Houses are affordable!

ukcarper

Balabalabala_and_Volare wrote: »

Simplistic and true. Unless you have a viable alternative?

I think the alternatives at the moment are terrible at the moment with Corbyn on one side and an incompetent Tory party on the other, so much so that last GE I spoilt my ballot paper.

ukcarper

Cakeguts wrote: »

My feeling about social housing is that the tenancies should have an age limit on them depending on the size of the unit. If you say that 66 is the new retirement age then at that age the tenancy should automatically end and a new one in a unit of the appropriate size offered. The situation we have at the moment creates families in temporary housing and single retired people living in family sized social housing. In privately owned houses people downsize when they get older so people in social housing should do the same.

Any adult child still living with the parents when they retire needs to be assessed for their own needs.

I think that idea is OK if units in a nearby area are available but as with the bedroom tax in many areas they are not. I also think Council rents should be linked to the earnings of tennents.

Cakeguts

ukcarper wrote: »

I think that idea is OK if units in a nearby area are available but as with the bedroom tax in many areas they are not. I also think Council rents should be linked to the earnings of tennents.

Does this mean that the social housing that is required is mostly needed to accommodate a population of ageing council/housing association tenants and that there is enough family sized?

Red-Squirrel_2

Cakeguts wrote: »

Does this mean that the social housing that is required is mostly needed to accommodate a population of ageing council/housing association tenants and that there is enough family sized?

Why do you think the poster might mean something completely different to what they wrote?

lincroft1710

GreatApe wrote: »

You make the mistake a lot of people do which is to think just because something has gone up in price it must now be unaffordable.

I'm not making any mistake, I'm stating 2 facts, very simply in 1976 would need to borrow 3 times my salary, 40 years later it would be 6 times.

ukcarper

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I'm not making any mistake, I'm stating 2 facts, very simply in 1976 would need to borrow 3 times my salary, 40 years later it would be 6 times.

I think what GreatApe means is that as people are buying these expensive properties they are affordable. Doesn’t help general population though.

ukcarper

Cakeguts wrote: »

Does this mean that the social housing that is required is mostly needed to accommodate a population of ageing council/housing association tenants and that there is enough family sized?

It means that if you are going to rehouse all these over 65 year olds you need somewhere to house them, which there isn’t at the moment.

capital0ne

This thread has morphed off the subject.

One point people keep missing on and is the reason housing is just affordable now as it was 50+ years ago is this - interest rates!

Back in the day when I bought in 1975/6 interest was 15% so we could only borrow 3 times salary

Now its 15 times less 1% so you can borrow many more times your salary.

House prices rise and fall according to what people can pay, and that's determined by what people can borrow, and that's determined by interest rates. Simples

Pixie5740

capital0ne wrote: »

This thread has morphed off the subject.

One point people keep missing on and is the reason housing is just affordable now as it was 50+ years ago is this - interest rates!

Back in the day when I bought in 1975/6 interest was 15% so we could only borrow 3 times salary

Now its 15 times less 1% so you can borrow many more times your salary.

House prices rise and fall according to what people can pay, and that's determined by what people can borrow, and that's determined by interest rates. Simples

I think someone is forgetting about MMR introduced in April 2014.

lincroft1710

But in the 1970s we also had income tax relief on mortgages.