To think there is a serious problem with the housing market in this country

[Kitchendisco21]

I was just about to buy my first home having spent 10 years saving a deposit. Thanks to the stupid help to buy intervention, the houses I was able to buy are now 50k more expensive so I am completely priced out. I am so utterly sick of it.

And no, I can’t move elsewhere/ get somewhere smaller/eat fewer avocados! I have been saving for a decade.

Aibu to be so fed up. I read last week that 98% of keyworkers couldn’t buy a home in the uk now. When will people actually wake up & see what a major problem there is? I am so angry.

@woodhill

Well you wouldn't would you - also - as you did this

Sorry, I thought you were talking about right to buy? Which I didn’t do, I’ve never had social housing.

@Iamthewombat

If house prices fell by 50% millions would be left in negative equity.

And they would still be living in their houses. Negative equity doesn’t get you evicted. Incidentally when did I say that I wanted prices to fall by 50%? Have you decided that?

People who have spent 25 years paying off a mortgage and maybe planning to downsize to fund retirement would be left with almost nothing.

Do you get that the houses such people would downsize to would also have reduced in price? In any event, relying on a house to fund retirement is pretty foolish. It’s not exactly a liquid asset and prices are subject to crashes. We’ve seen that happen at least twice in the past 30 years.

I can only assume you have a very limited grasp on reality of (sic) you can’t foresee these problems.

And predictably here come the insults. If you control your urge to be spiteful when somebody puts forward an argument you don’t like, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously.

When someone feels the need to draw attention to an if/of typo it tells you a lot about them.

At least you are honest, you think that negarive equity for millions is not in any way problematic. On that we will have to differ.

Sorry negative not negarive, wouldn’t want you to get confused on my meaning!

You keep coming back for more, don’t you? Like one of those weebles. You wobble but you won’t fall down.

I think that negative equity for some home owners is a lesser evil than families not being able to afford their own secure home. That’s pretty uncontroversial. Unless you say it to somebody who thinks that the most important thing is for their own house to keep increasing in value and everyone who can’t afford one can just suck it up.

Our town has just built a big development of low rise blocks of flats. Hundreds of them, in a prime location, close to town. They would be ideal for young professionals but they are for 55's only. I just dont know how young people are expected to get started in their own home.
In our area there are many sheltered accom blocks and there is no shortage of flats for older people. We just didnt need more. What we need are places for young people, just starting out.

In our area there are many sheltered accom blocks and there is no shortage of flats for older people. We just didnt need more

Obviously the town did need more, the developer didn’t build them for fun. I bet they’ve all sold too.

There is a problem with looking at it in such b&w terms though. Everyone who buys takes a risk on the future value and circumstances that allow them to sell.

My parents sold in London just before the boom took off. Why? Because my father was badly attacked in a random assault then they were burgled. They felt unsafe. There are a lot of stories of elderly people being vulnerable and creating that atmosphere benefitted others (and no, I don’t think it was coincidence- there were too many other factors involved). My last landlady had bought a similar property that I ended up house sharing in. Her partner had an ex council in a very affluent area that he inherited from his parents. We cannot compete in those circumstances as the gap between what you could get on a low income at the time meant so many properties were bought up by those on better salaries (usually older).

I agree with you, @TrialOfStyle. A decent, secure affordable home is a basic human need. When it's so difficult to get one, even in one of the world's richest countries, something is seriously fucked.

Secure tenancies and rent controls would make a huge difference, but when half the bloody government are landlords themselves, that's not going to happen.

@DynamoKev

"Your sweeping generalisations about "boomers" are "nasty, ill-informed discrimination"

Firstly yes it is a generalisation, there are some young people that can happily afford to buy a house today (higher salaries or cheaper areas) but as a generalisation the majority cannot. Equally there are some boomers that did not benefit from the house price boom but as a generalisation the majority did.
Secondly "nasty" - I guess the truth hurts
Thirdly "ill informed" - if you disagree with any of the figures I produced then please correct me.
Fourthly "discrimination" house price rises act as a transfer of wealth from young to old. If a seller makes a profit on a house then this is paid for by the first time buyer who pays a higher price for the house. This is real discrimination.

@puffinkoala

Agree we need more affordable housing, but "affordable" usually means rented/housing association and is deliberately built to look less nice. And then the liberal well meaning councils move their most troublesome families into nice new houses thinking the niceness will rub off. Hint: it doesn't.

We have a lot of empty properties in the UK and they should be brought back into habitation.

