Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property
jema

Monthly housing costs

Been an odd week this week, we effectively paid off our mortgage which as far as I'm concerned means we have escaped the Rat Race Smile

We now have the option to choose what to do without having housing costs to worry about.
If we want we can turn off the heating, live on rice and beans, but the roof over our heads is safe.

Meanwhile one Son is paying 950 a month rent between him and his girlfriend, brother is being made redundant and his Mortgage is 900 a month, other friends are re-mortgaging and I dread to think what they have to pay each month.

But we are talking of fairly ordinary people having to find 10,000 a year before they think about eating. That's a terrifying amount and a kind of slavery.
Penny Outskirts

Scale doesn't go high enough Sad
jema

Scale doesn't go high enough Sad


Hmm, there was a "yikes" option at the end. Wonder what happened there.
Jamanda

You forgot to hit submit - shall I sort it out for you? Laughing
Penny Outskirts

Our rent usde to be very reasonable for the house we have, but it's gone up and up Sad
Penny Outskirts

You forgot to hit submit - shall I sort it out for you? Laughing


Laughing Laughing
Jamanda

We are fortunate in having a very small mortgage because of the moving out of that London to the sticks. Couldn't possibly move back though! Penny Outskirts

Our children have no chance of buying Sad

We will eventually get our bit of land and live on it.
Paul Sill

We have been very very luck in the fact that our flat is rented from a local charity. Low cost rent which means we can just about survive on my wage so my wife can look after the little ones but also money we pay in rent is used by the charity for local people. Nick

You need a zero option for people like you, Jema. Bebo

Nice feeling isn't it jema. Got rid of our mortgages (multiple) about 7 years ago. jema

These days under 100 a month is practically zero, when you look at the other options

.
Nick

Well, no. It's the difference between having no mortgage, and, potentially, a decent size one that you're only paying the interest on. jema

That actually is a point. I was also hearing this week about people on interest only with nothing in progress to pay the capital and that is really scary. Nick

I have one of those mortgages. Smile

(it's not a worry, it's tiny, but it meant I knew of the possibility)
marigold

Less than 1000 covers most of the other options... Shane

I'd be surprised if anyone with a family buying anywhere near London could get a (repayment) mortgage for less than 1000 a month - the house prices are so high that I don't see any other possibilities, other than squeezing into a small property and stick all t'kids in one room. I refer, of course, to people with normal salaries, not people who buy a new property every year at bonus time.

And yes, we do still have our house in Blighty. I ticked the last box, although we currently have some nice tenants paying the mortgage for us.
oldish chris

I think you need a zero. I've been mortgage free for bout 10 years. I've always tried to keep my debts to a minimum - so when others borrowed sackloads for a motorcar, I had a dead cheap Lada. I think I've got the last laugh.

Right now, there are loads of people who are around 50 years old, are weighed down with debt and are facing additional financial problems.

Outside of London, houses are affordable, though I suppose parents need to help with the first purchase - quite a bit of our nest-egg has gone that way. Then the little darlings must learn to avoid continental holidays and big cars (never "up-size" in other words).
Penny Outskirts


Outside of London, houses are affordable, though I suppose parents need to help with the first purchase - quite a bit of our nest-egg has gone that way. Then the little darlings must learn to avoid continental holidays and big cars (never "up-size" in other words).

Houses aren't affordable for the majority outside London.
Sally Too

I think you need a zero. I've been mortgage free for bout 10 years. I've always tried to keep my debts to a minimum - so when others borrowed sackloads for a motorcar, I had a dead cheap Lada. I think I've got the last laugh.

Right now, there are loads of people who are around 50 years old, are weighed down with debt and are facing additional financial problems.


Mortgage free here too, but not quite so long. Like you we didn't lead an extravagant lifestyle even while many around us were borrowing to do so...
Treacodactyl

You could also do with an option of net debt free. We're currently mortgage free but with the artificially low interest rates, lack of housing stock etc it would probably make sense to buy another property to rent out. marigold

Percentage of income would be a better way of looking at it IMO - 1k as 10% of income is rather different to 1k as 50% of income. Though HB complicates matters, if it applies. jema

There are any number of ways of looking at it.

All of which make it rather too complicated for a simple poll.

