Will there really be a crash?

Sapphire

triathlon wrote: »

The jealousy of you people, why do you have to insult beautiful people for just being beautiful , I am sorry we have homes you dream of, kids we can send to good schools, holidays that are not Butlins, you could have it maybe as well if you stop listening to doom mongers and renters

Don't worry. I do own my home, but don't feel a better or 'more upper class' (as you put it) person for it. I also don't have 'dreams' about any homes you may have; your lifestyle sounds ghastly. I prefer to have my own home, thanks. And I have more important and more meaningful things in my life than the likes of blow-up dolls and the need to brag in order to make myself feel better (presumably some people feel the need to do this due to an inferiority complex of some kind).:T

phillw

Sapphire wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with renting, except that with property being made into a 'market', rents are just too expensive.

It will always be too "expensive" until we abolish money.

I think we should have more council houses, but they should charge market rents for them, covered by benefits when you are unable to earn enough of course. I don't see why people should be subsidised for their entire life just because they have a short term issue with housing when they are young.

At least then the money would stay inside the system and when people got themselves on their feet, they would be putting more money back into council houses to help the next generation.

GreatApe

phillw wrote: »

It will always be too "expensive" until we abolish money.

I think we should have more council houses, but they should charge market rents for them, covered by benefits when you are unable to earn enough of course. I don't see why people should be subsidised for their entire life just because they have a short term issue with housing when they are young.

At least then the money would stay inside the system and when people got themselves on their feet, they would be putting more money back into council houses to help the next generation.

The problem is, the demand for housing is almost unlimited as the number of homes expands the number of single person households balloons

Germany has something crazy like 20 million homes lived in by just one single adult

I am not suggesting building more is a bad thing but that that it will never be 'enough'

At current projections of population even if we built 600,000 homes a year it would take 30 years to get to a point where we were just about satisfied

And the end result would not be cheap housing, homes might cost less but housing (home + bills + upkeep + taxes on property) would be more or less similar as the biggest increase in households by far would be single occupancy households and 1 person paying for the house and upkeep and bills is a lot harder than 2 people doing so

Sadly housing is one of those things that has no short term solution its going to take 30-50 years to resolve

GreatApe

phillw wrote: »

It will always be too "expensive" until we abolish money.

This is wrong imo in the long term housing is going to become close to free just like how second hand cars are close to free (90% off new prices) that will happen in different locations at different points in time but it is inevitable.

In some locations housing already costs below new build

Also strictly speaking housing is already free in the UK to the majority
Some 20% get 'free' social housing and some 70% get free inherited housing (or the equivalent in capital) a very small number actually pay todays price

triathlon

andrewf75 wrote: »

I doubt any of these scenarios are typical though. Mostly renters are people in low paid jobs without savings or parents who can give them a head start. It’s a ticking timebomb that we are all going to have to pay for when these people reach retirement age and can’t retire. The difference between the UK and all those other countries where people happily rent is that renting is much cheaper and you get long term stability.

I WON'T be paying a penny towards them thank you very much, they have made their bed they can lie in it. I started making provisions for my long happy retirement when I was 17, if renters can not do the same, tough.

Moan moan moan, well they can moan as much in the gutter in retirement and hopefully look back in life at the wrong decisions they made, and if they decide to cling on to past events and grudges, well good luck to them, I won't hear I will be travelling the world

triathlon

Sapphire wrote: »

Don't worry. I do own my home, but don't feel a better or 'more upper class' (as you put it) person for it. I also don't have 'dreams' about any homes you may have; your lifestyle sounds ghastly. I prefer to have my own home, thanks. And I have more important and more meaningful things in my life than the likes of blow-up dolls and the need to brag in order to make myself feel better (presumably some people feel the need to do this due to an inferiority complex of some kind).:T

"blow up dolls"
Oh here come the jealous insults of the renter, oh you "have a home" cough, do not believe it for a second, your post reeks of jealousy.

triathlon

phillw wrote: »

It will always be too "expensive" until we abolish money.

