Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

How To Survive When Housing Costs So Much?


Recommended Posts

The govt has the power to undermine private rents. By buying up or building more housing stock , they can

a) cut the long term housing 'benefit' cost

cool.gif cause a lowering of rents through lack of tenant supply to BTL scum

What would happen to rents if HB was only 40 quid a week? Rents will drop. Rents drop so Joe has more disposable. Joes spends this disposable in the shops....god I'm a fekking genius! No, just common sense!

What disgusts me is hearing Brown shrug off housing as "somthing for the private sector". D1ckhead.

Actually the building cost of a 4 bedrooms, detached house, is less than £100,000.

And 1 acre of land here in West Sussex (enough for some 10 houses), costs less than £10,000 (yes, just about 1 grand per house). But a plot with planning permission goes up to more than £100k.

The main reason behind the high housing costs (and low quality/size) in Britain is our absurdly restrictive planning system, thanks to the political alliance between the NIMBYs [email protected] and the politician [email protected] - both local politicians and also the Labour government, that in 13 years in power didn't break these local [email protected]!

Most of us (out of London) could easily afford to have our own houses built (and designed to our own needs and taste), if these [email protected] just stopped blocking us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With my first salary after my post grad degree (conservatives in power) I could buy a house (and did) on three times salary. I probably was earning 1.5X average salary say 35k equivalent today. The house sold recently for over ten times the 35k so there is no way I could have bought that house today. I have a working class background and there was never a 'bank of mum and dad' but could buy under a tory government but would not have been able to under a labour government. So much fo the party of the working class.

Though politics (lack of credit controls) plays a part, timing in the cycle probably plays an equally big role. I graduated in 1988 and with my also-averagely-paid partner could not buy the cheapest 1-bed flat on the market in London (and that was cheaper S. London). Of course houses were cheap in 1983, but were unaffordable for most in the SE by 1988-9 before the tories delivered us their massive bust, plunging a generation into negative equity. This can buy under tories, not under labour generalisation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AuntJess

Though politics (lack of credit controls) plays a part, timing in the cycle probably plays an equally big role. I graduated in 1988 and with my also-averagely-paid partner could not buy the cheapest 1-bed flat on the market in London (and that was cheaper S. London). Of course houses were cheap in 1983, but were unaffordable for most in the SE by 1988-9 before the tories delivered us their massive bust, plunging a generation into negative equity. This can buy under tories, not under labour generalisation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny IMO.

The accusation that Maggie let all the social housing get bought off by the tenants - thus depriving future social housing renters - doesn't bear close inpection either.

It was a wonderful idea and in keeping with the independent streak that most Tories seek to engender in the populace.

When renters bought their own council house, they did so at a reduction, as the number of years they had paid rent there was taken into account. Thus working-class folks ended up owning their own house when they got bit better off as they got older and kids left home etc. Under the latest Labour govt. people who can't afford to buy have been forced into private, unregulated house lets, having to move on as their landlord decided to sell, or put up the rent. They will start from scratch when buying a new home.No reduction for the years of renting for them.

Maggie T selling off social housing was NOT the problem and it is typical of the obtuse Labourites to try and label it such. - Much like the school milk issue. No one bluddy drank it and it cost the taxpayer s fortune to end up being poured down the drain, but when she stopped it, it opened the door to a load a silly cat-calling about " snatching milk from the lips of children" and all that guff.dry.gif

The big problem is that since that time there has been precious little social housing built. Scandalous when you consider that almost 10 years ago, a property developer in the North West was buying up derelict houses, tickling them up and sitting back rubbing his hands together in glee, as he reckoned he would make a fortune out of immigrant/asylum seekers coming in, as the Govt. would pay top whack to rent them.

So the govt. of THAT day was happy to line the pockets of an individual business man, to house immigrants at the taxpayers expense,whilst dozens of low-wage, tax-paying Brits. had to pay rent in keeping with this high price.