My consideration was "life choices". e.g. I'm kind of looking at it from a point of view of people who are living somewhere they are reasonably happy living, and whether they could keep living there whilst choosing a job on the basis of what they want to do, rather than what it pays.
Nick

Agreed. Be far too difficult for a simple poll to draw any kind of really useful information. People may have no mortgage, but huge credit card debts, or a massive mortgage, but an even more massive trust fund to pay for it.

Interesting tho.

I suppose one interesting figure would be net worth, but again, there'd be someone living in a huge mansion, with little income to pay for the heating, and they'd be worse off, in many people's books than others.

Too many factors to draw any kind of conclusion.
Pilsbury

I am sort of in the lucky position of ticking thr less than 600 box for a London property. However that is still over 50% of the salary from a job I enjoy doing and came at the price of losing my mum when I was 28 so some good, lots of bad.
I got the house 10 years ago when prices were relatively normal and my brother already owned a property so only had to take a 50% mortgage to buy out isw inheritance, other than that I would have absolutely no chance of owning.
marigold

@ jema - I get you. The fact that it's very very difficult to house yourself cheaply AND earn enough to live without claiming benefits is, IMO, one of the things that is screwing this country up. Mortgage and rent payments are only part of the story though - the other unavoidable fixed costs of living don't go away when you become mortgage free (water rates, council tax, power supplies) and you still have to maintain the property. jema

the other unavoidable fixed costs of living don't go away when you become mortgage free (water rates, council tax, power supplies) and you still have to maintain the property.

Very true, and I would probably not have posted the poll if we had not recently replaced the dying flat roof. You don't really have a relatively free roof over you head if the place is about to fall down.
Bebo

Talking of the cost of housing, it ain't going down, but housing benefit is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855
Chez

I really hope they're going to legalise prostitution at the same time. B*stards. marigold

The problem with HB, is that a lot of it actually ends up in the pockets of private landlords, thus fueling the BTL boom which creates MORE inequality. Rent caps and higher taxes on rental income would be a better way of sorting things out, but no government is going to suggest that. Making poor people homeless or forcing them to live in substandard accommodation is considered a much better policy than squeezing BTL landlords. Katieowl

We are mortgage free, we got out by the skin of our teeth though, and it's something that means I sleep at night.

I don't think my kids will ever own property (not until we drop off our twigs) Two currently renting in town at around 400 a month.

We were also responsible for the flat upstairs in London, and sorting out the roof and stuff, we got half back, but the responsibility was dreadful. One of the reasons I insisted on detatched when we moved was that I never wanted that problem again...If the roof leaks here, and we can't afford to get it fixed there is the option of sticking a bucket under the leak until such time as we can Smile

kate
Treacodactyl

Rent caps and higher taxes on rental income would be a better way of sorting things out, but no government is going to suggest that. Making poor people homeless or forcing them to live in substandard accommodation is considered a much better policy than squeezing BTL landlords.

Does the average BTL landlord make huge profits then? Those I know seem to just about cover their costs and hope house prices rise.
Bebo

Trouble is if they squeeze private landlords too much they'll stop investing in property to let and put their money somewhere else. As the govt don't want to invest in social housing anymore it'll end up with even more people without a place to live.

The money they got from selling council housing should have been pumped back in to build more council housing. It would have been a virtuous circle, resulting in areas of mixed ownership and rental and creating new properties for those on the list.
Chez

Rent caps and higher taxes on rental income would be a better way of sorting things out, but no government is going to suggest that. Making poor people homeless or forcing them to live in substandard accommodation is considered a much better policy than squeezing BTL landlords.

Does the average BTL landlord make huge profits then? Those I know seem to just about cover their costs and hope house prices rise.

That's the point, though - they are essentially speculating on the housing market with money that they have borrowed rather than investing steadily, as you would do if you owned a property outright. And the housing benefit it going straight to them, to pay the mortgage and fund their retirement.
Jamanda

If you start with nothing (or a small deposit) and finish up with a house that you own outright, the mortgage having been paid by tenents on HB, then that seems like a profit in the end to me. marigold

Rent caps and higher taxes on rental income would be a better way of sorting things out, but no government is going to suggest that. Making poor people homeless or forcing them to live in substandard accommodation is considered a much better policy than squeezing BTL landlords.

