Plenty of people I know - some who I work with - are struggling with the costs of suitable/appropriate housing and aren't anywhere near the circumstances that should require council housing. It isn't just youngsters and/or single people. I know people in their 40s and have families who are working reasonable jobs and being pushed out by the rising cost of rent so they aren't taking holidays, etc. any more and can't save for a mortgage.
And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..
- Thread starter Scam
- Start date
Plenty of people I know - some who I work with - are struggling with the costs of suitable/appropriate housing and aren't anywhere near the circumstances that should require council housing. It isn't just youngsters and/or single people. I know people in their 40s and have families who are working reasonable jobs and being pushed out by the rising cost of rent so they aren't taking holidays, etc. any more and can't save for a mortgage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
Didn't say that everyone who struggles to buy should have council housing. If there were more of it, demand for private rentals would be lower and therefore prices would likely be lower.
True - the limited ability to say no (with the needs of having a roof over your head) tends to reduce how much the housing market acts like that in comparison to many other commodities.
I got on the housing ladder at the age of 21. At the time I was earning next to nothing but somehow it was possible back then even on a very crappy wage. This was in 1999. Didn't even need a deposit which is just mental compared to how it is today.
I do feel sorry for younger generations but hey, you have youth on your side so enjoy it while it lasts.
I do feel sorry for younger generations but hey, you have youth on your side so enjoy it while it lasts.
Last edited:
There is countless fields about 3 miles from me, in an area having outline planning permission for something like 3000 new houses. It might be more than that actually. Along with new roads and schools. The permission has been granted for something like a decade or more, now.
The developer owns the land with the planning permission, and is sitting on it. They say there isn't enough profit to be worth their while building.
They've gone cap in hand to the council to ask them for funds.
I have no idea how, given how every 2 bedroom starter house in the area has achieved something like 300k, how it can't be profitable to build. It's all green fields sites too. The cheapest kind of site to build on.
Something doesn't add up. Something smells bad.
e: OK reading some more recent developments it seems the developer decided against building at all, and now wants to sell the land to the council for the council to build on. However negotiations have stalled over the price and the contract.
I guess the developer knows the council are under massive pressure (obligation) to build new houses (per central govt requirements), and the developer thinks there's more profit in selling the land on than building the houses themselves.
Seems like a hideous tangled mess they've created up there. The whole thing is in danger of being scrapped, with pressure from the local Tories to do just that (our council is a coalition of LibDems and indies).
And it was 3,500 new houses.
Last edited:
Even if you start from 21, that's 9 years to save 15%. So unless you assume that these are professional people who will go on to command 100k salaries, if they remain on average wage then they'd be paying it off for the next 63 years, assuming they live that long
You've completely missed the point there re: renting (putting aside this silly notion of 63 year mortgages) - someone who has saved up a deposit over 9 years of renting, in order to buy a property, isn't now renting! i.e. they're no longer paying rent... so this implied assumption that they can only pay off a mortgage at the rate they saved for a deposit is flawed.
You're assuming they were renting and not living with parents (etc). That wasn't specified.
But regardless, these are people on average incomes saving 9 years for a deposit. In 9 sodding years in days gone by you'd have paid off your mortgage.
These people now have a deposit only, and are just starting to pay off their mortgage.
If they stay on average income it could easily take 20+ years. That's assuming they manage to save 10k a year of roughly a 17k take-home amount. That's pretty damn frugal living to get by on 7k a year.
To take any less than 20 years they need to rise above average wage. If they have some kids or don't progress as quickly as they like up the pay scale, it could take 40 years!
So unless you really determine to rise up the career ladder, you're looking at 20+ years of extremely frugal living with no kids, or having a family and forgetting about paying off the mortgage.
Anyhow, you wont see a nurse or a carer rising up the corporate ladder to end up making 70k+ salaries. We don't value many of those professions, and they will stay on a pittance. I guess they should stop being nurses and carers and all become managers or whatnot.
Correct, but if it took them 9 years to save up while living with parents then they've got other issues tbh...
And we're back to single bread winner.... but there are women in the work place, again.
I don't think it is particularly realistic for a single low income person to buy a property - if a single parent then council flat or housing benefit etc.. if a single person with no dependents then they can rent a room in a house share or rent a bed sit.
And this is the whole point.
Before things got crazy, it *was* possible for a single low-income person to get on the housing ladder. It *was*. There are some examples in this thread of low earners buying their first house in the 90s or earlier. And it not even being a big deal! And paying off the mortgage in a few years!
