To think it's selfish to deliberately plan to rent out the old house when you buy a new

[jdoe8]

I understand why people do it, its dog eat dog out there and people look after number 1 even if it means it screws others.

But how are the next generation going to ever afford to buy if people carry on doing this?

This makes for depressing reading especially the comments - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/26/the-sad-cost-of-renting-never-having-somewhere-to-call-home

I don't believe any generation worked any harder, you just had to be lucky and in the right place at the right time. Its very well to say just rent but renters have such poor rights in the UK it's very undesirable.

I think the problem stems from the mortgage companies making it almost impossible to be able to get a mortgage on a studio flat. It was like taking away the first rung of the housing ladder.
Dp and I and most of our friends who now have large detached houses all started their life renting then buying a tiny studio as their starter home.

What we have now is starter homes being 1 bed apartments. If we had been forced to buy a 1 bedder as the first rung of the housing market there would have been no way we would have afforded to and we would like a lot of our friends been still in rented

Starter homes have not historically been studio flats in most areas outside of London. A 2 up 2 down terrace or a 1 bed flat has been the norm for a starter home in most northern towns for decades. Studio flats have typically just been rentals.

MN seems to be a bit obsessed with this mythical 'NotLondon' where fabulous four-bedroom houses are super cheap.

Of course property is less expensive outside of London, but more desirable areas are always more expensive, and there are areas outside of London where property is pretty much on a par with London. Being in a city (any city), being near a train station, being in a major job hub - any of these things will causes prices to shoot up. I have a few BBC colleagues who were moved to Manchester/Salford and the media village area is a lot more expensive than before the BBC moved in - and the price rises when 'London' moves in en masse cause conflict because of locals being priced out.

I had a look at RightMove a minute ago and there's literally nothing under £50k in central Manchester. Nothing under £50k in Leicester apart from a few 'shares' and auction listings -- oh and one weird static caravan-type thing for £45k and one parking garage for only £14k!

Most of the time when people say, "oh move to the Midlands/the North, you can find fantastic huge houses with gardens for tuppence" - yes but probably in the middle of nowhere with one bus an hour. Fine if you don't mind driving for a couple of hours, not great if you need to be close to work and amenities.

I rent out the one-bedroom property I inherited (I can't live there because I'm medically unable to drive and the property is very rural - all there is within walking distance is one corner shop/newsagent and one chippie), and the rent covers about half of my own rent. It's a good job I'm eligible for disability benefits because inheriting the property meant my housing benefit was cut off.

I don't think most people expect to get a property in most regions for under £50k tobasco. Starter homes even in most northern towns are £80k plus. £80k (or even £100k) is affordable for most first time buyers.

I have told this before but in the early 70s DH with his ex wife found a rental, 4 bed house for half the price of council rent! The landlord wasn't using the house, lived elsewhere..so rented it out for peppercorn rent to ensure the property was used!
It has taken DH donkeys years to understand modern renting, to him private means spare housing and cheap..
We live in a council house..the council did ask us to consider downsizing but 8 years after our youngest left home her older brother has needed to move back in with his wife while they save to buy. DS1 could end up living with us if his MH problems mean he can't survive on his own. If we had given back our home would our DC have got help..no of course not?..DS1 would end up homeless! They will never qualify for 'low cost' housing in their own right. They are looking to move to a cheaper part of the country but the reality is lower wages and prospects tend to be where cheaper housing is. DS/DIL lived in a cheap area...couldn't get decent jobs..moved here and had jobs within a week and DS is looking for progression with 3 months of starting his job.
To me 'affordable ' housing is affordable if it can be paid for with one NLW income without assistance.
It needs social housing to be invested in..how about park homes for low income tenants?
Some people..me included..will never earn even the national average wage even with promotion!

Unless you are able to be self employed and work remotely, you can't work anywhere.

There are physiotherapists and dog groomers and florists and shop owners every where in the UK. However, to make a living you need clients and customers.

Secondary industries and services follow primary industries, which in the UK are concentrated in London and the South East.

If London is more 'fun' it is because there are enough people to make many, many restaurants, cafes, nightclubs, theatres, pubs etc. viable. However, all the people working in the 'fun' places have to live somewhere and competition makes housing more expensive.

Of course there are great restaurants and clubs outside London - just not nearly as many so close together.

"£100k is affordable for most first time buyers."

WOW what kind of ultra-privileged millionaire bubble do you live in? I want in!!

tabasco I earn 23k (first job thats not apprenticeship) and according to natwest I can borrow 97k over 25 years.

Even when I was doing my apprenticeship along side my ex bf our combined wages (12.5k each) would have allowed us to borrow 106k.

100k is affordable for a couple full time on the 21+ min wage. Or someone on a bit under the average.

£100k is affordable for most people as it would be sufficient for a single person earning the average wage to get a mortgage or for a couple both working full time for the minimum wage to get a mortgage.

But yeah, apparently I live In an ultra millionaire bubble

Having just checked - a single person earning 19k could borrow £90k from the Halifax over 30 years (which is £100k when you add on your 10% deposit).
£19k is well below the national average wage. So obviously you don't have to be an ultra privileged millionaire to buy a starter home for £100k even as a single person.

1. What you can borrow and what you should borrow are different things - see 2008 crash.
2. 19k is not far below the national average salary (about £25k), but the 'average' salary doesn't mean much anyway because it is an average of all salaries, not what somebody might expect to earn in a particular area.
3. You still have to find the £100k property.

Many people on threads like this scour rightmove to find supposedly suitable cheap properties to prove that if only the young/poor people didn't spend so much money on phones they wouldn't have any problems. However, finding one or two properties that on the face of it look reasonable (because obviously estate agents are known for their honesty...) doesn't mean the housing crisis has been solved. Many, many people need affordable, stable housing.

The reality is that many people will never have the income necessary to buy a house, but they wouldn't have been able to buy a house 20 or 30 or 50 years ago either. However, that was the problem that social housing was supposed to solve. Now social housing is seen as a last resort and long term tenants are seen as scroungers.

Of course the gap has been plugged by private landlords (many of whom just want a secure investment at a time when pensions are looking increasingly insecure). Of course private landlords aren't particularly interested in long term tenancies.

However, there is a problem and it won't be solved while people stick their heads in the sand and continue to vote in governments that expand right to buy and only pay lip service to improving the economy outside the south east.

I agree with most of what you have written merry. I used to live in a major Northern city and £19k is still a lowish salary amongst most people I know (across all ages). I don't bother trawling right move to find the only property that exists for an affordable price but I am aware that there are many in different areas of the city for under £100k and if you are very risk averse and want a new property (maintenance issues etc) then a lot of these are available on a shared ownership basis (for well under £100k) which makes it affordable for many. I personally would not buy a shared ownership property but many people do as a means of getting a better property than they would otherwise be able to currently afford.
I would be happy to see house prices reduce significantly across the board even though I am a property owner as I think they are out of control. But it is fair to say that even in major cities, outside of the south east, there is affordable (not cheap) properties to be had.

My postman son can borrow £100k (on his own) whereas when we bought we had to have two people together in the old days. I don't think borrowing £100k is some millionaire kind of thing.

Also we are often in Yorkshire. In places like near Hudderfields perfectly commutable to a good few towns around there you can get £70k houses eg this one www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65095316.html

Obviously borrowing £100k isn't a millionaire thing, but it is still out of the grasp of many people who need homes.

A £70k house in Yorkshire isn't going to help you much if you are working as a care assistant in Croydon.