Does the average BTL landlord make huge profits then? Those I know seem to just about cover their costs and hope house prices rise.

If BTL landlords are scraping by it's most likely because they got into the game too late and too small. Anyone who started in the mid-90s and now has a portfolio of properties that cost next to nothing to buy should be doing very nicely indeed if they've managed it sensibly. Even now if you have cash to invest, a well-positioned property will give you a much better ROI than having the money in the bank at 2-3%.
Treacodactyl

Rent caps and higher taxes on rental income would be a better way of sorting things out, but no government is going to suggest that. Making poor people homeless or forcing them to live in substandard accommodation is considered a much better policy than squeezing BTL landlords.

Does the average BTL landlord make huge profits then? Those I know seem to just about cover their costs and hope house prices rise.

That's the point, though - they are essentially speculating on the housing market with money that they have borrowed rather than investing steadily, as you would do if you owned a property outright. And the housing benefit it going straight to them, to pay the mortgage and fund their retirement.

Not really, they just making an educated judgement. At the moment for example 'investing steadily' can mean you're loosing money in real terms due to the artificially low interest rates to support mortgage owners and the high inflation rates. Buying-to-let could well be the more steady investment. With everything being so interconnected you can't say one thing is right and another wrong; one thing I wouldn't particularly like is even more government interference in the market.
gardening-girl

We are mortgage free,but at cost.
BTL was very ill,so we downsized.Sold large house,lost mortgage,bought very small house,to let out,and, took a job with housing provided.
We earn diddly,so the rent boosts our wages.
Chez

one thing I wouldn't particularly like is even more government interference in the market.

It shouldn't really BE 'a market' in my opinion. Housing should be about people having somewhere to live. Bringing back rent controls would be the best way to do that - then the whole artificially inflated bubble would collapse back on itself, BTL would not become the scam it has become, that drives house-prices up and everything would even out.
Treacodactyl

one thing I wouldn't particularly like is even more government interference in the market.

It shouldn't really BE 'a market' in my opinion. Housing should be about people having somewhere to live. Bringing back rent controls would be the best way to do that - then the whole artificially inflated bubble would collapse back on itself, BTL would not become the scam it has become, that drives house-prices up and everything would even out.

Is it an artificially inflated bubble? Bring back rent controls would just make matters worse unless you bring in all sorts of other measures. Then people will just complain about the new problems that will be created.
Shane

If you burst what you consider to be an artificially-inflated bubble and house prices and rents dropped considerable, a lot of BTL landlords would not only go into negative equity but they'd be unable to service their mortgages, so they'd be forced to sell at a loss. There's plenty of people overseas that would eagerly snap up the resultant glut of cheap property whilst the British population dusted itself off. You'd end up with the BTL income leaching out of the country every month instead of being reinvested in the UK economy. Mr O

I know I don't really count because of my location, but we are mortgage and debt free here. ( no loans and no credit card debt ) DawnMK

we have two propertys that are BTL, the council rent them from us long term and take 10% for collecting rents, we made the initial investment in the properties and spent money renovating them and bringing them up to standard, they are basicaly our pension fund for the future and the return we get on them at the moment covers the mortgage and we have to pay tax on them as it is classed as part of our income, we are considering getting a third property and doing the same, on BTL if you let out yourself and take tennents on housing benifit you are taking a considerable finacial risk and not all landlords will do that, we have been at times out of pocket that is why we now place them with the council to house tennents, it ties the propertys up long term our mortgage is intrest only so at the end of term we still have to find money for the final payment, and if we sell we will have to pay capital gains, as well as paying tax all these years, so you dont go into to ake a quick buck, we have no plans to off load the properties and plan that when we retire and they reach the end of there term the rent will greatly subsidse our pension, if you take on tennents on benifits your rentable income is capped so no matter how you look at it landlords are not making millions on the back of poverty there is finacial risk and you could lose it all, or get only small returns on it, you can make money but only in the long term then not vast sums. Katieowl

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pms-plan-axe-housing-benefit-young-051600694.html

Twisted Evil

Just wait for the shanty towns for the young and homeless to start springing up...

