House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k

[NVP]

Everyone loves to blame the landlords, however before the markets crashed the homeownership rate in the UK was 74% - a record high. Property was already "out of reach" of those still moaning today.

Just because the landlord can afford to buy it but you cannot does not mean it is the landlords fault.

Property values rise and fall with demand. Demand increases based on infrastructure and opportunity, if you're getting pushed out of your area due to rising prices you either use that as motivation to work your way up to your aspiration, or move to a location where you're happy.

You don't moan and cry and blame someone else for simply living their own life.

We are not in the animal kingdom anymore, survival of the fittest turned into survival of the richest - either way the motivated and/or intelligent triumph.

Modern times provide much more help to the lazy which unfortunately allows them to breed perpetually within their cycle, but that is a great benefit if you live in the UK as you can get housing for free if circumstances warrant - moaning that you can't afford to buy the nice house over there in the nice area stinks of privilege.

 

[Kill_Phil]

Nice supremisit view there @NVP

So we should shoehorn all the poor/not well off people into deprived areas where there's cheap housing?

 

[Freakbro]

So we should shoehorn all the poor/not well off people into deprived areas where there's cheap housing?

We do that already?

Or should I say, a natural consequence of being poor tends to make that happen

 

[413x]

The house I have was nearly lost to a cash buyer.

Weirdly. The buyer thought they were a cash buyer when they weren't.
They would have even got it cheaper than us. Just because less chance of it falling through for the owners.


I do think FTB should consider moving if buying a house is thier number one ambition. It's not great. But it is a solution.

 

[builder22]

can't really imagine what it would be like if you had to move far away from where you were born/brought up to be able to afford to buy a house, I was lucky I only had to move 3 miles
I suppose some people would rather rent in the area they want to stay in rather than buy somewhere further away

 

[Kill_Phil]

We do that already?

Or should I say, a natural consequence of being poor tends to make that happen

And that's the issue. We need to be build/ring-fence more social and affordable housing for those on low incomes. Simply calling these people lazy and saying they should work harder to get promotions is simply ignorant.

 

[NVP]

Nice supremisit view there @NVP

So we should shoehorn all the poor/not well off people into deprived areas where there's cheap housing?

It is not a supreme perspective, it is facilitation for non-stagnant life. Should we all prevent areas from becoming affluent simply because some people maybe become priced out? Why should the local community suffer as a whole? It will not remain a local issue either as in-turn it will impact the wider community preventing both social and financial prosperity of the larger area.

 

[Kill_Phil]

It is not a supreme perspective, it is facilitation for non-stagnant life. Should we all prevent areas from becoming affluent simply because some people maybe become priced out? Why should the local community suffer as a whole? It will not remain a local issue either as in-turn it will impact the wider community preventing both social and financial prosperity of the larger area.

We need to be thinking long term here. As above more social and affordable housing needs to be built for those on low income. Social integration is key if we want to progress as a society. Slums and ghettos are not good for anyone

 

[NVP]

We need to be thinking long term here. As above more social and affordable housing needs to be built for those on low income. Social integration is key if we want to progress as a society. Slums and ghettos are not good for anyone

Yes, I agree regarding social integration - that alone could have such a positive impact on our society in the long term if all aspects of the social integration are facilitated, not simply the location and price.

However look at any major city - you have nice areas and crud areas where the income defines the residents - integrated affordable social housing has existed to some extent for quite some time now but unfortunately they became those crud areas the "privileged" do not wish to move to show that a socially integrated eutopia needs a hell of a lot more than simply "more affordable housing".

 

[FoxEye]

It is not a supreme perspective, it is facilitation for non-stagnant life. Should we all prevent areas from becoming affluent simply because some people maybe become priced out? Why should the local community suffer as a whole? It will not remain a local issue either as in-turn it will impact the wider community preventing both social and financial prosperity of the larger area.

Should we prevent wealth flowing from the poorest to the richest in society? A lot of economists today say, "Yes." The current situation is untenable long term.

What you see as "survival of the richest" is already triggering alarm bells for those not completely blinkered or benefiting directly from the status quo.

 

[NVP]

Should we prevent wealth flowing from the poorest to the richest in society? A lot of economists today say, "Yes." The current situation is untenable long term.

Equality in outcome prevents advancement, equality of opportunity be the intended goal.

What you see as "survival of the richest" is already triggering alarm bells for those not completely blinkered or benefiting directly from the status quo.

Please do explain.

