The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

The crazy rise in housing prices has made it almost impossible for first-time buyers; young married couples, single people etc, to buy property. I read an article a few weeks back where more young folks, males particularly, are moving back with their parents beacause they just can't afford to even rent places. Houses in my own area are no longer sale-only, lots of them are now rented properties where families never seem to stay very long. I had a Polish couple next door a few months back who were a decent family with kids and the guy working. They only lasted about three months then had to find somewhere cheaper. Unless prices come down, which isn't very likely, pretty soon nobody will be able to pay their mortgages off in their lifetimes.

A while back, my grandson moved into a decent flat with a mate who then became redundant and he had to move back in with his dad because he couldn't carry the rent on his own. Luckily, he's in a steady relationsip and they're both working, so now they rent together. If the relationhip should end, he, like thosands of others, will be back to square one. Not a very encouraging prospect for the future of youth.

I agree TD. And its a major problem of the model in our country of "earning a property".

In some other countries renting is FAR more prevalent than home-owning and as such it drives the cost of the rental market down meaning that people can afford to rent on their own if required. In reality a lifetime mortgage IS effectively the same as renting.

The trend for "trading up" hasn't helped either, whereas rather than buying a house and working hard to pay off your mortgage folk are now encouraged to knock a wall through, make a big fook off open space then sell it for 20% more than you bought it to some unsuspecting saps.

[BWFC_Insane]

The crazy rise in housing prices has made it almost impossible for first-time buyers; young married couples, single people etc, to buy property. I read an article a few weeks back where more young folks, males particularly, are moving back with their parents beacause they just can't afford to even rent places. Houses in my own area are no longer sale-only, lots of them are now rented properties where families never seem to stay very long. I had a Polish couple next door a few months back who were a decent family with kids and the guy working. They only lasted about three months then had to find somewhere cheaper. Unless prices come down, which isn't very likely, pretty soon nobody will be able to pay their mortgages off in their lifetimes.

A while back, my grandson moved into a decent flat with a mate who then became redundant and he had to move back in with his dad because he couldn't carry the rent on his own. Luckily, he's in a steady relationsip and they're both working, so now they rent together. If the relationhip should end, he, like thosands of others, will be back to square one. Not a very encouraging prospect for the future of youth.

I agree TD. And its a major problem of the model in our country of "earning a property".

In some other countries renting is FAR more prevalent than home-owning and as such it drives the cost of the rental market down meaning that people can afford to rent on their own if required. In reality a lifetime mortgage IS effectively the same as renting.

The trend for "trading up" hasn't helped either, whereas rather than buying a house and working hard to pay off your mortgage folk are now encouraged to knock a wall through, make a big fook off open space then sell it for 20% more than you bought it to some unsuspecting saps.

With the minor exception that you don't get to keep the house at the end of the rental period. All you've done is pay someone else's mortgage. I'll stick with the ownership ta.

Yes IF you've paid the mortgage off. But when you die what does it matter to you?

It only matters because there is an expectation you have a house to leave to your relatives/sell etc as you see fit.

I think our system is fine when house prices don't rocket but when they do you end up with a lot of first time buyers defaulting as they've bought an entry level property they can ill afford.

Added into the fact that everyone now is an "amateur developer" looking to make a profit rather than stay in a house long term.

[superjohnmcginlay]

The crazy rise in housing prices has made it almost impossible for first-time buyers; young married couples, single people etc, to buy property. I read an article a few weeks back where more young folks, males particularly, are moving back with their parents beacause they just can't afford to even rent places. Houses in my own area are no longer sale-only, lots of them are now rented properties where families never seem to stay very long. I had a Polish couple next door a few months back who were a decent family with kids and the guy working. They only lasted about three months then had to find somewhere cheaper. Unless prices come down, which isn't very likely, pretty soon nobody will be able to pay their mortgages off in their lifetimes.

A while back, my grandson moved into a decent flat with a mate who then became redundant and he had to move back in with his dad because he couldn't carry the rent on his own. Luckily, he's in a steady relationsip and they're both working, so now they rent together. If the relationhip should end, he, like thosands of others, will be back to square one. Not a very encouraging prospect for the future of youth.

I agree TD. And its a major problem of the model in our country of "earning a property".

In some other countries renting is FAR more prevalent than home-owning and as such it drives the cost of the rental market down meaning that people can afford to rent on their own if required. In reality a lifetime mortgage IS effectively the same as renting.

The trend for "trading up" hasn't helped either, whereas rather than buying a house and working hard to pay off your mortgage folk are now encouraged to knock a wall through, make a big fook off open space then sell it for 20% more than you bought it to some unsuspecting saps.

With the minor exception that you don't get to keep the house at the end of the rental period. All you've done is pay someone else's mortgage. I'll stick with the ownership ta.

