No option to buy? Single people

moneysavinghero

Mickey666 said:

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

ts21 said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

Fair points, but those are just more examples of social engineering - in this case to encourage 'the nuclear family', which is generally regarded as being 'a good thing' for bringing up children etc etc (well, historically at least).

As for CT discounts discriminating against single people, I seem to remember that a former PM wanted to do away with 'council rates' and replace them with a per-capita 'community charge' set by local councils.  What could be fairer than that?

Of course, the subsequent rioting in the streets quickly put an end to this 'poll tax', which suggests that fairness is not always politically acceptable.  Funny old world!

I think it was more the fact that everyone, whether you were the lord of the manor, a billionaire or a street cleaner you all paid the same amount of poll tax that caused the riots.

Perhaps it was, but that would be the politics of envy kicking in.  I thought rates or CT is supposed to pay for the local services used by people.  Would the lord of the manor used the local library more than the street cleaner, or require more from the fire service or police, or the local schools, or the roads, etc?  Probably not . . . so why not share the cost equally?

Because, you say, the lord of the manor is richer than the street cleaner, so can afford to pay more.  That might be true, but is it fair?

And if it is fair, then why bother with rates/CT at all?  Why not cut right to the chase and implement some form of local income tax?  That way those earning more would pay more.  Would that satisfy your idea of 'fair' (even though that has already been implemented through the tax system)?

Does a single person require more from the council? Do they produce more waste, do they have more cars on the road, do they have more children in schools, do they use more services. Or does a family of 5 use more? Why is it fair that single people subsidise the rest when there is nothing inherent about them that says they can afford it more? The Lord of the Manor has something inherent about them that says they can afford to pay more, and wealth never comes from the wealthy it comes from the work of the people below them.

moneysavinghero

GaleSF63 said:

I think it was more the fact that everyone, whether you were the lord of the manor, a billionaire or a street cleaner you all paid the same amount of poll tax that caused the riots.

I got the impression - at the time - that it was more to do with every adult being targeted, including all those who had never given a thought to the payment of rates because they weren't householders. Suddenly they were liable and didn't like it. 

Again that's about the poorer people (less likely to own a house) getting a bad deal whereas the rich (probably own several homes) got a really great deal.

wannabe_a_saver

Contributing to the community and society you live in according to your means should be a source of pride, not something to moan and gripe about and avoid at all cost.

Queen_of_the_Hive

Hi @littlemissbliss, 

I'm another one to cheer you on. My background is similar to Sistergold with kids, divorced etc but don't currently own property in London but would like to one day. 

Best advice just keep going with the saving, spreadsheets etc but maybe try to find some fun in the journey as at times it can feel futile. Back to pre covid days I've visited auction properties on open days - gone around, taken photos and generally being nosy. This year I plan to do some day trips to visit new areas to get the feel of them etc.

You'll get there just don't let the fear of the big 4 0 put you off. 

Happy birthday for this week!  

moneysavinghero

As for the hypothetical Lord of the Manor having 'something inherent about them that says they can afford more' - are you being serious.  Whatever next?  Anyone with a posh accent and smart tweed clothes being required to pay more simply because they have 'something about them'?

It's nothing to do with class. Someone from a working class background can be a billionaire and there is something inherent about being a billionaire that says you can afford more. Equally someone from a privileged background could lose it all, be cast off from family and left penny-less and so would inherently be able to afford less.

diggingdude

Whilst I completely agree that council tax penalises single people, especially single childless people it doesn't have much to do with the original post. That said there had been some rather nasty stuff posted here by one person in particular who needs to the cheer the f up. 

OP I also moved north, well....north Midlands, to buy. I wouldn't touch one of those studios at all, they would make me so unhappy. I think alot of people need to decide if their London "low salary" careers are worth the living conditions which come with them. I live in a market town in a nice 2 bed semi which I comfortably pay for on that salary. For me home life and savings was worth more than the southern job 

Scotbot

littlemissbliss said:

Skiddaw1 said:

OP, is it worth considering alternative options? Houseboat for example? Or moving out further?

House boats you cannot get a mortgage for - and they are 2 small. Id have to sell half of my stuff. I am looking at moving further out but they prices are still high - and I need to be able to travel into London that wont cost the earth

So why are you restricting yourself to Surrey? It is one of the most expensive areas in the country.  Essex and Kent would be far more affordable.

If you have lived there a while I get that you are comfortable with the area you know but I would suggest having a serious look elsewhere. You aren't planning to buy immediately so spend your weekends getting out to these other areas

[Deleted User]

diggingdude said:

Whilst I completely agree that council tax penalises single people, especially single childless people it doesn't have much to do with the original post. That said there had been some rather nasty stuff posted here by one person in particular who needs to the cheer the f up. 

OP I also moved north, well....north Midlands, to buy. I wouldn't touch one of those studios at all, they would make me so unhappy. I think alot of people need to decide if their London "low salary" careers are worth the living conditions which come with them. I live in a market town in a nice 2 bed semi which I comfortably pay for on that salary. For me home life and savings was worth more than the southern job 

Exactly this. I think if you are set on being down South for work, there are compromises when it comes to buying property, travel, living expenses etc. Does the increased London (and surrounding areas) wage compensate for this? I don't personally think so.

I am paying less to live in a detached 2-bed property in Scotland than I was paying to live in a cramped converted shed in Berkshire 4 years ago. I know some people are drawn to living/ working in London and the lifestyle it provides, but unless you are financially very stable, there are sacrifices to take into consideration.

Tammykitty

ts21 said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

There aren't tax breaks for married people...other than a small concession that you can share a small proportion of the tax free personal allowance - but this only benefits couples where one earns less than £12k a year, the maximum amount you can save is £252 a year..

On the other hand, couples receive far fewer benefits - my self employed husband wasn't entitled to universal credit when he couldn't work due to the pandemic, and his unmarried friends all were..

Society taxes couples as individuals and yet gives them benefits as a couple.

Single person tax discount is not a tax break for a couple, as council tax is per house not per person, so it is a tax break for single people actually.

As for the original post, not being able to afford to buy a house..have you the money invested wisely to maximise the benefits eg: LISA etc

Also, have you considered the possibility of buy to let somewhere outside of surrey - obviously this is starting a business and is not something to be considered lightly...as you would be a landlord and have all the responsibiities that comes with this - including covering voids etc..but it may be a possibilty, and that way you could essentially buy a house elsewhere and then you should benefit from rising house prices too making it easier to buy in Surrey even if prices do rise..  

wannabe_a_saver

Mickey666 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Contributing to the community and society you live in according to your means should be a source of pride, not something to moan and gripe about and avoid at all cost.

Agreed, which is where income tax comes in, and progressive income tax at that.

But when it comes to basic services it doesn't seem fair to have to pay more for something based on personal wealth.

Would you be happy to pay more for your electricity, water, food, etc than someone less wealthy than you?

I'm in favour of nationalising utilities and having them paid for by taxation, so yes.   Food probably not but I also believe in a universal basic income which would enable everybody to be able to afford adequate food.