Ownership amongst the young

economic

Chrysalis wrote: »

"only to those who..."

Well yeah a lot of people dont earn enough on a single income and most people are not fortunate enough to get gifts/inheritances.

So you seem to be saying its only the poor who cannot afford so its fine.

yes i am. poor cant afford and why should they be able to afford? they are poor!

you seem to think everyone should be able to afford to buy. thats just so stupid. do you just want pure socialism in this country?

ukcarper

Chrysalis wrote: »

You mean "some" properties do.

I have single glazed windows.

I have visited various properties also that have no central heating. Of course central heating doesnt mean much if you cannot afford to use it.

I mean the one that sold for 40x was the same type of house in same road and that had double glazing and central heatin, if it didn't it would not have sold for what it did.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Finally a reasoned answer. And yes, I can agree that people are putting off to later big life decisions such as purchasing a house, getting married etc. This will impact on what percentage of the young own a house.

However, the underlying fact remains that house prices are at record multiples of salary, and that this must also impact ownership. Take the top end of that age group; 30 - 34. That is not gap year young. That is the sort of time people are settling, starting families etc. The reason home ownership is falling in even the cheapest towns is a mix of the above and also that they are not cheap for the local population. I have already posted an article to this - off the top of my head it was 46 local authorities out of 400 ish where house prices were at 3 - 5 x salary. £100k is cheap to us, but for someone earning £15k a year it isn't.

I agree that falling home ownership is a far more complex issue than simply prices, but housing is not cheap and no amount of tables with 30 year mortgages and a couple both earning a male F/T salary will convince me otherwise.

We all suffer from the silly feeling that if something's price has gone up we are being fooled/conned. For many crash cheerleaders they feel house prices are too high simply because they where cheaper 5 years ago and its not fair. People need to forget the prices of yesteryear unless they have a time machine!

On every reasonable metric house prices in 8 regions of the UK are cheap. Even if you disagree its foolish to rent and not buy because renting costs 6% while buying costs 2% so each year you own that there is no crash you are paying down 3-4% of the capital

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Although many of the points you make are valid, to deny that it is no harder to buy now than in the past is just as bad as those saying there are no parts of the country where property is affordable. I bought my first property near one of the peaks in the 70s a 3 bed terrace if I was in exactly the same position now even with the bigger mortgage I could now get I wouldn't be able to buy it,

I did not say property is easier to buy today than at any other point in history. For example clearly 5 years ago it was cheaper to buy.

However that does not then lead to a conclusion that today is unaffordable or unjust.

Property is still very affordable in 8 regions so much so that buying with a mortgage will cost you less than renting the local social property. If buying is cheaper than renting the local poor stock subsidized by the state then what's the problem?

Also the fact that you could afford your property 40 years ago but someone similar today could not is neither here nor there. Over the 40 years life has moved on people have much more inherited wealth and gifts and areas change like inner London went from highly undesirable high crime sink estates to now very expensive.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

I did not say property is easier to buy today than at any other point in history. For example clearly 5 years ago it was cheaper to buy.

However that does not then lead to a conclusion that today is unaffordable or unjust.

Property is still very affordable in 8 regions so much so that buying with a mortgage will cost you less than renting the local social property. If buying is cheaper than renting the local poor stock subsidized by the state then what's the problem?

Also the fact that you could afford your property 40 years ago but someone similar today could not is neither here nor there. Over the 40 years life has moved on people have much more inherited wealth and gifts and areas change like inner London went from highly undesirable high crime sink estates to now very expensive.

Property is affordable in some areas but not as many as you say, but it is less affordable than any time in the past. It not a matter of being unjust it just a matter of affordability two completely different things.

If you have to rely on an an inheritance or gift to buy then property is clearly unaffordable for the majority, if you can't see that it show how out of touch you are.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Property is affordable in some areas but not as many as you say, but it is less affordable than any time in the past. It not a matter of being unjust it just a matter of affordability two completely different things.

If you have to rely on an an inheritance or gift to buy then property is clearly unaffordable for the majority, if you can't see that it show how out of touch you are.

sure property is probably more unafforable now then before in some areas. but so what?

economic

MSE admin - please remove above post and poster as it is looks very dodgy.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

sure property is probably more unafforable now then before in some areas. but so what?

That just about sum you up.

Conrad

Under Corbyn property will become even more expensive;


1) Far greater immigration as word goes out he welcomes all with open arms and wallet (remember his first action on becoming leader was to attend a refugee rally - his priority is virtue signalling around immigration)


2) No amount of building can realistically keep pace with such an influx


3) Vastly increased borrowing means higher interest rates thus higher mortgage payments, thus higher rents




I hope the starrey eyed Cobynites don't complain when their housing costs rocket

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Property is affordable in some areas but not as many as you say, but it is less affordable than any time in the past. It not a matter of being unjust it just a matter of affordability two completely different things.

If you have to rely on an an inheritance or gift to buy then property is clearly unaffordable for the majority, if you can't see that it show how out of touch you are.

You don't have to rely on an Inheritance or gifts but you do need to accept that this generation is going to inherit and be gifted more wealth than any other generation in history.

If we split the property market into 3 parts, the bottom 1/3rd go to FTB the second 1/3rd go to second time buyers and the top 1/3rd go to 'other buyers' eg inherited wealth or very rich people etc. Then if you look at the bottom 1/3rd of homes you will find that a median full time male wage can buy said properties in 8 UK regions. And a median full time working couple can buy in 3 more regions. So what's the problem?


The problem I can see is that people are aiming too high with below average earnings and wealth. Eg like the two young ones in the other thread who were trying to buy in Manchester and complaining it was impossible. This was a couple trying to buy well above the median house for the area on incomes well below the median. Sure they will struggle just like at any other point in history where aiming to buy a great house on crap wages wasn't easy.