Yes IF you've paid the mortgage off. But when you die what does it matter to you?

It only matters because there is an expectation you have a house to leave to your relatives/sell etc as you see fit.

I think our system is fine when house prices don't rocket but when they do you end up with a lot of first time buyers defaulting as they've bought an entry level property they can ill afford.

Added into the fact that everyone now is an "amateur developer" looking to make a profit rather than stay in a house long term.

Don't disagree with the first time buyer bit.

Expectation? Not sure about that. I just want the cash to fritter away as I see fit. If I rent I don't have the cash at the end to piss away, someone other bastard does. I'm not having that.

[TANGODANCER]

In reality, a lifetime mortgage IS effectively the same as renting

Except that at the end you'll own nothing and could be out on your ear and homeless for not paying your rent. At least a mortgage gives you something. I'll give you an example of how things have changed in thirty years:

I bought my house that long ago, and needed couple of grand I didn't have as a deposit. I got the seller to agree to raise the purchase price by that amount, then borrowed it from my brother on proviso the seller would refund it when paid by the mortgage company. I then returned the two grand and all was sorted. The seller got their asking price and nobody was out of pocket. Okay, it got added on to me at the end, but at least it enabled me to buy the property. These days you'd need to find somebody with twenty five grand to lend on a one-hundred-thousand pound property alone. People of that category are a bitt hin on the gound. The principle is great, the amount makes it a non-starter. The "good old days" get laughed at, but they weren't bad in lots of ways.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't know how long ago you bought your house, Tango, but two grand back then could well be the equivalent of twenty-five grand now. It was certainly more than a year's salary when I started work, while twenty-five is considerably less..

[TANGODANCER]

I don't know how long ago you bought your house, Tango, but two grand back then could well be the equivalent of twenty-five grand now. It was certainly more than a year's salary when I started work, while twenty-five is considerably less..

I hope you're talking dollars and not pounds Monty, because I'll bet there are a few on here on much less than that. ( I stated thirty years ago)

[Athers]

I rent on my own and there is absolutely no way at my age (mid 20s) and working a not poorly paid job that I can have enough money for a deposit on a place any time in the foreseeable future, or even enough for half of one. The only way to do that would be to move back in with my parents and eat off their table for a few years, which ain't happening.

Even saving £2000 a year won't go far when you need £30k for a deposit.

Any young people buying houses these days must be getting a lot of help from their parents, that's the only way I can see it being possible.

[Gary the Enfield]

I rent on my own and there is absolutely no way at my age (mid 20s) and working a not poorly paid job that I can have enough money for a deposit on a place any time in the foreseeable future, or even enough for half of one. The only way to do that would be to move back in with my parents and eat off their table for a few years, which ain't happening.

Even saving £2000 a year won't go far when you need £30k for a deposit.

Any young people buying houses these days must be getting a lot of help from their parents, that's the only way I can see it being possible.

There are ways:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndComm ... DG_4001347

[Athers]

Interesting actually.. thanks

[Gary the Enfield]

Interesting actually.. thanks

De nada.

[TANGODANCER]

Interesting actually.. thanks

De nada.

Or " No hay de que" if you've got your flat hat on. (not n intentional pun).

[Prufrock]

I rent on my own and there is absolutely no way at my age (mid 20s) and working a not poorly paid job that I can have enough money for a deposit on a place any time in the foreseeable future, or even enough for half of one. The only way to do that would be to move back in with my parents and eat off their table for a few years, which ain't happening.

Even saving £2000 a year won't go far when you need £30k for a deposit.

Any young people buying houses these days must be getting a lot of help from their parents, that's the only way I can see it being possible.

Indeed. Not a fecking chance of me owning a house anytime soon. I don't mind renting though, as said in Europe far more people rent than here. There are the negatives, not having anything to show at the end, but you have more freedom. If you get a job offer it is easier to just go, you are less tied down. Obviously I think everyone aspires for the family and own house one day, but for now I'm far more bothered about getting a flaming job, paying of my loan, and hoarding cheap cider.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't know how long ago you bought your house, Tango, but two grand back then could well be the equivalent of twenty-five grand now. It was certainly more than a year's salary when I started work, while twenty-five is considerably less..

I hope you're talking dollars and not pounds Monty, because I'll bet there are a few on here on much less than that. ( I stated thirty years ago)

Sorry, missed the thirty years. Well, without going into my salary, I was probably talking dollars (although with 43 years service, promotions, etc. my salary is now over 23 times what it was when I started). However, I have just called up a UK inflation calculator. It tells me 25,000 today was worth 5458.52 thirty years earlier (1978-2008), and about 2000 in 1970. So two grand was not the equivalent of 25 grand thirty years ago.