Why was social housing not built for the latter in THIRTEEN years FFS? Surely long enough to get summat on the go for the low waged here.. that is unless you have a mission to " save the world" by robbing the very people who pay your wages. ph34r.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accusation that Maggie let all the social housing get bought off by the tenants - thus depriving future social housing renters - doesn't bear close inpection either.

It was a wonderful idea and in keeping with the independent streak that most Tories seek to engender in the populace.

When renters bought their own council house, they did so at a reduction, as the number of years they had paid rent there was taken into account. Thus working-class folks ended up owning their own house when they got bit better off as they got older and kids left home etc. Under the latest Labour govt. people who can't afford to buy have been forced into private, unregulated house lets, having to move on as their landlord decided to sell, or put up the rent. They will start from scratch when buying a new home.No reduction for the years of renting for them.

Maggie T selling off social housing was NOT the problem and it is typical of the obtuse Labourites to try and label it such. - Much like the school milk issue. No one bluddy drank it and it cost the taxpayer s fortune to end up being poured down the drain, but when she stopped it, it opened the door to a load a silly cat-calling about " snatching milk from the lips of children" and all that guff.dry.gif

The big problem is that since that time there has been precious little social housing built. Scandalous when you consider that almost 10 years ago, a property developer in the North West was buying up derelict houses, tickling them up and sitting back rubbing his hands together in glee, as he reckoned he would make a fortune out of immigrant/asylum seekers coming in, as the Govt. would pay top whack to rent them.

So the govt. of THAT day was happy to line the pockets of an individual business man, to house immigrants at the taxpayers expense,whilst dozens of low-wage, tax-paying Brits. had to pay rent in keeping with this high price.

Why was social housing not built for the latter in THIRTEEN years FFS? Surely long enough to get summat on the go for the low waged here.. that is unless you have a mission to " save the world" by robbing the very people who pay your wages. ph34r.gif

You contradict yourself in your own post.

You blame labour for not building social houses in the last 13 years , but not Maggie for selling them off in the years prior . Selling them is no different to not building any both deplete the stock for the next generation .

How many did the tories build during their 18 years in Downing Street ?

I don't blame anyone who got offered and bought a decent council house at a discount and if i had been offered one myself would have snapped it up . However i know a few who did and made shed loads of money . Even they say it was wrong but could not resist the bagain that was offered to them. One relative after years of cheap rent bought a house for £60,000 20 years later she sold for just under £500k . Great investment , Great for her but a family in the position that she was in 30 years ago , three kids and not a lot of money won't be getting cheap rent in a house like that any more .

Don't blame just Labour blame Maggie !!

Edited by miko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

£20k per annum is not a bad income. It is above the median income in Britain.

How do people make it work? They share an apartment, they do not do things like go on vacations, they enjoy public services like parks instead of things like football games, they don't buy much.

The media impression is that everyone makes £100k a year, but its sort of like in 1984 when the image the party put out of the nation was a lot different than reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£20k per annum is not a bad income. It is above the median income in Britain.

How do people make it work? They share an apartment, they do not do things like go on vacations, they enjoy public services like parks instead of things like football games, they don't buy much.

The media impression is that everyone makes £100k a year, but its sort of like in 1984 when the image the party put out of the nation was a lot different than reality.

£20k might be above the median income but in this very expensive country it is s--t.

I only survive on it as i own outright , when i had a mortgage i was earning more than twice that much and that was four years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can buy under tories, not under labour generalisation doesn't really stand up to scrutiny IMO.

Agreed, anybody still stuck in the "blues good, reds bad" mindset needs to wake up. The Tories proved themselves just as proficient at creating housing bubbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accusation that Maggie let all the social housing get bought off by the tenants - thus depriving future social housing renters - doesn't bear close inpection either.

It was a wonderful idea and in keeping with the independent streak that most Tories seek to engender in the populace.