Kate
sean

Talking of the cost of housing, it ain't going down, but housing benefit is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

Ooh look, a Mobius thread.
marigold

we have two propertys that are BTL, the council rent them from us long term and take 10% for collecting rents, we made the initial investment in the properties and spent money renovating them and bringing them up to standard, they are basicaly our pension fund for the future and the return we get on them at the moment covers the mortgage and we have to pay tax on them as it is classed as part of our income, we are considering getting a third property and doing the same, on BTL if you let out yourself and take tennents on housing benifit you are taking a considerable finacial risk and not all landlords will do that, we have been at times out of pocket that is why we now place them with the council to house tennents, it ties the propertys up long term our mortgage is intrest only so at the end of term we still have to find money for the final payment, and if we sell we will have to pay capital gains, as well as paying tax all these years, so you dont go into to ake a quick buck, we have no plans to off load the properties and plan that when we retire and they reach the end of there term the rent will greatly subsidse our pension, if you take on tennents on benifits your rentable income is capped so no matter how you look at it landlords are not making millions on the back of poverty there is finacial risk and you could lose it all, or get only small returns on it, you can make money but only in the long term then not vast sums.

You many not be making millions personally Dawn, but you ARE having your ongoing investment paid for by HB (assuming your tenants receive it). Collectively it's landlords who benefit most financially from the billions spent on HB. Your tenants' HB is buying you a long term investment not a secure home for them.
marigold

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pms-plan-axe-housing-benefit-young-051600694.html

Twisted Evil

Just wait for the shanty towns for the young and homeless to start springing up...

Kate

What bemuses me is why we are still paying people to have kids. We already have a huge surplus of young people who are themselves a burden on state funds, so the argument that we need more kids to wipe our ancient bums and pay our pensions doesn't really hold much water any more. Withdrawing support from those already here is mean, but paying to add to the surplus is stupid. IMO, of course.
jema



Does the average BTL landlord make huge profits then? Those I know seem to just about cover their costs and hope house prices rise.

We looked at Brighton recently, with the idea not so much of BTL, but on the grounds Son is paying 950 rent, and if it made sense it would have been an idea to buy and let him rent.

The money side all seemed very circular, prices that fit almost exactly with doing a bit more than break even, when rented out.

So I would guess as a rule at the moment, BTL is very far from a get rich quick scheme for newcomers, but it along with everything in the "housing as an investment" market has helped make housing unaffordable for most people and a cash cow for those already owning property. Plus of course it does make the cost of housing benefit something like 20 billion Surprised
woodsprite

renting, both self employed, hubby approaching 60 with absolutely no prospect of either of us ever being able to retire.
Two independant sons who, at the moment, have little hope of buying becaue the money they earn barely covers their rent, neither have flash cars.
The future is worrying.
Katieowl

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pms-plan-axe-housing-benefit-young-051600694.html

Twisted Evil

Just wait for the shanty towns for the young and homeless to start springing up...

Kate

What bemuses me is why we are still paying people to have kids. We already have a huge surplus of young people who are themselves a burden on state funds, so the argument that we need more kids to wipe our ancient bums and pay our pensions doesn't really hold much water any more. Withdrawing support from those already here is mean, but paying to add to the surplus is stupid. IMO, of course.

There will be no pensions Marigold...if you can't wipe your own bum, or don't have someone who feels responsible enough for you to do it, you will walk around with Sh1t dribbling down your legs.

The future is looking grim. Unfortunately the urge to breed is hard wired into most species...come on now be honest, do you REALLY want David Cameron and his ilks children to be the only ones in the country?

Kate
Chez

the "housing as an investment" market

I think we need a culture change where housing per se is not seen as 'an investment'.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that people *shouldn't* have investment properties or be landlords. But I do think that whopping big mortgages shouldn't be allowed to facilitate it, because then the whole thing gets tied in to interest rates, rather than what people can afford to pay as rent.

I do think that 'second homes' should be taxed to the nipples, though.
sean

Housing being seen as an investment is relatively recent though. Up to (approximately) the 60s/70s a house was something that you bought to use, people didn't expect values to go up much if at all. Chez

I think we need to get back to that. But I don't know how. Penny Outskirts

I think we need to get back to that. But I don't know how.