[TANGODANCER]

I don't know how long ago you bought your house, Tango, but two grand back then could well be the equivalent of twenty-five grand now. It was certainly more than a year's salary when I started work, while twenty-five is considerably less..

I hope you're talking dollars and not pounds Monty, because I'll bet there are a few on here on much less than that. ( I stated thirty years ago)

Sorry, missed the thirty years. Well, without going into my salary, I was probably talking dollars (although with 43 years service, promotions, etc. my salary is now over 23 times what it was when I started). However, I have just called up a UK inflation calculator. It tells me 25,000 today was worth 5458.52 thirty years earlier (1978-2008), and about 2000 in 1970. So two grand was not the equivalent of 25 grand thirty years ago.

No, but 25% of a hundred grand is what you have to find as a deposit, or so I believe was quoted earlier in the thread.

[Worthy4England]

Yes IF you've paid the mortgage off. But when you die what does it matter to you?

It only matters because there is an expectation you have a house to leave to your relatives/sell etc as you see fit.

I think our system is fine when house prices don't rocket but when they do you end up with a lot of first time buyers defaulting as they've bought an entry level property they can ill afford.

Added into the fact that everyone now is an "amateur developer" looking to make a profit rather than stay in a house long term.

Not entirely true, you can take the capital increase of the property above (assuming you're not in negative equity) the level of your mortgage, and you've probably collected a tidy sum tied up in the equity.

Not going to get that renting are you? Landlord is the beneficiary...

[BWFC_Insane]

Yes IF you've paid the mortgage off. But when you die what does it matter to you?

It only matters because there is an expectation you have a house to leave to your relatives/sell etc as you see fit.

I think our system is fine when house prices don't rocket but when they do you end up with a lot of first time buyers defaulting as they've bought an entry level property they can ill afford.

Added into the fact that everyone now is an "amateur developer" looking to make a profit rather than stay in a house long term.

Not entirely true, you can take the capital increase of the property above (assuming you're not in negative equity) the level of your mortgage, and you've probably collected a tidy sum tied up in the equity.

Not going to get that renting are you? Landlord is the beneficiary...

Yes you can IF of course you're not in negative equity as you say.

BUT that bothers us more in the UK than elsewhere. If you could rent for half the price of paying off your mortgage (which is often the case and would be in a more rental oriented system) you could probably save the same money anyways!

[Worthy4England]

Yes IF you've paid the mortgage off. But when you die what does it matter to you?

It only matters because there is an expectation you have a house to leave to your relatives/sell etc as you see fit.

I think our system is fine when house prices don't rocket but when they do you end up with a lot of first time buyers defaulting as they've bought an entry level property they can ill afford.

Added into the fact that everyone now is an "amateur developer" looking to make a profit rather than stay in a house long term.

Not entirely true, you can take the capital increase of the property above (assuming you're not in negative equity) the level of your mortgage, and you've probably collected a tidy sum tied up in the equity.

Not going to get that renting are you? Landlord is the beneficiary...

Yes you can IF of course you're not in negative equity as you say.

BUT that bothers us more in the UK than elsewhere. If you could rent for half the price of paying off your mortgage (which is often the case and would be in a more rental oriented system) you could probably save the same money anyways!

Surely, like any other investment purchase, you probably want to weigh up when you're buying your house. We rented (many years ago) until we felt the market was dropping rather than rising constantly (smug bastard).

I don't believe you save the money by renting at half the price, because generally, you don't have twice the amount to lock up in any investments - you tend to pitch your rent around what's affordable, rather than half of what's affordable.

[Hoboh]

The trick is buy, work out when you get older roughly how long you reasonably expect to still breathe and when the sums are right release the capital by selling, rent and enjoy your old age. Any cash left when you snuff it can be left to who ever

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So, did anyone watch 'Ask the Chancellors' last night? I manage to find it on YouTube, seeeing as Channel 4 hadn't been bothered to upload it late last night.

If you didn't, you didn't miss much - there was no clear victory or 'Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy moment'. Actually, all 3 came across quite well, I thought.

People will say that Vince Cable fared best, and I suppose this is inevitable given the fact he is much more personally likeable. His reputation as some sort of economic prophet is largely undeserved, as Andrew Neil, a much tougher opponent, managed to demonstrate towards the end of last year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 9_09_2009/), but one of the luxuries of being in the middle with no history of being in office and no future there either is that he can sound very frank about everything without really being tested (certainly Osborne didn't seem to think that there was much capital to be made in attempting to duff up everyone's favourite affable grandad). Darling made good use of Cable, either to associate himself with some of his popularity, or to gang up on Osborne as the less experienced candidate. Osborne, to his credit, was always calm and collected under fire.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Missed it. Was anything useful said? Or was it like a playground argument similar to the commons?