Why the bad news for landlords is just beginning

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

The solution is for prices to come down. Whether this is achieved through Brexit, interest rate rises, BTL taxes, whatever. I don't think houses should be given away to people - please don't join the other two on here, you strike me as more intelligent.

As for a possible solution, I would like to see housing built that is linked with inflation. Let's build the houses as a country, sell them off to cover the land and build costs, plus perhaps a bit extra for the trouble and then limit what people can make on the flip side.

I believe this scheme exists already in the UK, I just can't locate the link currently. Housing that is owned at a fair rate, but that can't quadruple in value every 10 years. Buy a house for 200k, inflation at 2% p.a. you sell it for 210k in 5 years time. Tax payer doesn't lose out, future generations don't lose out.

nepotism will just win the day if people cant sell a house for market value and must sell for half they will sell it to their friends and family

and as already pointed out to you some 80% of the country is cheap, there is no need for mass house building there. Where it is not cheap, London and inner London any additional house building will more likely draw people in who have to commute

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Why didn't said 40 year old get married or find a partner?

Are we yet capable as a country of building the 10 million additional homes that would be needed for all unrelated sharers to live in single occupancy homes?

even without ignoring building homes, why cant the 40y old find a partner to rent by themselves? its crazy to think everyone is entitled to own. this whole debate is stupid.

people get paid based on supply and demand. if they cant afford to buy then retrain and skill up to obtain higher wages. if you dont do this you only have yourself to blame for not affording to buy (not that there is anything wrong at all with renting).

lets just close this debate its getting pointless going back and forth. really is a pointless debate.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

how would it work if all non married adults could live as single occupancy owners?

How many additional homes would the uk and London need for that to happen?

Did I say all?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Windofchange wrote: »

Oh for the love of god. Where have I said an average worker should be able to buy in prime London? I have specifically said in a number of posts that I don't think someone should. You just read what you want to read. It's like trying to argue with a toddler.

Where have I said that a nurse or whoever should be able to buy at a discounted rate? You may as well just start a new thread consisting purely of yourself and make up a conversation for all the difference it would make. Yeah, I think a nurse should be able to buy a bugatti and live in a Chelsea penthouse. Go start another thread and have the argument with yourself that you are so keen to have.

In red, you realise that a Bugatti is way less expensive than avg London property, I would argue there is more demand for London property though. You think London property is less desirable than it actually is, otherwise prices wouldn't be where they are. You posted earlier that it's a terrible thing that a debt filled grad earning £25k cant buy a piece of London property. OH NO SHOCK HORROR, you do realise that this is way under the London avg and even the national avg, so why on earth would you think they should be able to afford to buy a house in the most desirable city in the UK. I bet you work in the NHS and that's why you're so upset that your example I.E you, can't afford a decent property in London.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Why didn't said 40 year old get married or find a partner?

Are we yet capable as a country of building the 10 million additional homes that would be needed for all unrelated sharers to live in single occupancy homes?

He might and still not be able to find affordable accomadation near work.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

even without ignoring building homes, why cant the 40y old find a partner to rent by themselves? its crazy to think everyone is entitled to own. this whole debate is stupid.

people get paid based on supply and demand. if they cant afford to buy then retrain and skill up to obtain higher wages. if you dont do this you only have yourself to blame for not affording to buy (not that there is anything wrong at all with renting).

lets just close this debate its getting pointless going back and forth. really is a pointless debate.

Do you ever read any body's post, you seem to have some inaccurate idea of what they are in your head and just reply to that.

ukcarper

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Clearly you think London property is less desirable than it actually is, otherwise prices wouldn't be where they are. You posted earlier that it's a terrible thing that a debt filled grad earning £25k cant buy a piece of London property. OH NO SHOCK HORROR, you do realise that this is way under the London avg and even the national avg, so why on earth would you think they should be able to afford to buy a house in the most desirable city in the UK. I bet you work in the NHS and that's why you're so upset that your example I.E you, can't afford a decent property in London.

Not that far under median full time earnings in London is £34k

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

He might and still not be able to find affordable accomadation near work.

to buy or rent?

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

to buy or rent?

Depending on earnings rent.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Depending on earnings rent.

they can find somewhere to rent. doesnt have to be next door to work. try zone 4-6