When renters bought their own council house, they did so at a reduction, as the number of years they had paid rent there was taken into account. Thus working-class folks ended up owning their own house when they got bit better off as they got older and kids left home etc. Under the latest Labour govt. people who can't afford to buy have been forced into private, unregulated house lets, having to move on as their landlord decided to sell, or put up the rent. They will start from scratch when buying a new home.No reduction for the years of renting for them.

Maggie T selling off social housing was NOT the problem and it is typical of the obtuse Labourites to try and label it such. - Much like the school milk issue. No one bluddy drank it and it cost the taxpayer s fortune to end up being poured down the drain, but when she stopped it, it opened the door to a load a silly cat-calling about " snatching milk from the lips of children" and all that guff.dry.gif

The big problem is that since that time there has been precious little social housing built. Scandalous when you consider that almost 10 years ago, a property developer in the North West was buying up derelict houses, tickling them up and sitting back rubbing his hands together in glee, as he reckoned he would make a fortune out of immigrant/asylum seekers coming in, as the Govt. would pay top whack to rent them.

So the govt. of THAT day was happy to line the pockets of an individual business man, to house immigrants at the taxpayers expense,whilst dozens of low-wage, tax-paying Brits. had to pay rent in keeping with this high price.

Why was social housing not built for the latter in THIRTEEN years FFS? Surely long enough to get summat on the go for the low waged here.. that is unless you have a mission to " save the world" by robbing the very people who pay your wages. ph34r.gif

What she/major? stopped were bent westmister based parliamentarians and councilors buying up Westminster/Chelsea flats for themselves on the cheap!

As the poorer people were in more 'insecure' jobs and i'm sure the majority conned into I/O mortgages (coz they don't know any better) thousands of the houses ended up being repossessed and sold on to BTL which councils then rented from to house people with no home!

So loads of poor were just 'renting' off the banks on I/O's and money was flowing out of the community to pay BTL mortgages or into private individuals bank.

Council houses are a good thing, in that the rent money stays within the local community (keeping council taxes lower) and once the house is paid off it produces extra funds to keep taxes lower or buy more land/build more homes with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised that one of the nutters on here have not piped up with......just work bloody harder you fools.. :D because they are worth it..

As real estate owners their asset values rely on your hard work and dedication

keep it up, landless peasants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi worldwindow,

I read most posts here. I think you have 2 options. The best one, by far, if you can, is to emigrate, either permanently, or at least for a few years.

If you can't emigrate, then I think the only solution is to consider the next 2-4 years as an investment on the rest of your life.

Also, you should always keep an eye on better jobs, career, etc. You may be able to improve your earnings.

Good luck,

Thanks for the options, ToW - emigrating strikes me as a bit extreme!

It looks like I'll be in the market for a decent shared place - I just hope I can find one without having to share with party-loving 20-year olds....... It does strike me as odd that in my late thirties, I'm having to move in with random strangers. I can't get my head around it - is this what everyone else out there on £20k is doing? (apart from the benefits brigade, of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to go one of two ways - 50 year+ mortgages and flat shares forever.. or prices come down. I know what I'm hoping for.

For various reasons my girlfriend is out of work right now - not sure about in future. However this has got me thinking what chance I will ever have to get a place if I have to support her (and yes, she is more important than some property before some to$$er chips in) - it's really, REALLY grim. It's like life almost isn't worth living - I know that may sound extreme but on a decent wage as I am I still couldn't honestly get by and save for retirement, be it rent or mortgage - being a 'slave' isn't appealing. Already many put off families because of financial uncertainty - the whole situation is ridiculous and thoroughly depressing.

Flat share would be my idea of a nightmare. Guess I'm going to stay at home my entire life until prices come down - and if I save up enough, move abroad and buy there.

Edited by guitarman001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the options, ToW - emigrating strikes me as a bit extreme!

