Indeed. I was fortunate enough that I had the option to continue living with my parents, with minimal outgoings and hoard a chunk of money. If I had been in the position where I had to start renting to be able to find work etc. then i'd have been stuffed as i'd probably barely have managed to save even a modest deposit by 30 if I was chucking half my income at rent instead of a savings account.
House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. I was fortunate enough that I had the option to continue living with my parents, with minimal outgoings and hoard a chunk of money. If I had been in the position where I had to start renting to be able to find work etc. then i'd have been stuffed as i'd probably barely have managed to save even a modest deposit by 30 if I was chucking half my income at rent instead of a savings account.
Fair and tbh with house price increase at this rate you’ll probably be onto 80%.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Yet I know folk that lost over £100k by buying a house and that's just the equity.
Also have you taken interest into account? Paying a mortgage isn't all capital.
It's not always a win/win situation.
I know someone who's just bought an expensive house in my area. I reckon he will be lucky to sell it for a profit even if it does rise as the amount of interest he will pay won't be cheap and his home is already at the top end of this locale.
If your house truly has went up £53k in a year yet it cost £300k then I'd like to see the figures on what it went up by for the previous 10 years as it's not going to be going up £50k every year. A one off and an exception that's if it's even true.
The valuation could be way out for all we know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Not seen the idea touted for ages but I love the idea of a cooperative group all building houses between them, obviously some skilled trades would help. Bit of a dream but I know in Wales they have very unusual law that allows a building to go ahead anywhere so long as its self sufficient and not required in services etc, including a local job I think. Cant swear thats still in action but generally high prices promotes alternatives, they have loosened some restrictions a bit recently.
Depends on the accounting. The biggest cost is going to be interest, you buy 1 house for yourself and 1 for the bank in the end. Write in the margin any Rent cost you would have paid if not for the house, its a working asset.
Depends on the accounting. The biggest cost is going to be interest, you buy 1 house for yourself and 1 for the bank in the end. Write in the margin any Rent cost you would have paid if not for the house, its a working asset.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
The government should build roads and utilities with the idea that people can buy plots of land and build houses. We need to make it easier to build.
Tell big landowners they have to sell more land.
Tell big landowners they have to sell more land.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/mortgage-has-risen-40pc-landlords-hit-banks-reevaluate-city/ - I think this was an interesting London house prices, and landlord portfolio - related article.
Just wait.. PCP's for houses will be along to 'save the day'..
In a way, in practice this is essentially what Interest Only mortgages are.
Car PCP - lower monthlies, get to the end, pay off the balloon or hand the car back
House IO Mortgage - lower monthlies, get to the end, pay off the capital or 'hand the house back'
Problem being if you don't own your own home when you retire you are stuffed. You can rent somewhere forever that's **** and save the rest. But you'll never have a nice a home as buying
I live in the Newport/Cardiff border.
My 3 bed detached was 260. It's not a big house. But when looking in the historic price for the area it's just shocking the gains
Well technically a House PCP is simply the existing Help to Buy scheme but broadened to more than first time buyers.
PCP's on cars are typically used to allow people to buy cars they could never afford.. an IO mortgage still requires you qualify financially for the entire house..
Obviously PCP's can in some cases work out reasonably well, but my experience of watching young couples being suckered in to base model prestige brands with horrific PCP deals just keeps prices high for the rest of us..
A good post in that it's not just the building of houses that is needed but everything associated with them.
Selling land doesn't really help because it's the councils who restrict where you can build and what you can build on it. I had a friend who had a house on a huge plot of land and wanted to build another house - everything would already be there (power, electric, etc). Naturally the council would not allow it because everyone would be doing this with land......but we should be encouraging it. Supply is a problem, so let a hundred thousand people build like this and ease some of the supply issues.
The scale of the shortage is just so big that anything other than a countrywide mobilisation effort in the scale of WW2 would be unable to make a meaningful difference. We need to build an extra 500,000 houses per year for the next 15 years (e.g. skyscrapers and cities from scratch), and then maybe, maybe, we'll have a reasonable housing supply for our population.
England's population density is similar to Japan's, yet our housing policies pretend like we're similar to Canada. Makes zero sense. And unlike Japan, our population is growing even more. We should see what Japan did to have 25 years of no housing price increases.
We should also be looking into land reclamation to give ourselves more land to build on. Northern European Enclosure Dam is an interesting opportunity that we may need to pursue.
Starting with letting people build, council approved, houses on decent land is a great start.
- The houses wouldn't put pressure on the local area as we are talking about a handful of houses dotted all around.
- Individual houses would be built by smaller companies and solo building firms rather than the big developers.
- The infrastructure is already there.
One of the biggest hindrances to new houses is council green belt rules - or whatever they are called. They exist for a reason but you have to bend a bit in times of great need.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
lol, you guyssssssss.
There is a nation-wide housing shortage and your proposal is to build a few, independently-built houses, on green belt?
You know how a Rolls-Royce differs to a Ford Fiesta, right? Volume...economies of scale...dealership location.
No one is digging a gas or sewer main for anything less than a entirely new estate.
There has been a housing shortage for years.....is the current method working? Why would you oppose anything that could alleviate this shortage?
You're thinking small scale. There are tens of thousands of people with enough land, money or access to money to build houses but they cannot because of planning. It could be a nice 3 bed detached, a few flats, whatever.
You're missing the point, these are all rounding errors compared to the scale of the problem, and will only distract from the real issue. We need an overhaul of the entire housing system.
We need to raise £100 billion a year, put 2 million people to work and built 500,000 houses every single year. The money can be raised by bringing property taxes inline with most of the developed world (average OECD property tax revenue per total country's property wealth is about 2%, UK is about 0.50%). People need to be trained, lands will need to be renationalised, industries will need to be reignited. Pre-fabrication and other elements from economies of scale need to be used.
This is not about empowering billionaires to do the right thing, time for that has passed. These motherfrackers have shown again and again that they won't do the right thing. We need the government to interfere, and take on the role of the builder of last resort.
No, YOU are thinking small scale. The real scale of the problem means it's outside of the market forces, there are no tens of thousands of benevolent billionaires sitting on land waiting to build them if only they're allowed. If these benevolent land owners were going to do the right thing, they'd have done it decades ago. God knows the entire government, local or national, is in the pockets of the landowner class.
These landowners who have kept the land away to create supply shortages will need their lands to be renationalised, built on by a non-profit government project, and sold to owner-occupied first-time buyers at zero margin (on conditions that capital gains are taxed at 100% above inflation, letting is not permitted, empty properties are heavily taxed, etc).
That doesn't make it a "fair market rate", that just means that's what everyone else is renting out similar properties for.
The problem is the rental market is in demand, which causes the price to go up. With an increasing population people either have to accept the cost of rentals or try and get a council/HA property (which are also in limited supply).
If the supply of rental properties outstripped demand (lets say by some miraculous miracle that the government could build 10 million houses in the next year) then all of a sudden there will be less people looking for rental properties, ergo there will be competition between landlords to secure tenants - and the only way of doing that realistically is by price - which will be a race to the bottom.
What a ridiculous attempt at a personal attack. I think I may have hit a nerve that you even remember that in such level of detail, please, take it easy on yourself.
Land reclamation comes at seas, and yes, you also need to build the high speed commute infrastructure to get these people where they will be most economically productive.
- Status