Low salary can't afford to buy anywhere

jacko74

Can't offer any further help or advice to the OP but I certainly agree with them that whenever I hear the phrase ''levelling up'' all I interpret it to mean is them wanting to pump up property prices in other parts of the country to make them as unaffordable as London and the South East.

MobileSaver

BikingBud said:

MobileSaver said:

BikingBud said:

Some regular posters will have them all moving to northern cities where buying property is "easy" as long as you're not discerning and are happy to live in sub standard accommodation!

There's an old adage, "beggars can't be choosers." If you are on a low wage then of course you can't be too discerning, how could it be any different?

You continue to deny that the local communities and economies rely upon people on low wages. If those on low wages cannot live in an area then how do you expect the community to survive.

I am not denying anything of the sort; of course local communities and economies rely upon people on low wages. And yes, those on low wages need to live within commuting distance of the area.

However what you completely fail to understand, even though it has been pointed out explicitly, is that those people on low wages DO NOT NEED TO BUY to live in the area, they can RENT instead.

BikingBud said:

The average person trying to get a basic foothold and buy a house has far less opportunity than many of the people on here crowing about "it wer tough in my day, kids' nowadays don't know ther born!"

You can mock as much as you want if it makes you feel better but it doesn't change the facts.

It was tough in my day. Until I was a teenager there were five of us kids sharing one bedroom. During my entire childhood we had one family holiday ever. For the first few years of living together, my girlfriend and I rented a room in someone else's house and a treat for the weekend was four cans of lager. Our first house had no central heating, no double glazing, no carpets and a second-hand microwave to "cook" with.

A common HPCer problem is that their jealousy and hatred of those who have more than them clouds their thinking. The younger generation have never had it so good in so many different ways and have more opportunities than any generation in history but all you can obsess on is that house prices are higher.

Everything is connected and everything is relative. If HPCers could focus on the huge number of positives rather than the small number of negatives I am sure they'd have much happier and more fulfilling lives.

BikingBud

AdrianC said:

Who defines what they're "worth" except a willing buyer and a willing seller in an open-market transaction?

How about considering what they cost to build and maintain and then providing rental homes related to those costs as part of an effective mixed rental/ownership market. Surely as a mark of a progressive and supportive society this is a better solution than forcing the low paid in-between the rock and the hard place of paying the pensions of BTL who have bought properties as part of their low-risk, high-return investment portfolio and the ever increasing prices of the "open" but significantly skewed ownership market.

Ignore all the rest if you wish but a simple question:

As taxpayers is it right that we are paying housing costs to cover rent that subsidises pensions of BTL landlords?

MobileSaver

BikingBud said:

As taxpayers is it right that we are paying housing costs to cover rent that subsidises pensions of BTL landlords?

If the alternative is that some people would otherwise be living on the street then, as a progressive and supportive society, yes.

(One caveat being this should only apply to people who cannot afford to cover their own rent through no fault of their own.)

StandingInTheSun

AdrianC said:

StandingInTheSun said:

AdrianC said:

StandingInTheSun said:

The problem is often not that FTBs can't afford the property - particularly now with 5% deposits and various schemes to bolster deposits - it's that they simply cannot compete in a buyer's market in which they are being outbid by those already on the housing ladder and with far more disposable income.

Umm, you mean somebody else is willing to pay more than they can?

How is that different to "they can't afford"?

Because due to the current race for space houses are going for far more than they're actually worth.

Who defines what they're "worth" except a willing buyer and a willing seller in an open-market transaction?

The market desperately needs curtailed though. The stamp duty holiday was an absolute abomination of a policy which has inflated house prices far beyond their worth and in the process pushed many properties outside the reach of FTBs.

However, it has certainly benefited those who vote Tory.

Greymug

StandingInTheSun said:

The alternative is pretty terrifying - a huge number of millenials and Gen Z stuck in a rental trap for the rest of their lives.

A less terrifying alternative is for millennials and Gen Z to stay and live with their parents, rent-free, until the old folks die. 

No problems, no mortgages, no debt, nice house, a good chunk of savings, lots of stuff done for free by their mothers. In one word: paradise!

steampowered

Greymug said:

A less terrifying alternative is for millennials and Gen Z to stay and live with their parents, rent-free, until the old folks die. 

No problems, no mortgages, no debt, nice house, a good chunk of savings, lots of stuff done for free by their mothers. In one word: paradise!

Given that the average life expectancy in the UK is 79 for men and 83 for women, if we say that people have kids on average at age 30, you are suggesting that people live at home with their parents until they are 50 ....

Greymug

steampowered said:

Greymug said:

A less terrifying alternative is for millennials and Gen Z to stay and live with their parents, rent-free, until the old folks die. 

No problems, no mortgages, no debt, nice house, a good chunk of savings, lots of stuff done for free by their mothers. In one word: paradise!

Given that the average life expectancy in the UK is 79 for men and 83 for women, if we say that people have kids on average at age 30, you are suggesting that people live at home with their parents until they are 50 ....

Probably less because when parents have to take care of their kids living with them instead of being able to retire and put their feet up, they'll probably die sooner than 79 and 83 respectively

BikingBud

Greymug said:

StandingInTheSun said:

The alternative is pretty terrifying - a huge number of millenials and Gen Z stuck in a rental trap for the rest of their lives.

A less terrifying alternative is for millennials and Gen Z to stay and live with their parents, rent-free, until the old folks die. 

No problems, no mortgages, no debt, nice house, a good chunk of savings, lots of stuff done for free by their mothers. In one word: paradise!

No problems? Just a few to start with:

•  How big is the house?
• How many children/siblings are there?
• What age are the parents?
• Are they mortgage free?
• What other liabilities do the parents have?
• Are the parents in need of care?
• Is it a nice house?

Keep going you will find reality out there somewhere, one day!

RelievedSheff

No matter what the era or the price of houses, buying a first house has never been easy. Why should that change now?