Can you live solely off state pension?

coastline

michaels said:

MY kids have part time jobs while at school uni and blow every penny on 'fast living' (probably best left to your imaginations what that means).  Despite having no commitments the money always ends before the month and any shortfall in hours means they are skint.  This is the opposite to the environment they have grown up in.  They have the same views re the environment - YOLO and the future is fooked anyway.

All those who think house prices are too high don't seem to be able to see that it is as a result of supply and demand, prices rise to the point where enough can't afford them for demand to equal supply - in a normal market demand would increase but due to planning restrictions this does not happen in housing.  Separately for many the value of their output is not enough to give what society considers to be a minimum standard of living hence housing needed to be subsidised even if costs simply reflected build costs rather than the artificial scarcity created by planning controls.

My house was built on what were fields on what was the edge of town but it is over my dead body that any of the fields on what is now the edge of town are used for housing.

You can go back as far as 2002 and it was agreed by both Tory and Labour that there was a need for an extra 2 million homes. For several reasons this has failed and now we need even more.
In the last 25 years housing supply has increased by around 6 million but private rented , BTL, has increased by the same figure. So there's no extra houses to buy. Look at the rapid increase in private rented ( red) on the chart.

 housing-supply-england.jpg.webp (1200×1080) (economicshelp.org)

zagfles

michaels said:

Pat38493 said:

michaels said:

MY kids have part time jobs while at school uni and blow every penny on 'fast living' (probably best left to your imaginations what that means).  Despite having no commitments the money always ends before the month and any shortfall in hours means they are skint.  This is the opposite to the environment they have grown up in.  They have the same views re the environment - YOLO and the future is fooked anyway.

All those who think house prices are too high don't seem to be able to see that it is as a result of supply and demand, prices rise to the point where enough can't afford them for demand to equal supply - in a normal market demand would increase but due to planning restrictions this does not happen in housing.  Separately for many the value of their output is not enough to give what society considers to be a minimum standard of living hence housing needed to be subsidised even if costs simply reflected build costs rather than the artificial scarcity created by planning controls.

My house was built on what were fields on what was the edge of town but it is over my dead body that any of the fields on what is now the edge of town are used for housing.

I'm not sure if I understand your post - are you suggesting that kids could easily afford housing even at current prices if they didn't spend their money on "fast living"?

Or are you suggesting that the planning system is at fault (but you personally agree with the planning system because changing it might result in a financial loss to you personally)?

I'm not quite following what you are saying?

I guess it is a combination:
1) Housing is overpriced because we refuse to free up land to align with the increasing population
2) Those who choose to prioritise house purchasing over other spending have to spend a large proportion of their income to do so and 'do without' some 'essentials' which bids up pricing to the point where supply and demand are in balance
3) This makes housing seemingly unaffordable to many who instead chose to spend their incomes on 'hedonism' rather than make the sacrifices needed to buy the overpriced housing

Housing is overpriced because demand is being fed by people who see housing as a "good investment" rather than just somewhere to live. It's a complete myth the housing supply isn't growing as fast as the population. Supply of housing increased by 44% between 1970 and 2010. Population increased by 13% in the same period. Housing supply has massively outpaced population growth. 

The problem isn't supply, it's demand. But not demand fed by increased need, demand being fed by investment potential rather than just utility. When something is seen as a good investment there is no limit to demand, because it's not just driven by need, it's also driven by people with money wanting to invest. Many people buy the biggest house they can afford, or buy second homes. While houses are seen as something that makes people money, there is no limit to demand. You could concrete over the whole country and people would buy second, third, fourth homes. Well some would, while others wouldn't be able to afford anything because prices are pushed up by those who want to invest rather than live.

The obvious solution is to reduce the investment potential of houses, and encourage efficient usage of housing. 

For instance get rid of the distortion of CGT exemption on owner occupied, although perhaps allow roll forwards. Get rid of the daft IHT exemption on housing. Tier council tax based on occupants in the same way as income tax, each person having a tax free threshold (eg £50k of housing per person), so the more people in the house the lower the council tax.