Is very difficult. In order to get back to that, house prices need to fall back to within a reasonable multiple of income. But if they do, the mortgage lending institutions will have to declare huge losses, as the value of their assets will fall (as well as plumet)
Jamanda

I think we need to get back to that. But I don't know how.

They need to get back to being worth the same in relationship to salaries as well. Having one person out a couple needing to bring in a salary would reduce the pressure on jobs. But like you, I don't know how.
DawnMK

As there will be no state pension for me and my husband or our children why shouldnt we have the right to secure our finacial future by investing in property now, instead of waiting to be a burden on the state when we are retired we are planning to support ourselfs finacialy, perhaps they ought to start means testing those pensioners out there now who recive state pension own several propertys flash cars have long holidays in the sun and come with that old chestnut they worked hard for it all there working lives total clap trap, they made there money and now are preaped to see fututure generations work longer and do without to keep them in comfy lifestyles and make us all feel bad because they are poor pensioners, retire the lot of them at 65 give the jobs to youngsters who want to work, there are lots that could be done,
yes perhaps all us landlords should let people stay in our propertys for free while we are at it, we work hard for what we have got and done without for many year, we dont take fancy holidays, live a fancy lifestyle, we work 60-70 hours a week never claimed benifits have been very careful with our money and invested it for the future and we are seen as cash cows for it, well so be it, when we sell the property we are in we will buy another and invest in another rental.

Oh and to top it all perhaps we should only rent to those who are in long term benifit and refuse tennents who are on housing benifits like many other landlords there punishinging those who have not got anything even further.

We dont know the finacial circumstances of our tennents that is the job of the council none of our businesss.

Do I feel guilty for working hard and making money not one bit.
Treacodactyl

Housing being seen as an investment is relatively recent though. Up to (approximately) the 60s/70s a house was something that you bought to use, people didn't expect values to go up much if at all.

A lot of things have changed since then, not many people would have owned shares then for example, the population has risen dramatically, lifestyles have changed etc,etc.

I doubt it would be possible to reduce house prices without reversing many other changes.
Jamanda

Not many people own shares now. I don't know anyone who does. DawnMK

we have two propertys that are BTL, the council rent them from us long term and take 10% for collecting rents, we made the initial investment in the properties and spent money renovating them and bringing them up to standard, they are basicaly our pension fund for the future and the return we get on them at the moment covers the mortgage and we have to pay tax on them as it is classed as part of our income, we are considering getting a third property and doing the same, on BTL if you let out yourself and take tennents on housing benifit you are taking a considerable finacial risk and not all landlords will do that, we have been at times out of pocket that is why we now place them with the council to house tennents, it ties the propertys up long term our mortgage is intrest only so at the end of term we still have to find money for the final payment, and if we sell we will have to pay capital gains, as well as paying tax all these years, so you dont go into to ake a quick buck, we have no plans to off load the properties and plan that when we retire and they reach the end of there term the rent will greatly subsidse our pension, if you take on tennents on benifits your rentable income is capped so no matter how you look at it landlords are not making millions on the back of poverty there is finacial risk and you could lose it all, or get only small returns on it, you can make money but only in the long term then not vast sums.

You many not be making millions personally Dawn, but you ARE having your ongoing investment paid for by HB (assuming your tenants receive it). Collectively it's landlords who benefit most financially from the billions spent on HB. Your tenants' HB is buying you a long term investment not a secure home for them.

so what would you like me to do work hard and give them a house I dont think so if they want to work badly enough they will find work some work or anything its not my fault they are on benifits I havent taken anything away from them, but we do give them a decent roof over there heads at an afford rental price below what the current rentable value is making it feasable for HB tennents to live there.

Break down the finaces yourself three bed house in this area rents out about 800 a month we rent it out at 650 and its in a respectable area in fantastic condition large garden semi detatched decent schools none housing estate who is gaining here the greedy landlord ripping off people or the tennent have the opportunity to rent something decent
Treacodactyl

Not many people own shares now. I don't know anyone who does.