 

[FoxEye]

Equality in outcome prevents advancement, equality of opportunity be the intended goal.

We don't have equality of outcome nor do we have equality of opportunity atm. Those with portfolios find it easier to add another house to their collection then a FTB. And the houses many of the more exploitative BTL landlords target are the ones the FTB would be going for.

So the FTB finds it harder and harder by degrees. That isn't to say, "FTB can't out-compete BTL landlords," just that each year it becomes possible for less and less people. The % of renters goes up and up. The average age of FTB goes up and up. The amount of property in the hands of BTL goes up and up. These are trends visible to all.

Today people defend the situation by saying, "You can still get on the ladder even if it's harder than it was." In the next 5 years it might well be, "You can still get on the ladder so long as you're in the top 40% of earners or you buy a cardboard box in an area with no jobs." Then after that, "You can still get on the ladder so long as you're in the top 35% or your daddy is a BTL mogul." Trends.

Please do explain.

Various think tanks and economists say the current situation, the growing wealth divide, the inequality is bad for our collective prosperity, even in terms of GDP. It's hugely inefficient. And as a trend it is not sustainable. People are even worried about the complete breakdown of society in the near future, driven by growing inequality.

The people who say, "It's fine, everything is fine," are just happy with the status quo as they are doing well, thanks very much.

 

[Stu999]

Just because the landlord can afford to buy it but you cannot does not mean it is the landlords fault.

You don't moan and cry and blame someone else for simply living their own life.

We are not in the animal kingdom anymore, survival of the fittest turned into survival of the richest - either way the motivated and/or intelligent triumph.

Modern times provide much more help to the lazy which unfortunately allows them to breed perpetually within their cycle

It is the fault of the credit rules which landlords are more than happy to take advantage of. You can get funding for a BTL easily so long as the rent will cover the mortgage. You can't use that as a private buyer. Therefore landlords have a competitive advantage over potential owner-occupiers, especially at the low end of the market. Landlords also have tax advantages although they are thankfully being eroded.

Landlord or aspiring landlord by any chance?

 

[Russinating]

We bought our first house off a guy who had lived there for 20 years, used to work on the railways, and he sold up for 1,250% after realising how much it was worth and deciding to capitalise and move to another area.

Unless you place restrictions on selling/buying, or cap prices, how can you even ensure that affordable housing remains affordable? Especially if built in decent areas to bridge inequality.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

People saying there should be a limit or outright banning of owning more than 1 property.

Show me 1 other country that has done this?

Property prices are crazy expensive in parts of America too like LA.

There will always be poor people and rich people.

Unfortunately with advancements in technology, transportation it's now easier for the rich and big corporations to make more money.

You are all complaining about landlords however there would be a lot more jobs and a wealth share in this country if you got rid of massive retailers like Amazon. You could also say supermarkets should be limited to X number of stores too.

The bigger a company is the more efficiently it can run to the point it employs far less people than if there were several smaller competing companies. It can then also force employees to work for buttons. Amazon now even has its own parcel delivery service with a fleet of "self employed" drivers earning slave labour wages.

It's survival of the richest in every which way. The owner of Amazon makes so much money he could buy a whole street in London every day and it wouldn't even be noticeable.

That's proper wealth divide not landlords.

Problem is people buy whatever is cheapest and that is offered by the biggest of companies who doesn't really need your business in the first place.

The real problem is those that earned the average wage in the UK have seen all their wage rises go disproportionately to those on minimum wage because of the law.

As in a company budgets X amount per year but minimum wage has went up a large percentage therefore more of X goes towards them and less is left for the people who are 1-2 levels above them. The people 3-5 levels above make decent enough money that losing a bit of their rise doesn't make any real difference to them.

Wages is the real issue here. Not landlords.

Say you are born into a wealthy family business in a wealthy area. However when you turn 18 that family business goes bust because it cannot compete any longer due to the big boys. So you are used to living in a certain area where the houses are really expensive. But you are working a minimum wage job or average wage job as you never tried hard because your family had money whilst growing up. Does that mean that the government should build cheap houses for you in this affluent area? However someone else who came from a poor background worked hard and became a surgeon has to pay top dollar to buy in the same area?

That's literally what some people are asking.

I grew up in this area, my friends and family are here but I can't afford to buy here.

So go buy somewhere else.

Should we prevent wealth flowing from the poorest to the richest in society? A lot of economists today say, "Yes." The current situation is untenable long term.