Such things are the domain of fantasy and pleasant dreams today. And it's getting worse all the time.
That is 100% of the point of this thread.
Is it unreasonable for a single person to want a place of their own? in days gone by it wasn't easy but it was relatively possible if you were prepared to put in the effort - today is another story - I wouldn't say it was impossible as FoxEye put it but it is a very different story to days gone by.
Which is why I find it somewhat puzzling that people will defend the status quo as if nothing else were imaginable or reasonable.
That houses should be super expensive, and single people should expect to rent and live a life of complete self-deprivation, so they can scrape together a deposit within 50 years or so.
Why is it so unreasonable to look back a few decades and think, "Sheet that was nice. It's a bit rougher these days!"
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 1,824
- Location
- Chiang Mai
It effects more than just people on the lower end of the pay scale aswell. There's lots of people who can afford a place in the UK but are aware they have options and can get more elsewhere and do. I left the Uk because I'm settling down/ looking to raise a family and the options in the UK just dont cut it.
As a couple we're early 30's, i make 31-32k with overtime, shes a recently graduated PHD and we now own a house 4 times the size of our old 2 bedroom flat while paying a 5th of the price. We've been screwed over by the price fixing estate agents in Reading for long enough. No more scraping by trying to save to get a mortgage on some crap sardine can new build or a house built in the 70's.
Follow the advice of others in this thread. Covids changing how people work, if you work remotely get as far away as you can. It can still be in the Uk if you want. Wales, Cornwall etc but the further you go the more you're going to get.
Rip off Britain can well and truly suck my dick.
As a couple we're early 30's, i make 31-32k with overtime, shes a recently graduated PHD and we now own a house 4 times the size of our old 2 bedroom flat while paying a 5th of the price. We've been screwed over by the price fixing estate agents in Reading for long enough. No more scraping by trying to save to get a mortgage on some crap sardine can new build or a house built in the 70's.
Follow the advice of others in this thread. Covids changing how people work, if you work remotely get as far away as you can. It can still be in the Uk if you want. Wales, Cornwall etc but the further you go the more you're going to get.
Rip off Britain can well and truly suck my dick.
Last edited:
I don’t think it’s particulatly realistic today and nor do I see why it should be necessarily. In days gone by women gave up their careers for example. In days gone by we had a smaller population.
If you want to buy a house on a low income then being in a couple is probably going to be the way forward.
There will be more angst from people like FoxEye as the millennial and generation Z types come to the realisation that they’re not going to be as well off in some areas (housing) as their parents or grandparents. That’s going to happen across the western world - despite some people get obsessed with single issues like BTL etc...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,518
- Location
- West Coast of Scotland
Friend of mine bought a 1 bed flat in Canary Wharf when they were first built. Payed peanuts for it. Sold it for over a million a few years ago. What makes me think is I was in the same position as my friend at the same time, and had the same opportunity but I wasn't ready for life in the city so turned it down. How I regret that move now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
I bought in 91/92 by pairing up with a drinking buddy. We had to answer questions about our sleeping habits from the building society of course but with a 6% deposit and two salaries we got a new-build two bedroom flat in London. A year later interest rates hit 17% IIRC. It wasn't easy to buy in London then either.
One thing I will agree with is that it makes no sense that banks don't look at "ability to pay" based on years of monthly rental payments instead of some unreal-world calculation of savings / salary multiplier. If I were a bank I'd hoover up these reliable payers on low deposit mortgages but relatively high interest rates (i.e. 4% or something)
One thing I will agree with is that it makes no sense that banks don't look at "ability to pay" based on years of monthly rental payments instead of some unreal-world calculation of savings / salary multiplier. If I were a bank I'd hoover up these reliable payers on low deposit mortgages but relatively high interest rates (i.e. 4% or something)
I'm sure there was some plan floating around a few years ago where they were suggesting a system to do exactly that? Not sure if anything came of it however, but yes it would make perfect sense; if you've been paying X/month for the last 10 years renting then of course you're going to be able to pay X(- a certain amount to cover additional costs of ownership such as maintenance) on the mortgage...
I thought something had changed about this and a quick Google has come up with this https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/n...ar-in-experian-credit-reports-for-first-time/
Because too many boomers have their fingers in the pie and are actively defending their "right" to retire with a final salary pension, lovely mortgage free house to live in, and maybe a nice little nest egg rental on the side for good measure. And they have the gall to call millennials entitled for simply wanting a roof over their heads without 2 months eviction notice.