It looks like I'll be in the market for a decent shared place - I just hope I can find one without having to share with party-loving 20-year olds....... It does strike me as odd that in my late thirties, I'm having to move in with random strangers. I can't get my head around it - is this what everyone else out there on £20k is doing? (apart from the benefits brigade, of course)

I think I can safely say I was in your position 10 years ago, thirty something and shared a flat when I got a job that ironically took me off benefits and I could no longer 'afford' my 1 bedroomed rented flat.

Anyway, this is what I did. I harvested every Housing Association/Social Housing address I possibly could, and mail merged them all a real letter (as opposed to an email) briefly describing my circumstances and how I would be a model tenant etc etc if they would consider me for housing.

As you can imagine, I got quite a few 'Dear John's' and some amusing ones too (I wasn't a Polish war widow or I wasn't a Student Nurse etc) and after 18 months, I got an offer from a HA that had kept my letter on file. The flat they 'gave' me was in a very very dated way and just habitable and was originally signed on an AST. During the first year, I tarted the flat up a bit and the HA then gave me a Assured Tenancy. Since then, I have really brought the place up in standard, laid a lawn etc and the HA are now in the process of re-wiring and fitting new double glazing.

I've been lucky, I'm the first to admit it. Try it, you might be lucky too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flat share would be my idea of a nightmare.

It's not so bad really, a bit like relationships in that sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I've been living in shared houses for nearly 6 years now and am very happy in the current one. I can understand why it might start to get to people once they get past 30 though, by that point you have probably lived with dozens of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he doesn't want to be a scrounger.

Why not? Hard work and reward are no longer related. Life isn't fair. For many it is sensible to swallow your pride and just give in, live on the dole. You won't starve. What's so noble and good about ruining your life in a soul sucking job you hate eating away at the best years of your only life so you have the privilege of returing home to a slave box every night for a tin of beans?

Work away making the company owner richer and pay the landlords mortgage for them, or have a similar lifestyle for free? We've been shown the way by our political masters and our landlords, work is not the answer. There is a level at which workers are mugs.

Exploit, be exploited, or opt out. This is the choice for most today.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I began work at a factory in Newton Aycliffe in 1990. I was shocked to find that the shop floor staff were often earning £15k plus (at the time, a kings ransom, and vastly more than my apprenticeship was paying) with team leaders etc. on considerably more again. At this time a house in the area could be had for sub £10K - in fact at £10K you would have had a wide choice of places - not necessarily in everybody's idea of a nice location but probably just the type of area that you had grown up in.

Fast forward 20 years and the same jobs are mainly done by immigrant labour on agency contracts - I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they pay less now in actual terms, let alone real terms, than they did then. Meanwhile the same houses are now £80K - £100K, softening from a peak a few years back where you would have got nothing for under £100K. And these places haven't improved significantly in the intervening years, in fact in terms of petty crime, "anti social behaviour" etc. probably quite the opposite!

Still, that's 13 years of Labour government for you. And in Tony Blair's own constituency as well. No doubt he's proud of his "achievements".

eight

Snap.My first job was in Newton Aycliffe and i was earning 14k in 92.Bought a real nice terrace for 27k put 4k down.That same job like you said still pays 14k and is all agency immigrant labour.That house i had then sold last year for 97k,i sold it in 96 for 29k.Back then 50k so 3 times factory wages would of bought you a lovely 3 bed semi in the best areas. now with the wages the same in all but the very best factories it wouldnt buy you the worst house in the worst street.

The last 13 years have been a disaster for working class people,and middle class even.To think the house im in now (luckily paid for) i could afford easy at 26 but now at 38 wouldnt be able to afford unless it was half the price.

I have 3 kids and will be very glad if/when its value comes down 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Hard work and reward are no longer related. Life isn't fair. For many it is sensible to swallow your pride and just give in, live on the dole. You won't starve. What's so noble and good about ruining your life in a soul sucking job you hate eating away at the best years of your only life so you have the privilege of returing home to a slave box every night for a tin of beans?