These would reduce the investment potential of housing and encourage efficient usage. So reducing demand, and so also prices, plus reducing threats of bulldozing the green belt. As well as being positive to the treasury rather than all the daft help to buy/key worker schemes etc which are negative.

michaels

zagfles said:

michaels said:

Pat38493 said:

michaels said:

MY kids have part time jobs while at school uni and blow every penny on 'fast living' (probably best left to your imaginations what that means).  Despite having no commitments the money always ends before the month and any shortfall in hours means they are skint.  This is the opposite to the environment they have grown up in.  They have the same views re the environment - YOLO and the future is fooked anyway.

All those who think house prices are too high don't seem to be able to see that it is as a result of supply and demand, prices rise to the point where enough can't afford them for demand to equal supply - in a normal market demand would increase but due to planning restrictions this does not happen in housing.  Separately for many the value of their output is not enough to give what society considers to be a minimum standard of living hence housing needed to be subsidised even if costs simply reflected build costs rather than the artificial scarcity created by planning controls.

My house was built on what were fields on what was the edge of town but it is over my dead body that any of the fields on what is now the edge of town are used for housing.

I'm not sure if I understand your post - are you suggesting that kids could easily afford housing even at current prices if they didn't spend their money on "fast living"?

Or are you suggesting that the planning system is at fault (but you personally agree with the planning system because changing it might result in a financial loss to you personally)?

I'm not quite following what you are saying?

I guess it is a combination:
1) Housing is overpriced because we refuse to free up land to align with the increasing population
2) Those who choose to prioritise house purchasing over other spending have to spend a large proportion of their income to do so and 'do without' some 'essentials' which bids up pricing to the point where supply and demand are in balance
3) This makes housing seemingly unaffordable to many who instead chose to spend their incomes on 'hedonism' rather than make the sacrifices needed to buy the overpriced housing

Housing is overpriced because demand is being fed by people who see housing as a "good investment" rather than just somewhere to live. It's a complete myth the housing supply isn't growing as fast as the population. Supply of housing increased by 44% between 1970 and 2010. Population increased by 13% in the same period. Housing supply has massively outpaced population growth. 

The problem isn't supply, it's demand. But not demand fed by increased need, demand being fed by investment potential rather than just utility. When something is seen as a good investment there is no limit to demand, because it's not just driven by need, it's also driven by people with money wanting to invest. Many people buy the biggest house they can afford, or buy second homes. While houses are seen as something that makes people money, there is no limit to demand. You could concrete over the whole country and people would buy second, third, fourth homes. Well some would, while others wouldn't be able to afford anything because prices are pushed up by those who want to invest rather than live.

The obvious solution is to reduce the investment potential of houses, and encourage efficient usage of housing. 

For instance get rid of the distortion of CGT exemption on owner occupied, although perhaps allow roll forwards. Get rid of the daft IHT exemption on housing. Tier council tax based on occupants in the same way as income tax, each person having a tax free threshold (eg £50k of housing per person), so the more people in the house the lower the council tax.

These would reduce the investment potential of housing and encourage efficient usage. So reducing demand, and so also prices, plus reducing threats of bulldozing the green belt. As well as being positive to the treasury rather than all the daft help to buy/key worker schemes etc which are negative.

As we get richer over time we chose to consume bigger and better cars, phones, tvs, etc etc - and yet your analysis suggests we should continue to be happy to be crammed into over crowded tenements because that was all we could afford in the 1970s.  Look around the world, our houses are already some of the smallest in the world despite our population density being only average.  Sure we could go back to every old lady subdividing her house and taking in 6 lodgers who all share the same bathroom but people are voting with their wallets.

QrizB

zagfles said:

Housing is overpriced because demand is being fed by people who see housing as a "good investment" rather than just somewhere to live. It's a complete myth the housing supply isn't growing as fast as the population. Supply of housing increased by 44% between 1970 and 2010. Population increased by 13% in the same period. Housing supply has massively outpaced population growth.

