and the Labour Party itself are now committing themselves to the wort of all economic policies: rent control.

Corbyn is 9/2 to be the next PM so, assuming he could get the policy through Parliament, it's about 5-1 or something that rent controls will be imposed on the UK.

always_sunny

davomcdave wrote: »

Not really. We've had rent controls and security of tenure in the past when renting was at higher levels than now.

But in the past was private renting or social renting?
There are more private landlords now, there is very little room to wiggle or are you suggesting that the government would intervene and change ownership legislation? ie. force landlord?
The UK is a very free market, I agree it could be more pro-tenant though.

westernpromise

The funny thing is that in the 1980s, Labour was adamant that the level of ownership then was correct, and so no council houses should be sold to their occupants. Instead, council tenants should remain renters for life.

Surely they have won this point? Renters remain renters for life except that some now rent from private landlords. What's wrong with that?

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

That's not true the number of retal properties was falling before the new rules were introduced. The number of private rental properties available to rent as opposed to being rent already was very low in the 70s.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that the rules can't be changed to benefit tenant more, but the changes will not have to be so great it reduces the number of landlords significantly.

Correct. To get an idea of what renting was like in the 1970s, try watching episodes of Rising Damp or Man About The House, which accurately show typical renting arrangements in the era of rent controls and no AST. Essentially you rented rooms in a house and the landlord lived downstairs. There would be the usual number of bathrooms a house has (one), which you shared.