Yes you do, but my point is many things have changed. Take a look at population vs houses for another example and the rise of single parent families.
Chez

why shouldnt we have the right to secure our finacial future by investing in property now, instead of waiting to be a burden on the state when we are retired

The thing is, if you have a BTL mortgage and your tenant is on benefits, you are, actually, relying on the state to support you, because that money is going to you, to fund your investment so you can 'support yourselves financially' in the future.

It's ironic, really.
Bebo

Not many people own shares now. I don't know anyone who does.

Pretty much anyone that has a personal pension owns shares.
Treacodactyl

why shouldnt we have the right to secure our finacial future by investing in property now, instead of waiting to be a burden on the state when we are retired

The thing is, if you have a BTL mortgage and your tenant is on benefits, you are, actually, relying on the state to support you, because that money is going to you, to fund your investment so you can 'support yourselves financially' in the future.

It's ironic, really.

If you want to look at it that way then so are all civil servants - so nurses, teachers, policeman etc.
Chez

If you want to look at it that way then so are all civil servants - so nurses, teachers, policeman etc.

Laughing Laughing Laughing
Bebo

why shouldnt we have the right to secure our finacial future by investing in property now, instead of waiting to be a burden on the state when we are retired

The thing is, if you have a BTL mortgage and your tenant is on benefits, you are, actually, relying on the state to support you, because that money is going to you, to fund your investment so you can 'support yourselves financially' in the future.
.

But isn't what she's doing actually making up for the state not investing in low cost housing. They pretty much stopped building all council housing in the 1970's. Now they expect the private sector to bear the cost of investment in the property and they pay for it by having to pay housing benefit instead. Seems exactly like the PFI schemes introduced by the Tories at about the same time. Or the fact that the subsidy going into railway fare is now massively bigger than it was in the 90's before privatisation, but the government doesn't have to buy rolling stock anymore.
Chez

But isn't what she's doing actually making up for the state not investing in low cost housing. They pretty much stopped building all council housing in the 1970's. Now they expect the private sector to bear the cost of investment in the property and they pay for it by having to pay housing benefit instead.

Yes, I guess, in a way. I hadn't thought about it like that. However - if the govt then stops or reduces housing benefit the system falls apart.
jema

The only real way to reverse things is a big national investment into low cost decent council housing.

e.g. something that would require those who would suffer losses to dig into their pockets to make those losses happen!

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.
Bebo

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

You mean like the UK was in the late 40's and 50's?
Chez

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

We're screwed then, certainly currently Sad
toggle

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

You mean like the UK was in the late 40's and 50's?

only need to look at things like the hitory of the squatting movements to know that there wasn't available and affordable housing then.
Treacodactyl

The only real way to reverse things is a big national investment into low cost decent council housing.

e.g. something that would require those who would suffer losses to dig into their pockets to make those losses happen!

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

Again greatly simplifying the problem while neatly blaming someone else.

If you just want to look at building more houses then what are we talking about, something around 5 million new homes? Now that could be funded by council tax rises for example but would the average person want such a rise and so many new homes build near them?

If people are honest I doubt many would support such measures.
jema

Who's someone else, plainly I am someone who would suffer a loss if the housing market collapsed, so hardly someone else.

Simplifying? Hardly, it is straightforward enough. A housing shortage and no alternative for vast numbers of people other than crippling mortgages or rents.

Where would houses go, well always a problem, but one that seems to get solved readily enough when there's profit to be made, the building boom in Swindon managed to trample over local objections quite easily.
Rob R

The only real way to reverse things is a big national investment into low cost decent council housing.

e.g. something that would require those who would suffer losses to dig into their pockets to make those losses happen!

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

Again greatly simplifying the problem while neatly blaming someone else.

If you just want to look at building more houses then what are we talking about, something around 5 million new homes? Now that could be funded by council tax rises for example but would the average person want such a rise and so many new homes build near them?

If people are honest I doubt many would support such measures.

A bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss. Noone wants, in the short term, what is needed in the long term, as the last thread of this nature showed.
Treacodactyl

Simplifying? Hardly, it is straightforward enough. A housing shortage and no alternative for vast numbers of people other than crippling mortgages or rents.

It is simplifying it, there's many other possibilities. If you just build houses and keep the prices artificially low it wouldn't surprise me if the demand increased.
Drewsephine

What we need is a bloody good war

That'll sort the rotters out.

