Home Ownership at Lowest Level for 30 Years

ukcarper

ruperts wrote: »

Any sort of leisure activity requires expenditure even if it's as simple as having to buy a pair of shorts. I think my budget was perfectly reasonable.


It might have been ok to cancel your social life temporarily back when it only took 3 or 4 months to raise a deposit. Now it takes a number of years so it just isn't feasible to have no social life for such a significant part of your life. If nothing else that would be very unhealthy.


The obvious reason why public transport might not be an option is that many work places aren't serviced by public transport.


Really cheap 2nd hand cars are a false economy over the time scales now required to raise a deposit. You might get through seven or eight bangers before you've reached your target in which case you'd have been better off for a slightly newer, still 2nd hand car which is what I provided for in my budget.

You are just making excuses a pair of trainers and track suite £50

If you made savings and saved £700 a month it would take less than 2 years to save £14k.

I really think saving for deposit is a poor excuse, if you earn enough to get mortgage you should be able to save, the problem occurs if you live in an area where prices are high in comparisons to earnings.

ruperts

ukcarper wrote: »

You are just making excuses a pair of trainers and track suite £50

If you made savings and saved £700 a month it would take less than 2 years to save £14k.

I really think saving for deposit is a poor excuse, if you earn enough to get mortgae you should be able to save, the problem occurs if you live in an area where prices are high in comparisons to earnings.

I agree that house prices being at unprecedented levels in relation to income is a serious problem. But so is the fact that deposit requirements are also at unprecedented levels.


Remember we're talking about a cheap terraced house in the worst part of Stoke-on-Trent which is just about the cheapest habitable house it is possible to buy in the UK, and even if you're one of the few people who live in those areas to have a stable full time income it is still a monumental task to raise a deposit. If your plan falls off the tracks in any minor way then you're back to square one. If you have the audacity to want to live in an area which isn't the absolute worst area of the country then forget it.

ukcarper

ruperts wrote: »

I agree that house prices being at unprecedented levels in relation to income is a serious problem. But so is the fact that deposit requirements are also at unprecedented levels.


Remember we're talking about a cheap terraced house in the worst part of Stoke-on-Trent which is just about the cheapest habitable house it is possible to buy in the UK, and even if you're one of the few people who live in those areas to have a stable full time income it is still a monumental task to raise a deposit. If your plan falls off the tracks in any minor way then you're back to square one. If you have the audacity to want to live in an area which isn't the absolute worst area of the country then forget it.

We are talking about very nice houses in that area deposits are not at unprecedented levels I needed a deposit of the equivelent of a years earning when I bought in the 70s.

Prices are very high in London and parts of the South East, but it's not the same everywhere.

GreatApe

Crashy_Time wrote: »

HB pays your rent though in social housing, and you don`t lose your shirt/home when rates rise or market crashes.

Unemployment rate is below 5% so for >95% of responsible adults what you type is just empty BS

Clearly much of the country is very cheap very affordable so much so that it is cheaper than the social. Of course if you want to invent some red herrings about losing your shirt when the market crashes then you might scare a few people away

but it might be fair to warn them that you have been renting a bedsit for 20 years listening to your own advise to wait for the market to crash by Christmas so that houses will be 2 ha penny.

GreatApe

ruperts wrote: »

They're nice. So now they just need to save £28k for a deposit. Don't forget you're quoting average wages across all age groups while we're realistically looking at younger people here who, even if they earn the average for their age group, actually earn about 15% less than the overall average. So all things considered they might be looking at a joint take home of around £2k per month with typical expenses as follows.


Rent on a bottom end one bed flat - £500 per month
Council Tax - £90 per month
Electricity, Gas and Water - £120 per month
Essential communication tools, Internet and phones - £70 per month
One car purchased, maintained and fueled - £300 per month
One public transport season ticket - £100 per month
Basic food rations - £350 per month
Essential items, toiletries, clothes etc - £150 per month
Health related activities, sports club, gym etc - £70 per month
The bare minimum social life required to avoid mental health issues - £180 per month
One solitary weeks holiday at a bargain basement £400 each = £66 per month


Total = £1,996 per month.


So they'll be able to save a whacking £4 per month towards their £28k target and should achieve their aim in roughly in 583 years. Great stuff.

this sounds exactly right, the minimum subsistence income is £1,996 per month after tax for a single person

:rotfl:

GreatApe

ruperts wrote: »

I think I've been reasonable with my budget. Clearly you can't save significantly on council tax or essential bills. Where would you make £750 worth of savings from the remaining £1,200?

people who want to save a bit of money tend to rent a 3 bedroom house with 3 persons (About £600pm in the north and midlands for a 3 bed house) and split the rent and bills. Inc bills you are looking at £300 per month per person

davomcdave

GreatApe wrote: »

this sounds exactly right, the minimum subsistence income is £1,996 per month after tax for a single person

:rotfl:

Even if you knock off the gym and scale back the food then you're not going to be saving fortunes.

This rather emphasises the point that you can't rent and save if you're on a typical income. That's why home ownership rates are falling and the age of FTBs has risen dramatically.

You can easily pay well north of a million quid for a three bed semi in Herne Hill!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-58296535.html

caronoel

davomcdave wrote: »

You can easily pay well north of a million quid for a three bed semi in Herne Hill!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-58296535.html

You've put your finger right on the problem there.... I want the private gym, to shop the boutique deli, international holidays, the latest iPhone AND a £1m in central London.... but I don't want to work or save for it.

MobileSaver

davomcdave wrote: »

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.

Not exactly the "huge political risks" in your opening post then? Corbyn will never be PM of the UK.

ukcarper

davomcdave wrote: »

Even if you knock off the gym and scale back the food then you're not going to be saving fortunes.

This rather emphasises the point that you can't rent and save if you're on a typical income. That's why home ownership rates are falling and the age of FTBs has risen dramatically.

You can easily pay well north of a million quid for a three bed semi in Herne Hill!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-58296535.html

You could always move 20 miles out like I had to in the 70s and get this for much less
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-63170315.html