I think we should have more council houses, but they should charge market rents for them, covered by benefits when you are unable to earn enough of course. I don't see why people should be subsidised for their entire life just because they have a short term issue with housing when they are young.

At least then the money would stay inside the system and when people got themselves on their feet, they would be putting more money back into council houses to help the next generation.

Oh my goodness, quite clearly one of the Corbyn supporters who think you really can have a world where you are lazy, have as many kids as you want on welfare and then just vote in a bearded left wing fairy who will just take from the hard working rich elite and just hand it over to you.
Never going to happen buddy, I will take my wealth out of the UK before that happens, as will many

C_Mababejive

I live within easy travel of Manchester. For some years now there has been development of flats, or apartments as developers like to call them, on a grand scale. In recent years this has accelerated dramatically.

The most recent one i saw being constructed has advertising hoardings explicitly stating that they are investment opportunities only and for the rental market. Like many in the area, they are being funded by Chinese money.

Presumably they will only be sold to institutions/businesses/pension funds and not to individuals.

But this is a common story. Foreign cash being pumped into British cities for high volume low footprint development,small over priced shoe boxes in the sky, principally for rental.


But i ask again the simple question, who if anyone, is buying/renting moving into them? i suspect a lot are empty.

If they are readily occupied, where did the people come from who occupy them and how do they afford the ridiculous shoe box rents?

Have they all been waiting in homeless shelters waiting for them to be built?

If they lived elsewhere then they have left a property empty to move into the shoebox?

Apart from the shoebox rent of mortgage, you have the negative equity new buy premium, the ever increasing service charge, the council tax, the costs of replacing dangerous combustible outside panels etc,,,


I honestly think that these will become the social housing of the future and lock hundreds of people into negative equity.

I also think many have been cheaply and poorly constructed..

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fire-danger-forces-flat-owners-10974039

GreatApe

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I live within easy travel of Manchester. For some years now there has been development of flats, or apartments as developers like to call them, on a grand scale. In recent years this has accelerated dramatically.

The most recent one i saw being constructed has advertising hoardings explicitly stating that they are investment opportunities only and for the rental market. Like many in the area, they are being funded by Chinese money.

Presumably they will only be sold to institutions/businesses/pension funds and not to individuals.

But this is a common story. Foreign cash being pumped into British cities for high volume low footprint development,small over priced shoe boxes in the sky, principally for rental.


But i ask again the simple question, who if anyone, is buying/renting moving into them? i suspect a lot are empty.

If they are readily occupied, where did the people come from who occupy them and how do they afford the ridiculous shoe box rents?

Have they all been waiting in homeless shelters waiting for them to be built?

If they lived elsewhere then they have left a property empty to move into the shoebox?

Apart from the shoebox rent of mortgage, you have the negative equity new buy premium, the ever increasing service charge, the council tax, the costs of replacing dangerous combustible outside panels etc,,,


I honestly think that these will become the social housing of the future and lock hundreds of people into negative equity.

I also think many have been cheaply and poorly constructed..

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fire-danger-forces-flat-owners-10974039

There are very few empty homes in the UK the stock has an occupancy rate of around 99% and of the 1% that are empty its mostly churn of structural damage. That is to say a house somewhere becomes dilapidated and enters a period of being empty until someone puts it back into usable state.

Who will move into new homes? We just like less dense. So instead of 240 people living in 100 homes we will go to 240 people living in 120 homes

Normally flats and especially 1-2 bedroom flats are not very desirable as owner homes so they are mostly rented.

BobQ

House prices will not fall all the time there is demand for them and there is demand for them. A house is one of the few things that deteriorates through life and have increased maintenance costs but still goes up in value.

Until Governments legislate to get rid of the gig economy, zero hours contracts and declining employment rights so that more can afford to buy and build more houses the problem will not improve.