Twisted Evil
Chez

You are Dr Strangelove and I claim my five pounds. Mr O

No need to worry about it too much. Afterall they can live in tents and eat cake. Penny Outskirts

No need to worry about it too much. Afterall they can live in tents and eat cake.

I'd quite like to live in a tent and eat cake Cool
Bebo

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

You mean like the UK was in the late 40's and 50's?

only need to look at things like the hitory of the squatting movements to know that there wasn't available and affordable housing then.

But there was a move towards the govt building low cost decent quality housing. Re: the post-war slum clearances and new town movement. In many ways not a good thing (breaking down communities for example) but it did seriously raise the quality of housing that many people were living in.
Nick

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

You mean like the UK was in the late 40's and 50's?

Right, so how do we engineer a situation where an economically collapsing Europe gives rise to a dominant German aggressor state riding rough shod over smaller nations, with only plucky Brits turning up to save the day (after the Italians, Spanish, French and Greeks give up)?

Hey, hang on a moment...
Katieowl

Shocked Mr O

For that you require a Country with a social conscience, one that thinks decent housing at a decent rent is worth a sacrifice.

You mean like the UK was in the late 40's and 50's?

Right, so how do we engineer a situation where an economically collapsing Europe gives rise to a dominant German aggressor state riding rough shod over smaller nations, with only plucky Brits turning up to save the day (after the Italians, Spanish, French and Greeks give up)?

Hey, hang on a moment...

Well you would need the Canadians, the Aussies, the New Zealanders, and the Gurkas to join in.
Nick

You free? Shan

I think people are confusing a few issues here. The term 'housing shortage' is spouted about quite often but is there REALLY a housing shortage or is it more of a case of there not being lots of cheap desirable housing to buy? The simple fact is that people want to own housing, whether realistic or not. Rentals are freely available - so is there really a shortage of housing or merely a shortage of people getting what they want?

PS I do rent and it is in the eye watering category BUT it is a damn sight cheaper than purchasing the same type of property because the rent would not even cover the interest portion of a mortgage with current valuations.
Chez

I think people are confusing a few issues here. The term 'housing shortage' is spouted about quite often but is there REALLY a housing shortage or is it more of a case of there not being lots of cheap desirable housing to buy? The simple fact is that people want to own housing, whether realistic or not. Rentals are freely available - so is there really a shortage of housing or merely a shortage of people getting what they want?

PS I do rent and it is in the eye watering category BUT it is a damn sight cheaper than purchasing the same type of property because the rent would not even cover the interest portion of a mortgage with current valuations.

Yes, you're definitely right re bang-for-buck regarding purchase versus renting. We are renting a fantastic house, a bungalow with a large flat garden that is suitable for Nenna's mobility issues; but we would not be able to afford it without the substantial housing benefit that we receive - which is also weighted favourably because we have a disabled child.

I think that a lot of even crummy rentals are expensive, though - I was speaking to a friend who is a nursery worker yesterday and she's about to be made homeless - her landlord wants to sell her house. She's in a cleft stick because to get a council property - she is a single parent with three children - they need her to pretty much be sleeping on the street before they can be offered 'emergency accommodation'. That is B&B, twenty miles from the town that the children are at school at and where she works. The council say she needs a four bedroom house - because of the age of the kids, apparently - and won't offer her anything less. And her credit rating is not fantastic, so is apprehensive about approaching private landlords. She says that she would make do with a two bedroom house if they had to, so long as she had somewhere to live - but it's finding somewhere within her price bracket.

I think there are a lot of people in that situation.

Down here it's difficult as well because the holiday let business is lucrative - that drives the prices up.

ETA: I guess, it's still a housing shortage, even if it's an 'affordable' housing shortage.
vegplot

M-J on a mission would go a long to helping solve the housing issue. Nick

A cull of the grammatical sinners? vegplot

A greater % yield than the Black Death, Cholera, Typhoid, Darwinawardism, and Spanish flu combined. Shan

I think people are confusing a few issues here. The term 'housing shortage' is spouted about quite often but is there REALLY a housing shortage or is it more of a case of there not being lots of cheap desirable housing to buy? The simple fact is that people want to own housing, whether realistic or not. Rentals are freely available - so is there really a shortage of housing or merely a shortage of people getting what they want?