Who's living in all these investment properties? Have households become smaller, so growth in households has exceeded growth in population? Or are you saying they're empty?

michaels said:

As we get richer over time we chose to consume bigger and better cars, phones, tvs, etc etc - and yet your analysis suggests we should continue to be happy to be crammed into over crowded tenements because that was all we could afford in the 1970s.  Look around the world, our houses are already some of the smallest in the world despite our population density being only average.

Even if true, and you've offered no evidence just assertion, it's a completely different point to the one that's being discussed.

tooldle

Households have become smaller as the number of properties has increased. 
Going back some years to the times of my grandparents (born at the turn of the century (1900)), renting was the norm. Few people owned houses in our part of the world. Whole streets were owned by some landlords. Those that did own, would let out rooms, hence it was common to have several families and lodgers in the one owner occupied property. The situation didn’t change hugely until significant damage to housing stock in the early 1940’s and slum clearances in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. Even my folks who married in the early 1960’s had rooms in an owner occupied property. I live in a different part of the UK now, but don’t myself know of any families letting part of their residence to other families or even taking in lodgers. 

sevenhills

coastline said:

In the last 25 years housing supply has increased by around 6 million but private rented , BTL, has increased by the same figure. So there's no extra houses to buy. Look at the rapid increase in private rented ( red) on the chart.

In the most recent figures that I looked at a few weeks ago, the Government granted 3,000,000 work visas in the previous twelve months, so that is half of that increase gone in twelve months.

QrizB

sevenhills said:

coastline said:

In the last 25 years housing supply has increased by around 6 million but private rented , BTL, has increased by the same figure. So there's no extra houses to buy. Look at the rapid increase in private rented ( red) on the chart.

In the most recent figures that I looked at a few weeks ago, the Government granted 3,000,000 work visas in the previous twelve months, so that is half of that increase gone in twelve months.

You are assuming that the 3M work visas resulted in 3M additional people coming to the UK, and that they all set up as single-person households. You are ignoring those who left the country at the end of their work visas during the same period.

Honestly, it feels like we're slipping into the comments section of a red-top newspaper website. What has any of this got anything to do with whether you can live a fulfilling retirement on the NSP?

zagfles

michaels said:

zagfles said:

michaels said:

Pat38493 said:

michaels said:

MY kids have part time jobs while at school uni and blow every penny on 'fast living' (probably best left to your imaginations what that means).  Despite having no commitments the money always ends before the month and any shortfall in hours means they are skint.  This is the opposite to the environment they have grown up in.  They have the same views re the environment - YOLO and the future is fooked anyway.

All those who think house prices are too high don't seem to be able to see that it is as a result of supply and demand, prices rise to the point where enough can't afford them for demand to equal supply - in a normal market demand would increase but due to planning restrictions this does not happen in housing.  Separately for many the value of their output is not enough to give what society considers to be a minimum standard of living hence housing needed to be subsidised even if costs simply reflected build costs rather than the artificial scarcity created by planning controls.

My house was built on what were fields on what was the edge of town but it is over my dead body that any of the fields on what is now the edge of town are used for housing.

I'm not sure if I understand your post - are you suggesting that kids could easily afford housing even at current prices if they didn't spend their money on "fast living"?

Or are you suggesting that the planning system is at fault (but you personally agree with the planning system because changing it might result in a financial loss to you personally)?

I'm not quite following what you are saying?

I guess it is a combination:
1) Housing is overpriced because we refuse to free up land to align with the increasing population
2) Those who choose to prioritise house purchasing over other spending have to spend a large proportion of their income to do so and 'do without' some 'essentials' which bids up pricing to the point where supply and demand are in balance
3) This makes housing seemingly unaffordable to many who instead chose to spend their incomes on 'hedonism' rather than make the sacrifices needed to buy the overpriced housing

Housing is overpriced because demand is being fed by people who see housing as a "good investment" rather than just somewhere to live. It's a complete myth the housing supply isn't growing as fast as the population. Supply of housing increased by 44% between 1970 and 2010. Population increased by 13% in the same period. Housing supply has massively outpaced population growth. 