Any new development should have proper affordable housing, not just for rental to the awkward squad as I mention above. We need fewer large 4/5 bedroom houses and more 2/3 bedrooms. And more bungalows. Stop any more bungalows being turned into houses, too.

And there needs to be far more disincentives to have second homes, as well as carrots to encourage small families to move out of large houses. For example 50 somethings whose kids have flown the nest don't need 4 bed houses in school catchment areas.

Those "troublesome" families are usually the highest priority, because they're the ones most likely to have multiple needs: poor at coping, have MH or addiction issues, children at risk etc.

Councils have to allocate properties to those most in need first, an allocations policy based on how much families "deserve" a home would be easily challenged in the courts if less needy families got housed before those whose needs are greater.

YANBU

@goldfinchfan

Yes councils should be creating more council rentables.

not building though there will no longer be any green spaces......which is not good for the planet or mental health or children.

compulsory purchase empty homes and use those for a start.

That's never going to happen until we get a government that's prepared to invest in social housing.

Even under the last Labour government, most of the funds allocated for social housing went to housing associations.

There needs to be a relaxation of borrowing restrictions on councils if they are borrowing to build homes. In the medium-long term, council housing is self-financing: the rental income will more than cover the building costs, and once that's happened, the ongoing income can be used to build more homes.

That's how it used to work before right-to-buy was introduced. My MIL has lived in her council house for 60 years, her rent will have covered the cost of building it many times over.

And no one's going to want a council estate in their 'hood or near it so this 'councils need to build more housing' isn't going to happen.

As for 'old people should move', well, if you were living in a 4 bed detached house or 3-bed bungalow, would you want to go back to some flat where there's potential for shit neighbours?

Why is it the job of old people to solve someone else's problems?

Lots of people I know can afford the monthly repayments on a £400k house, but they still owe the bank £350k plus interest. It’s terrifying and a lot of people are in a precarious position should they lose their jobs. The same if interests rates rise - that £800 a month on a £200k mortgage jumps to over a thousand, and I dread to think what will happen

That's exactly what happened at the end of the 1980's/early 90s. Rates shot up, demand shrunk, prices fell, there were shedloads of repossessions and an awful lot of people found themselves homeless and still owing the bank money.

I had my previous house valued in 1988. They reckoned it was worth £87.5k. When I sold it in 1992, I got £49k for it. I'd had it a good few years, so still had plenty of equity, but if I'd bought it for £80k with a 5% deposit, I'd have been trapped there for years. And if it had been repossessed, it would have been sold for peanuts and I'd still have owed the bank tens of thousands.

It was a terrible time, families became homeless and a couple of friends who ended up in negative equity haven't had a secure roof over their heads since then.

I either have to to keep working until I drop dead (if I can find a job which will keep me on past retirement age) or I have to claim UC to pay the rent. Most people who own their own homes will usually have paid off their mortgage by the time retirement comes around

Economists and social policy analysts have been concerned about this for years. A couple of generations younger than mine (I'm 65) are likely to be renting privately until retirement ins significant numbers. The cost of supporting rents at private sector levels for generations of pensioners will be a colossal burden on the welfare budget. And as life expectancy rises, that burden could well go on for 20-30 years post-retirement.

If benefits stay at current levels, people retiring on decent pensions will be spending most of it on rent, not on enjoying retirement. And those who haven't got decent pensions will be no worse off than many of their pension-rich friends, because their rents will covered by housing benefit or whatever takes it place.

There are serious concerns about how this will be managed and funded.

It has implications for social care, too. When my generation have all gone gaga and have to go into care homes, a lot of us will have our houses sold to cover the costs, at least until that money runs out. A few generations down the line, the state will have to fund a lot more residential care, because many of the people who need it won't have houses to sell to pay for it.

God knows how that will be managed.

[quote 1dayatatime]@DynamoKev

"Your sweeping generalisations about "boomers" are "nasty, ill-informed discrimination"

Firstly yes it is a generalisation, there are some young people that can happily afford to buy a house today (higher salaries or cheaper areas) but as a generalisation the majority cannot. Equally there are some boomers that did not benefit from the house price boom but as a generalisation the majority did.
Secondly "nasty" - I guess the truth hurts
Thirdly "ill informed" - if you disagree with any of the figures I produced then please correct me.
Fourthly "discrimination" house price rises act as a transfer of wealth from young to old. If a seller makes a profit on a house then this is paid for by the first time buyer who pays a higher price for the house. This is real discrimination.
[/quote]
I cannot disagree with your figures because you didn’t post any.

