Home Ownership at Lowest Level for 30 Years

Cakeguts

ruperts wrote: »

Some people want to rent but they are in the minority among renters. Almost everyone wants the security of owning their own home.

If someone can afford to rent a property then they can afford to make mortgage repayments. There is no such thing as "renting because it's cheaper".

Nothing to do with it being cheaper and everything to do with you don't have to save any money if you rent. You don't have to save for a deposit, or repairs, or in case you lose your job. Landlords pay for repairs and housing benefit pays the rent if you lose your job. What this means is that any money left over at the end of the month is yours to spend if you are renting. You can get a nice home without having to save a 10% deposit to buy it. This means that you don't have to miss out on a new car or any holidays. There is nothing wrong with this but just because you don't agree with this lifestyle doesn't mean that it is wrong. There are people who rent long term because that is their choice.

Cakeguts

ruperts wrote: »

Why on earth would keeping landlords happy be a priority? Landlords hoarding homes that could otherwise be made available to buy are part of the problem. Nobody trapped in generation rent has any sympathy for those home hoarders and to think otherwise would be naive in the extreme. As the number of people trapped in rented accommodation swells you can expect aggressive support among those people for policies that make becoming or remaining a home hoarder significantly less attractive.

You are double counting. The houses that landlords own have people living in them. If they were owner occupied they would still have people living in them and would not be available for someone to buy. What you are looking for is vacant property and for that people have to die or leave the country.

ruperts

Cakeguts wrote: »

You are double counting. The houses that landlords own have people living in them. If they were owner occupied they would still have people living in them and would not be available for someone to buy. What you are looking for is vacant property and for that people have to die or leave the country.

They would be available to buy as soon as the home hoarder put them up for sale and that increased supply would lower prices and allow those forced to rent an entry point. There is no double counting. There is a finite number of homes, if some people hoard them then others have to miss out.

ruperts

Cakeguts wrote: »

Nothing to do with it being cheaper and everything to do with you don't have to save any money if you rent. You don't have to save for a deposit, or repairs, or in case you lose your job. Landlords pay for repairs and housing benefit pays the rent if you lose your job. What this means is that any money left over at the end of the month is yours to spend if you are renting. You can get a nice home without having to save a 10% deposit to buy it. This means that you don't have to miss out on a new car or any holidays. There is nothing wrong with this but just because you don't agree with this lifestyle doesn't mean that it is wrong. There are people who rent long term because that is their choice.

Same old thing with the "new car and holidays" argument that implies renters are just frivolously spending what they could be saving towards a deposit, ignoring the fact that raising a deposit is harder now than at any other point in living memory and that the house price to income ratio is also at an unprecedented high.

gwen80

Cakeguts wrote: »

Nothing to do with it being cheaper and everything to do with you don't have to save any money if you rent. You don't have to save for a deposit, or repairs, or in case you lose your job. Landlords pay for repairs and housing benefit pays the rent if you lose your job. What this means is that any money left over at the end of the month is yours to spend if you are renting. You can get a nice home without having to save a 10% deposit to buy it. This means that you don't have to miss out on a new car or any holidays. There is nothing wrong with this but just because you don't agree with this lifestyle doesn't mean that it is wrong. There are people who rent long term because that is their choice.

Renters don't have to save for a deposit? Maybe not a house deposit if they choose not to, but I can assure you that they will need a deposit for their next rental property (before they get their existing one back).

I rent and I want my new car and holiday - God damn it In reality, I'm saving up £800 a month in the hope that one day in the dim and distant future I might be able to have my own home which is larger than the shoebox, sorry studio, I currently rent.

Of course, you don't mention the downsides of renting - no security, dealing with poorly managed properties, having to move when you don't want to, dealing with unreasonable landlords etc etc.

ukcarper

ruperts wrote: »

They would be available to buy as soon as the home hoarder put them up for sale and that increased supply would lower prices and allow those forced to rent an entry point. There is no double counting. There is a finite number of homes, if some people hoard them then others have to miss out.

What would happen to person renting house?

Zxcv_Bnm

ruperts wrote: »

They would be available to buy as soon as the home hoarder put them up for sale and that increased supply would lower prices and allow those forced to rent an entry point. There is no double counting. There is a finite number of homes, if some people hoard them then others have to miss out.

Landlords putting them up for sale would reduce supply, not increase it.

Rented property is occupied more densely so selling a house with 4 renters in will mean 3 owner-occupants move in.

Net, there's now 1 less house to rent and 1 more person who needs to rent.

LydiaJ

ukcarper wrote: »

Because many people want to rent...

Lots and lots of people have phases in their lives when renting is preferable because of the flexibility. For most of them, this is temporary, and only lasts a few years. It certainly was for me.

There are also plenty of people who are happy to rent long term but want the security of a permanent tenancy in social housing.

I don't believe there are significant numbers of people who want to rent from private landlords on ASTs for a lifetime.

Cakeguts wrote: »

You are double counting. The houses that landlords own have people living in them. If they were owner occupied they would still have people living in them and would not be available for someone to buy. What you are looking for is vacant property and for that people have to die or leave the country.

Landlords hoarding houses do not decrease the number of people who can live in houses. They do, however, decrease the number of people who can have the security of owning their home. This is particularly clear in the case of a house that used to belong to my friend. She was a landlord at one time, and ended up selling the house to the tenant, who continued living in it.

ukcarper

LydiaJ wrote: »

Lots and lots of people have phases in their lives when renting is preferable because of the flexibility. For most of them, this is temporary, and only lasts a few years. It certainly was for me.

There are also plenty of people who are happy to rent long term but want the security of a permanent tenancy in social housing.

I don't believe there are significant numbers of people who want to rent from private landlords on ASTs for a lifetime.



Landlords hoarding houses do not decrease the number of people who can live in houses. They do, however, decrease the number of people who can have the security of owning their home. This is particularly clear in the case of a house that used to belong to my friend. She was a landlord at one time, and ended up selling the house to the tenant, who continued living in it.

Your probably right there are not a significant number of people who want to rent long term on an AST, but there are significant numbers of people who want to rent short term and people who would not be able to buy even if prices were lower. As social housing has decreased deliberately reducing the number of private landlords would not help large numbers of people in fact it would make it worse for them.

GreatApe

ruperts wrote: »

Basically everywhere has a house price to local income ratio problem

This is total nonsense, in more than half the country the interest on a mortgage on a starter home is LESS than the rent you would pay to rent the local average social stock.

Also in some parts of the country the average terrace costs not much more than 1x the average full time male+female earnings. I am thinking of stoke-on-trent as one such place