Houses are affordable!

Red-Squirrel_2

economic wrote: »

i bought my 2 bed flat worth 600k on just my income alone. sure i got paid more then average but certainly not more then two incomes combined.

What do you earn?

Red-Squirrel_2

ukcarper wrote: »

But it’s always been difficult to buy alone and the rise in single person households puts pressure on house prices.

I don’t think you will convince GreatApe he is convinced inheritance is an answer although I agree with you it might help some people but no the majority at the time they need it.

What would be really great is if there was a government that could come up with a really bold housing plan, that involved building lots and lots of houses suitable for all sorts of different family setups, including plenty for social rent.

What do you think the chances are?

I think GreatApe assumes these are my personal gripes, but I was one of the fortunate ones and bought alone just after the financial crash when that was temporarily possible, then I upsized to my current place 2 years ago and plan to stay here forever. I'm fine, its others I worry about.

GreatApe

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Single person households are the biggest growing demographic I believe, and people who are pairing up are doing so later in life, long after they first need to house themselves as independent adults!

If you are not suggesting that inheritance is a solution, you are doing a very good impression of it. What is your point if I've read it wrong?

Inherited and gifted wealth exists I am making no judgement on its goods/evils. It does of course help lots of people out.

The problem a lot of people have is to create far too simple a model for the housing market. They say something silly like a man should be able to buy the average house on the average wage. Sounds right but its so stupid and wrong

This is a much more realistic logical model.

The bottom 1/3rd of properties go to FTBs
The middle 1/3rd of properties go to Second-Time-Buyers
The top 1/3th of properties go to rich people

bottom 1/3rd of properties nationally can FTBs afford them? Well yes quite easily.
Can second time buyers with 20 years equity afford the middle 1/3rd of properties in the country? Well yes quite easily.
What about the top 1/3rd of properties does it make sense that the rich can afford those some with inheritances some with other wealth? Sure Its a functioning logical market.

The problem is when someone with the bottom 1/3rd of income/savings/inheritences tries to buy in an area competing with the top 1/3rd of incomes/savings and whats double worse is when they feel intitled to be able to buy alone with just one income. Then things look !!!! the postman on £25k a year cant buy the 4 bedroom terrace in hackney for £1 million. That does not mean hackney is unaffordable or that the postman cant buy a house. It means Hackney is affordable for the top 1/3rd of buyers and it means our postman needs to move to Birmingham and do his lower paid job in a more affordable area.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

i bought my 2 bed flat worth 600k on just my income alone. sure i got paid more then average but certainly not more then two incomes combined.

It’s still 17x median full time earnings for London or 8.5x the joint earnings of two full time median earners.

ukcarper

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

What would be really great is if there was a government that could come up with a really bold housing plan, that involved building lots and lots of houses suitable for all sorts of different family setups, including plenty for social rent.

What do you think the chances are?

I think GreatApe assumes these are my personal gripes, but I was one of the fortunate ones and bought alone just after the financial crash when that was temporarily possible, then I upsized to my current place 2 years ago and plan to stay here forever. I'm fine, its others I worry about.

I think something needs to be done in London and surrounding area, but I don’t think it will be done anytime soon. It we be good if jobs and therefore demand could be more evenly spread around country but I don’t think that will happen.

Red-Squirrel_2

GreatApe wrote: »

Inherited and gifted wealth exists I am making no judgement on its goods/evils. It does of course help lots of people out.

The problem a lot of people have is to create far too simple a model for the housing market. They say something silly like a man should be able to buy the average house on the average wage. Sounds right but its so stupid and wrong

This is a much more realistic logical model.

The bottom 1/3rd of properties go to FTBs
The middle 1/3rd of properties go to Second-Time-Buyers
The top 1/3th of properties go to rich people

bottom 1/3rd of properties nationally can FTBs afford them? Well yes quite easily.
Can second time buyers with 20 years equity afford the middle 1/3rd of properties in the country? Well yes quite easily.
What about the top 1/3rd of properties does it make sense that the rich can afford those some with inheritances some with other wealth? Sure Its a functioning logical market.