PS I do rent and it is in the eye watering category BUT it is a damn sight cheaper than purchasing the same type of property because the rent would not even cover the interest portion of a mortgage with current valuations.

Yes, you're definitely right re bang-for-buck regarding purchase versus renting. We are renting a fantastic house, a bungalow with a large flat garden that is suitable for Nenna's mobility issues; but we would not be able to afford it without the substantial housing benefit that we receive - which is also weighted favourably because we have a disabled child.

I think that a lot of even crummy rentals are expensive, though - I was speaking to a friend who is a nursery worker yesterday and she's about to be made homeless - her landlord wants to sell her house. She's in a cleft stick because to get a council property - she is a single parent with three children - they need her to pretty much be sleeping on the street before they can be offered 'emergency accommodation'. That is B&B, twenty miles from the town that the children are at school at and where she works. The council say she needs a four bedroom house - because of the age of the kids, apparently - and won't offer her anything less. And her credit rating is not fantastic, so is apprehensive about approaching private landlords. She says that she would make do with a two bedroom house if they had to, so long as she had somewhere to live - but it's finding somewhere within her price bracket.

I think there are a lot of people in that situation.

Down here it's difficult as well because the holiday let business is lucrative - that drives the prices up.

ETA: I guess, it's still a housing shortage, even if it's an 'affordable' housing shortage.

I wouldn't say there is an affordable housing shortage, perhaps just not what people desire as housing as a shortage. Think about the 1950's. People used to lodge - now they expect to leave University, walk into a plush job and buy a house.
Chez

I wouldn't say there is an affordable housing shortage, perhaps just not what people desire as housing as a shortage. Think about the 1950's. People used to lodge - now they expect to leave University, walk into a plush job and buy a house.

I still did that in the 1990's - and I think there's been a move to facilitate that again with the rent-a-room scheme. My inlaws (may their camels never increase) rent a room out in their house to supplement their income.

I do think that there has been a lot of speculation in the new-build market - blocks of flats in Manchester, for example, that were bought up by investors and simply held, without being let out, until prices rise. I don't know where that stands now.
oldish chris

[quote="Chez:1265016"]I do think that there has been a lot of speculation in the new-build market - blocks of flats in Manchester, for example, that were bought up by investors and simply held, without being let out, until prices rise. I don't know where that stands now. and Liverpool, Birmingham and a few NE cities: they've lost a packet apparently. I have read that house prices are being maintained by the mortgage companies. The theory is: you have loaned 90% on several adjacent 100K houses. Fine. One house-holder can't pay, you repossess, it sells for 85K. You've now got several houses with negative equity. That's a problem.

Me? I don't mind, bought house for half its present value, have no mortgage, don't plan moving (other than to local Crem some time in the future).

I have got some shares BTW. They've halved in value since 2004, but the dividend isn't bad (way better than a deposit account).
oldish chris

PS I do rent and it is in the eye watering category BUT it is a damn sight cheaper than purchasing the same type of property because the rent would not even cover the interest portion of a mortgage with current valuations. It does depend on timescales. I've been doing some sums. We bought our first house in 1975, moved twice and then downsized in 2002. Our total interest payments over that period was about 100,000. We sold up for 200,000, paid off the remaining capitol (35,000).

Net housing cost over the period of my marriage = minus 65,000.
jema

In my experience kids leaving university today have little optimism on job expectations and don't ever expect to buy a house. They are more pessimistic about prospects than any generation in decades.

I can't quickly and accurately work out our cost of housing in 25 years, but I have a feel that in is around negative 100,000. Nice for us but crap for those who will really pay that bill.
marigold

It's difficult to compare two eras fairly because conditions are so different. People have to budget nowadays for "essentials" that didn't even exist when I left home in 1977. I had no car, mobile phone, TV package, internet or credit costs to pay. I walked to work, saved some of my pay and never bought anything on credit, but food was expensive and we didn't heat our shared house because we couldn't afford to. Still, 4 - 6 boisterous young adults in a three-bedroomed house keep it quite cosy! And we didn't expect to sit round in our scanties in midwinter Laughing .
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home