What you see as "survival of the richest" is already triggering alarm bells for those not completely blinkered or benefiting directly from the status quo.

So what's the bigger problem in your eyes?

Amazon and companies like Amazon or landlords?

I'm not saying do you think they are both problems but which you reckon is the bigger problem?

Bare in mind Amazon has pretty much killed the high street, all small book stores and large ones too, has its own delivery fleet and pays below minimum wage because workers are "self employed". It's owner makes more money in an hour than a landlord makes in a lifetime.

 

[Stu999]

We bought our first house off a guy who had lived there for 20 years, used to work on the railways, and he sold up for 1,250% after realising how much it was worth and deciding to capitalise and move to another area.

Unless you place restrictions on selling/buying, or cap prices, how can you even ensure that affordable housing remains affordable? Especially if built in decent areas to bridge inequality.

Tighten credit availability - this has happened to some extent with the MMR but it can't stop those instances like you mention where people get inflation of value over time. Stricter rules around BTL would help a lot too.

 

[NVP]

Landlord or aspiring landlord by any chance?

Tycoon.

It is the fault of the credit rules which landlords are more than happy to take advantage of. You can get funding for a BTL easily so long as the rent will cover the mortgage. You can't use that as a private buyer. Therefore landlords have a competitive advantage over potential owner-occupiers, especially at the low end of the market. Landlords also have tax advantages although they are thankfully being eroded.

"You can get funding for a BTL easily" - you mean a mortgage, yes?

The issue is the landlord can easily cover the mortgage but the potential private buyer cannot, meaning the house price is too great for that potential buyer or they do not have a sufficient deposit. BTL mortgages are more expensive than residential mortgages, by a significant margin.

We don't have equality of outcome nor do we have equality of opportunity atm. Those with portfolios find it easier to add another house to their collection then a FTB. And the houses many of the more exploitative BTL landlords target are the ones the FTB would be going for.

lol those with more money find it easier to purchase expensive things - shocking that.

So the FTB finds it harder and harder by degrees. That isn't to say, "FTB can't out-compete BTL landlords," just that each year it becomes possible for less and less people. The % of renters goes up and up. The average age of FTB goes up and up. The amount of property in the hands of BTL goes up and up. These are trends visible to all.

Yes, but to blame these trends on landlords is ridiculous. Society is ever-changing, there are a multitude of reasons the % of renters is increasing (inflation, immigration, also you know... economic collapse etc.)

Today people defend the situation by saying, "You can still get on the ladder even if it's harder than it was." In the next 5 years it might well be, "You can still get on the ladder so long as you're in the top 40% of earners or you buy a cardboard box in an area with no jobs." Then after that, "You can still get on the ladder so long as you're in the top 35% or your daddy is a BTL mogul." Trends.

What people actually say is you can get on the ladder if you have enough deposit and wish to purchase a house you can afford to pay the monthly mortgage for.

Various think tanks and economists say the current situation, the growing wealth divide, the inequality is bad for our collective prosperity, even in terms of GDP. It's hugely inefficient. And as a trend it is not sustainable. People are even worried about the complete breakdown of society in the near future, driven by growing inequality.

The people who say, "It's fine, everything is fine," are just happy with the status quo as they are doing well, thanks very much.

Yes, this has been one of the many issues with consumerism from the start - but, you know... those bloody landlords!!

 

[FoxEye]

lol those with more money find it easier to purchase expensive things - shocking that.

A house is essential, unlike a 70" widescreen TV or a Rembrandt on your walls. I don't begrudge the wealthy their yachts, their holidays abroad or their Ferraris. I'm not missing out when they buy those things.

With housing, there is severely constrained supply (in areas with jobs).

By buying up the housing stock to add to their portfolios, BTL landlords know exactly what they are doing. You know what you are doing, and it's pointless to pretend otherwise.

 

[NVP]

You can get a house for free if you don't want to work for it, this is the UK not India.

If you can't afford to live near your office you sacrifice until you can afford it, if you need to work harder also to do that then thats a choice we can also make.

Moaning does nothing.


There are issues with housing and prices in this country, but they are not the fault of landlords.

 

[moon man]

can't really imagine what it would be like if you had to move far away from where you were born/brought up to be able to afford to buy a house, I was lucky I only had to move 3 miles
I suppose some people would rather rent in the area they want to stay in rather than buy somewhere further away

Yeh it's hell ,would much rather be going down Dewsbury market than Polzeath today

http://www.johnbray.co.uk/webcams/webcam-polzeath.html