“The truth hurts” is that really a serious “argument”?

You made a series of sweeping claims backed up by ...... well nothing but your own prejudice.

@LakieLady

If benefits stay at current levels, people retiring on decent pensions will be spending most of it on rent, not on enjoying retirement. And those who haven't got decent pensions will be no worse off than many of their pension-rich friends, because their rents will covered by housing benefit or whatever takes it place.

There are serious concerns about how this will be managed and funded.

It has implications for social care, too. When my generation have all gone gaga and have to go into care homes, a lot of us will have our houses sold to cover the costs, at least until that money runs out. A few generations down the line, the state will have to fund a lot more residential care, because many of the people who need it won't have houses to sell to pay for it.

God knows how that will be managed

The message that sends to some people is huge. Why save and have the pain now if it isn’t going to get you anywhere else than with those who haven’t saved? There is no incentive for some.

Particularly for the tuition fees generation.

As long as most voters are homeowners, nothing will change.

@wheresmymojo

I agree OP.

Our lodger is 47 years old and does a role that is important in society (community mental health work) and can't afford to buy a house, nor to rent one on his own in Hampshire.

This is another thing that is going to cause problems in future.

Public sector workers tend to get the same salary almost everywhere in the country with the exception of London. A nurse, teacher or social worker or police officer in expensive West Sussex will be paid the same as someone in the same role in the cheap NE.

It will get harder and harder to recruit staff to essential public sector occupations in areas where housing costs are high. They will be able to have a much better lifestyle on the same salary elsewhere.

Imo, there will have to be subsidised housing for key workers in expensive areas, or enhanced salaries, or these jobs won't be filled.

@Aabb57853379

It is the baby boomer middle class. They are fleecing all of us. Rampant price increases have created inequality and reward for no effort at all.

Yes, it was incredibly selfish of us to have had ourselves born in the 50s and 60s, I sincerely apologise.

And if only someone had told me that buying a house in 1982 was going to fuck things up for future generations, I'd have just carried on renting and having to move every time the rent was jacked up to a level I couldn't afford, or when the landlord wanted to sell.

It was most remiss of me to skint myself paying a mortgage for all those years and "fleecing" future generations. I should have known that 30 years later house price inflation was going to go sky high and that the population was going to increase.

@DynamoKev

The figures I was referring to from an earlier post

"Interestingly the only time when supply outstripped demand was in the late 60s and 1970s (house build of around 300k) which resulted in housing being more affordable- I guess it's a coincidence that this is the same period when the current boomers were buying their first homes..."

Equally Is being called "nasty" actually a counter argument?

Grateful if you could also address the transfer of wealth point from young to old as well please.

@murbblurb

As usual, fuckwit anti landlord lot with no actual answers. I bet if you were eligible for help to buy or right to buy you would take it - who wouldn't? Life essentials are not free.

Too many people for the infrastructure. Higher taxes needed.

My dad refused to exercise his right to buy. He was a socialist, and objected to the privatisation of what should be a public asset. He wanted the house he and mum lived in to go to someone else who needed it when they died, and it did.

And I admire him for that, even if it meant no inheritance for me and my bro. He could have bought it outright, too.

It seems to me that the government are quite happy being socialists when it suits them. They crow about the importance of allowing a free market but actually interfere and don’t allow it to be free (stamp duty holiday, h2buy, government backed mortgages). They could interfere by introducing rent controls (like Germany has) making less people desperate to own a home and a house being less attractive as a pension investment, but of course they won’t do that.

Banks also appear to be allowed to lend a crazy amount. Maybe because history has taught them that any risks are covered by the tax payer; if it all goes tits up we’ll just bail them out. Must be nice to gamble with other people’s money.

I do wonder whether the government’s grand plan is Serfdom. If we are all in so much debt that we owe to the man then we hardly have the energy to stir up any change. As pointed out by a previous poster it also means we have less money to spend in the economy, meaning less tax revenue and likely less innovation too, if nobody has any money left over to risk a new business venture.

I am in a European country now, that provides mortgages from the local council, if you cannot get one from a bank.

Banks also appear to be allowed to lend a crazy amount. Maybe because history has taught them that any risks are covered by the tax payer; if it all goes tits up we’ll just bail them out. Must be nice to gamble with other people’s money

Just because we (wrongly) bailed the banks out once doesn’t mean it will happen again. The view may be taken to let the borrowers take the pain if it all goes tits up like they did in the 80s.