House prices

[Socialmediamakespeopleunhealthilycompetitive]

In the mid 80s there were 3 bedroom family houses in ok areas of outer London for £50k, around 2.8 times a decent officeworkers salary. The same houses are now around £450k & ten times the same workers 2024 salary. I realise interest rates, even after recently hikes are somewhat lower. Since the late 90s I have wondered when people will demand government action on this, amd actually see lower housing costs as a good thing. When the above house was £200k ca. 2003, and 6 times a decent salary, I thought action might happen. Is the point at which action is taken the point at which the transactional costs of middle class young or middle-aged people buying their own home even wirh an inheritance become prohibitive? Do people doing jobs they don't like or which damage their health to pay enormous mortgages in expensive locations, London, Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin etc ever think about the opportunity cost of sitting on equity which could be invested to earn income if they relocated to a cheaper area? How on earth have modest, poorly insulated houses including those in rough areas been allowed to get to this astronomical level? Why is it politically unacceptable for a party leader to say they want to engineer lower house prices, perhaps even say 75 orn80£ lower (still leaves the million pound househat 200k)?

@anonhop I don't think I understand the issue with a tiered society, unless you're objecting to the whole premise of capitalism. I do think there should be a floor below which no-one is allowed to sink and secure tenancy of a well maintained property should be part of that, but I don't think there's fundamentally a problem with the idea that some can and will buy and others won't. The reality of life is that through luck, chance, endeavour, talent, fortune and misfortune some will achieve more financially than others. There are so many interwoven factors involved in the affordability of housing, a lot of it completely unconnected with morality, but market forces on global scales. No solution is simple but if the government can provide that "floor" I mentioned above, I do think the rest is up to us as individuals to make what we can of the chances we have.

No it wouldn’t. It would make it impossible for a key worker to live in a one bed flat in London. Value doesn’t equal size. You might have lived in that one bed London flat your whole life and can’t downsize.

Agree with this. It’s just foot stamping. If people genuinely feel they need to see poor people suffering to be motivated they should take a long hard look at their values. I’d be very happy for the government to have 100% of my estate upon death if I knew it would go towards public services and the betterment of society. Why would you actively not want that? It would contribute to a fairer society for your kids but for the most vulnerable in society too. To say “I’d just sell everything and go travelling” sounds a lot like “I actively want to prevent society improving”.

Maybe not early eighties but graduated in 91 and my first job as a very office junior was £13k so those more senior that me were very likely to be on £17k in the very late 80s to early 90s.

House prices need to fall.
They used to go up and fall naturally, but governments have been propping up house prices for decades.
The massive house building programme the current government are promising will cause house prices to fall naturally.

But that’s going to be at the expense of someone who paid a lot for the house, say 20 years ago, to then be in negative equity, or see all the money put into the house just disappear. It’s not always about affordability either. Many people have blots on their credit references and the banks won’t lend to them.

There should also be new laws on buying and selling homes. Gazumping should be illegal and sellers should not be allowed to rescind on an agreed offer. There is far too much frenzy and estate agent tricks and people end up overpaying considerably, far more than the house is worth.

There needs to be a correction to house prices. This happened in the past, lots of people had homes repossessed, loads more were in negative equity. People need to learn again that a house should be a home, not an investment.

In England, the ‘bedroom tax’ only applies to tenants living in a social housing property deemed too large for their needs and having their rent paid by Housing benefit or UC. One extra bedroom will result in a 14% reduction in housing benefits, two will mean 25% reduction.

Private renters who qualify get Local Housing Allowance, based on family size and local rent costs.

england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/benefits/how_to_deal_with_the_bedroom_tax#

But that’s going to be at the expense of someone who paid a lot for the house, say 20 years ago, to then be in negative equity, or see all the money put into the house just disappear. It’s not always about affordability either. Many people have blots on their credit references and the banks won’t lend to them.

A correction to house prices doesn’t mean someone who bought their house 20 yrs ago will be in negative equity or lost money.

Oh that's alright then. Let's just be completely callous about the fact that many families could easily lose their homes if there was a massive house price correction. Not only would those people have been stung by enormous deposits and mortgage rates, but they'd then also lose everything they've invested and their homes to boot.

It's the current generation of FTBs this would screw over, NOT the ones already sitting on huge amounts of wealth.

If there was affordable and suitable housing for our older population (and I am one of those) more family size housing at the cheaper end of the market would become available. Selling a terrace or semi detached house in many areas won’t raise the money to buy retirement housing, plus there are often high maintenance charges.

Social housing tenants have more options in some areas where councils give them priority and help to downsize. If more social housing providers would build to let for reasonable rent and service charges, then more general needs housing across all tenures would become available.

As an older person, in a fairly inexpensive house, I can see the time when I won’t want to have a garden to look after, or home maintenance to worry about, plus I might not manage the stairs to our only bathroom. Downsizing at the right time would be a choice I’d like to have, but I realistically can’t see it being an option I’ll have.

Thatcher allowed tenants to but their council houses at a reduced rate

This is what fucked up the housing market abs prevent decent hard working families from ever having access to decent housing

At the time society complained incessantly about single mothers being given a free ride with their council houses etc etc etc

Society always has to blame someone which then fucks up things in a different way altogether

Thatcher fractured our society

Other countries have rent caps so you can never overcharge your tenant unfairly

I met someone from Austria who told me this. It might have changed. Seemed like a good idea to me

Hopefully Labour will sort out housing

It's pitiful

Everyone should be able to afford to live somewhere safe and decent

I worked in social housing, many of us thought when Blair got elected in 1997 Right to Buy would stop, but it didn’t. Scotland and Wales have stopped it, so perhaps Starmer’s new government will bite the bullet. At least they must not allow any new council housing to be sold at a discount!

The growth of population, plus the increase in two home families has impacted on the availability of housing. Far more parents live separately nowadays than in Thatcher’s time, fewer marriages, more family breakdown.

In saying this you are prioritising the interests of those who have had the means to pay for a house, however stretched some.of.them might be (and some of them, of.course, will have inherited their houses and be mortgage free, or.indeed.been gifted large deposits) over those who have no.assets and no.hope of.owning any even if prices remain flat. And in suggesting it's morally unacceptable to engineer lower housing costs, you're implying there is a morally acceptable route. So do homeowners have a moral right to house prices never falling in nominal or real terms? Wpuld.several years of flat house prices and say 5% annual wage inflation, which would gradually reduce real prices, even by massive amounts, be ok in your book? Or do homeowners have a moral right to real house price inflation and low interest rates? If so what's the morally acceptable rate of house price inflation? 1%? 20% 100%?

This is the biggest issue. The system is now that 2 people are needed. It’s doable but not in London or big cities. The person you describe could possibly buy a place for £175k ish depending on their deposit.

I’m in the south east and some 1 bed flats are in that price range. I have many single friends in their 30s and 40s who live alone.