Work away making the company owner richer and pay the landlords mortgage for them, or have a similar lifestyle for free? We've been shown the way by our political masters and our landlords, work is not the answer. There is a level at which workers are mugs.

Exploit, be exploited, or opt out. This is the choice for most today.

:D

Why not? Just one of the many reasons: You will have to lie and hide whilst you do it. Or are you as frank about your scrounging with your tax-paying friends and relatives? If you are, you will not have them around for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the options, ToW - emigrating strikes me as a bit extreme!

It looks like I'll be in the market for a decent shared place - I just hope I can find one without having to share with party-loving 20-year olds....... It does strike me as odd that in my late thirties, I'm having to move in with random strangers. I can't get my head around it - is this what everyone else out there on £20k is doing? (apart from the benefits brigade, of course)

Just an idea. About the sharing, have you consider being the "main tenant"? I mean, if you have some capital, for the deposit, and some "management skills", couldn't you be the person renting the whole house from a landlord, and then choosing the sharing "sub-tenants", or lodgers like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to go one of two ways - 50 year+ mortgages and flat shares forever.. or prices come down. I know what I'm hoping for.

For various reasons my girlfriend is out of work right now - not sure about in future. However this has got me thinking what chance I will ever have to get a place if I have to support her (and yes, she is more important than some property before some to$$er chips in) - it's really, REALLY grim. It's like life almost isn't worth living - I know that may sound extreme but on a decent wage as I am I still couldn't honestly get by and save for retirement, be it rent or mortgage - being a 'slave' isn't appealing. Already many put off families because of financial uncertainty - the whole situation is ridiculous and thoroughly depressing.

Flat share would be my idea of a nightmare. Guess I'm going to stay at home my entire life until prices come down - and if I save up enough, move abroad and buy there.

Before the housing mamarket crashed in the 1980s the newspapers were talking up lifetime mortgages and saying that property prices would continue to rise etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Just one of the many reasons: You will have to lie and hide whilst you do it. Or are you as frank about your scrounging with your tax-paying friends and relatives? If you are, you will not have them around for too long.

Im not speaking for myself, personally I am lucky and make enough to live a reasonable lifestyle. Not enough to buy comfortably, of course not I haven't won the lottery, but enough to be spending approx 1k a month rent.

But I do not look down on those that have made a sensible choice given the alternatives. Scroungers are given a bad press but in most of their situations they have simply made a rational choice letting their heads rule their hearts. Pride won't help them. They are a predictable consequence of the madness of the last 12 years.

You'd rather they were stuck in pointless office jobs? how much actual wealth is being created in these jobs? There's no contribution to society in most paid jobs, indeed 'working' in most of the public sector is a more severe form of 'scrounging' in my view, pointless non-jobs contribute just as little to society as someone out of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not speaking for myself, personally I am lucky and make enough to live a reasonable lifestyle. Not enough to buy comfortably, of course not I haven't won the lottery, but enough to be spending approx 1k a month rent.

But I do not look down on those that have made a sensible choice given the alternatives. Scroungers are given a bad press but in most of their situations they have simply made a rational choice letting their heads rule their hearts. Pride won't help them. They are a predictable consequence of the madness of the last 12 years.

You'd rather they were stuck in pointless office jobs? how much actual wealth is being created in these jobs? There's no contribution to society in most paid jobs, indeed 'working' in most of the public sector is a more severe form of 'scrounging' in my view, pointless non-jobs contribute just as little to society as someone out of work.

Unemployment benefit exists as a temporary help, whilst the workers is honestly unable to find a job - any job. It does not exist as an option for those that can work but decide not to. These people are cheating the system, and stealing from tax-payers. They are thieves.

Scrounging is as "rational" as burgling.

All (real) tax-payers hate them, as they are stealing our money. This money should go to better causes, or stay in our own pockets. And this is obvious, to all real tax-payers.

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.