The problem isn't supply, it's demand. But not demand fed by increased need, demand being fed by investment potential rather than just utility. When something is seen as a good investment there is no limit to demand, because it's not just driven by need, it's also driven by people with money wanting to invest. Many people buy the biggest house they can afford, or buy second homes. While houses are seen as something that makes people money, there is no limit to demand. You could concrete over the whole country and people would buy second, third, fourth homes. Well some would, while others wouldn't be able to afford anything because prices are pushed up by those who want to invest rather than live.

The obvious solution is to reduce the investment potential of houses, and encourage efficient usage of housing. 

For instance get rid of the distortion of CGT exemption on owner occupied, although perhaps allow roll forwards. Get rid of the daft IHT exemption on housing. Tier council tax based on occupants in the same way as income tax, each person having a tax free threshold (eg £50k of housing per person), so the more people in the house the lower the council tax.

These would reduce the investment potential of housing and encourage efficient usage. So reducing demand, and so also prices, plus reducing threats of bulldozing the green belt. As well as being positive to the treasury rather than all the daft help to buy/key worker schemes etc which are negative.

As we get richer over time we chose to consume bigger and better cars, phones, tvs, etc etc - and yet your analysis suggests we should continue to be happy to be crammed into over crowded tenements because that was all we could afford in the 1970s.  Look around the world, our houses are already some of the smallest in the world despite our population density being only average.  Sure we could go back to every old lady subdividing her house and taking in 6 lodgers who all share the same bathroom but people are voting with their wallets.

People buy better cars, phones, tvs etc purely for the utility that product brings. They don't do it as an investment they think will make them money. Some people do do that with housing, either buying a house bigger then they need or even want, because they can afford it and think it's a good investment, or buy second homes for the same reason. That feeds demand. It results in property wastage or under utilisation.

zagfles

QrizB said:

zagfles said:

Housing is overpriced because demand is being fed by people who see housing as a "good investment" rather than just somewhere to live. It's a complete myth the housing supply isn't growing as fast as the population. Supply of housing increased by 44% between 1970 and 2010. Population increased by 13% in the same period. Housing supply has massively outpaced population growth.

Who's living in all these investment properties? Have households become smaller, so growth in households has exceeded growth in population? Or are you saying they're empty?

Some people buy more property than they need because they can afford to and think it's a good investment. Example is a single bloke on our street living a 4 bed house. Why? Because he can afford it and everyone told him houses are a good investment, so he bought the biggest property he could afford. Another couple I know live in a 5 bed house even though they only have one child and no intention of having more. Other people buy second homes, which they might only live in a few weeks in the year.

Silvertabby

zagfles said:

QrizB said:

zagfles said:

Housing is overpriced because demand is being fed by people who see housing as a "good investment" rather than just somewhere to live. It's a complete myth the housing supply isn't growing as fast as the population. Supply of housing increased by 44% between 1970 and 2010. Population increased by 13% in the same period. Housing supply has massively outpaced population growth.

Who's living in all these investment properties? Have households become smaller, so growth in households has exceeded growth in population? Or are you saying they're empty?

Some people buy more property than they need because they can afford to and think it's a good investment. Example is a single bloke on our street living a 4 bed house. Why? Because he can afford it and everyone told him houses are a good investment, so he bought the biggest property he could afford. Another couple I know live in a 5 bed house even though they only have one child and no intention of having more. Other people buy second homes, which they might only live in a few weeks in the year.

Not necessarily.  There's always only been the two of us but we bought our 4 bedroom house because it met our needs, not as an investment.  OK, we originally looked at 3 bedroomed houses, but they lacked something from our 'absolutely must have' list - a separate utility room, washing machine and kitty litter tray for the use of.

But our home certainly isn't under utilised - main bedroom suite, guest bedroom, hobby room and study.  I very much doubt that the people you mention look at their 'spare' bedrooms and see £ signs.