The problem is when someone with the bottom 1/3rd of income/savings/inheritences tries to buy in an area competing with the top 1/3rd of incomes/savings and whats double worse is when they feel intitled to be able to buy alone with just one income. Then things look !!!! the postman on £25k a year cant buy the 4 bedroom terrace in hackney for £1 million. That does not mean hackney is unaffordable or that the postman cant buy a house. It means Hackney is affordable for the top 1/3rd of buyers and it means our postman needs to move to Birmingham and do his lower paid job in a more affordable area.

Who will deliver the post in Hackney then?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Inherited and gifted wealth exists I am making no judgement on its goods/evils. It does of course help lots of people out.

The problem a lot of people have is to create far too simple a model for the housing market. They say something silly like a man should be able to buy the average house on the average wage. Sounds right but its so stupid and wrong

This is a much more realistic logical model.

The bottom 1/3rd of properties go to FTBs
The middle 1/3rd of properties go to Second-Time-Buyers
The top 1/3th of properties go to rich people

bottom 1/3rd of properties nationally can FTBs afford them? Well yes quite easily.
Can second time buyers with 20 years equity afford the middle 1/3rd of properties in the country? Well yes quite easily.
What about the top 1/3rd of properties does it make sense that the rich can afford those some with inheritances some with other wealth? Sure Its a functioning logical market.

The problem is when someone with the bottom 1/3rd of income/savings/inheritences tries to buy in an area competing with the top 1/3rd of incomes/savings and whats double worse is when they feel intitled to be able to buy alone with just one income. Then things look !!!! the postman on £25k a year cant buy the 4 bedroom terrace in hackney for £1 million. That does not mean hackney is unaffordable or that the postman cant buy a house. It means Hackney is affordable for the top 1/3rd of buyers and it means our postman needs to move to Birmingham and do his lower paid job in a more affordable area.

I know you also don’t like social housing so who are going to post letters.

ukcarper

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Who will deliver the post in Hackney then?

Beat me to it, he could move out a bit and commute but then he couldn’t buy there.

GreatApe

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

What would be really great is if there was a government that could come up with a really bold housing plan, that involved building lots and lots of houses suitable for all sorts of different family setups, including plenty for social rent.

That would be a pointless task we do not lack for housing we have more housing (residential floorspace per capita) than ever.

Social housing is also not the answer because it doesnt solve this problem this is easy to prove you just need to look at councils that have a lot more than the average social housing stock. For instance over 40% of inner east London is social housing that is a LOT more than the national average which is 17% yet inner East London is very expensive £1 million terraces etc

If anything the social sector is a higher limit cap on house ownership so it should be sold down towards 10% of the stock especially in inner London

What do you think the chances are?

Small.

If you think there is a need for more council homes, there isnt, then the easy option is for the council just to buy stock in their local area off estate agents. In a lot of the country you can buy a 3 bedroom house for less than £120k it will likely cost the councils more to build a 3 bedroom house and one you can buy in 2 months and get tenants in the other might take 2+ years in planning and building.

would you support councils buying existing homes and renting them out as council homes. why/why-not?

I think GreatApe assumes these are my personal gripes, but I was one of the fortunate ones and bought alone just after the financial crash when that was temporarily possible, then I upsized to my current place 2 years ago and plan to stay here forever. I'm fine, its others I worry about.

Who exactly are you worried about? Mostly fictional homeless people I would suggest

Only 14% of UK born people rent privately and over 75% of them only do so temporarily (that is to say they become owners in less than 10 years of renting)

The reason private renting has doubled since 2004 is because we imported 5 million migrants since 2004 and they come here often with little so have to rent privately. 75% of recent migrants (here for 5 years or less) rent privately.

What people do not realize is when you cry that house ownership has fallen and renting increased there is a housing crisis what you are actually saying is house ownership has fallen and the migrants arent buying fast enough. If brexit happens and the migrants stop coming we will see ownership start to go back up as the existing migrants save and start buying rather than renting

GreatApe

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Who will deliver the post in Hackney then?

It is a low productivity task that is not necessary in the modern world but that aside

24% of London is social homes. Inner London is more expensive and has even more social homes some >40% of inner east London is social homes.

Stop putting in refugees and non working migrants and locals into the London social stock. Or rather make the points system that full time workers earning under £40k are near the top.

Also the easiest way to crash London prices and rents would be to actually sell the social stock. Why does inner East London need 40% social stock when lots of the country manage with 15%?