Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
gruffydd

Riots, Fire, Anger At Tuition Fees Protest (,house Prices,)

Recommended Posts

Yes that's very funny. Well done. You have scored a point.

[As you can see, I edited my spelling prior to you pointing it out.] Unlike your goodself/

Still does not explain the rather condescending tone. Are you better than us?

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan....I'm just having fun with ya... :lol:

The question is, would you actually like to know the reasoning behind the post in question or is this forum just a self-pleasuring activty for you? In which case, I suppose I can see why you might object if someone was to interrupt your little w*nkathon.

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDS said in Parliament a few weeks ago that his department pays for 40% of the rental market.

Indeed.

Some still refuse to join the dots.

Why bother working to pay rent, when you can sit on your ar5e all day and let the tax payer instead?

Work has to be made to pay, and part of that, comes with the not too unreasonable hope of one day being able to buy a modest home of your own. People need to work for something more than lining their BTL landlord's pockets.

The more people rent, ther higher rents will be. If IDS wants to really make work pay, the cost of living and housing needs to come crashing down. That will help the state to make work pay, as opposed to the state simply funding BTL empires by proxy.

Edited by PopGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan....I'm just having fun with ya... :lol:

The question is, would you actually like to know the reasoning behind the post in question or is this forum just a self-pleasuring activty for you? In which case, I suppose I can see why you might object if someone was to interrupt your little w*nkathon.

Well done, you've diverted attention from my serious reply to you by starting a fight with someone else.

If you do reply, I won't see it till later, as I have to go and so some work now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some still refuse to join the dots.

Why bother working to pay rent, when you can sit on your ar5e all day and let the tax payer instead.

Work has to be made to pay, and part of that, comes with the not too unreasonable hope of one day being able to buy a modest home of your own. People need to work for something more than lining their BTL landlord's pockets.

The more people rent, ther higher rents will be. If IDS wants to really make work pay, the cost of living and housing needs to come crashing down. That will help the state to make work pay, as opposed to simply funding BTL empires by proxy.

Ooooh careful now. You seem to be suggesting that we should go in for market controls and regulation here in order to mitigate against the theft of the landlord classes.

Are you some kind of Commie?

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, you've diverted attention from my serious reply to you by starting a fight with someone else.

If you do reply, I won't see it till later, as I have to go and so some work now.

I will reply to your post Timm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh careful now. You seem to be suggesting that we should go in for market controls and regulation here in order to mitigate against the theft of the landlord classes.

Are you some kind of Commie?

Red isn't my colour.

I do like wearing silly hats whilst shouting at people though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan....I'm just having fun with ya... :lol:

The question is, would you actually like to know the reasoning behind the post in question or is this forum just a self-pleasuring activty for you? In which case, I suppose I can see why you might object if someone was to interrupt your little w*nkathon.

That's not fun. That's thinly veiled aggression behind a smiley.

Although you are partially correct in that I guess there is some theraputic comfort in highlighting via posts, the injustice's created by 13 years of Labour.

[i suspect however, that some of my posts have wound you up the wrong way, as you have a different opinion of my intended targets. Although I must admit I cannot remember you actually commenting on any. So maybe I am wrong.]

And I sense a bitterness not unlike mine own. Except I seem to be able to communicate the reasons for my own bitterness more directly than your good self.

Yes I am interested in your explanation on the subject at hand.

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

Some still refuse to join the dots.

Why bother working to pay rent, when you can sit on your ar5e all day and let the tax payer instead.

Work has to be made to pay, and part of that, comes with the not too unreasonable hope of one day being able to buy a modest home of your own. People need to work for something more than lining their BTL landlord's pockets.

The more people rent, ther higher rents will be. If IDS wants to really make work pay, the cost of living and housing needs to come crashing down. That will help the state to make work pay, as opposed to the state simply funding BTL empires by proxy.

Correct

And so far all I have heard from IDS could be compared to rearanging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,

Low pay , high tax rates and high housing cost's have led to a situation where it is not just about people choosing to sit on their ar5e all day and let the tax payer pay instead , but also a situation where people cannot afford to work the net pay will not cover the rent and other essential costs.

The only way to slove this is to build housing on a massive scale and they are not doing that so whatever they say they will carry on funding BTL empires by proxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct

And so far all I have heard from IDS could be compared to rearanging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,

Low pay , high tax rates and high housing cost's have led to a situation where it is not just about people choosing to sit on their ar5e all day and let the tax payer pay instead , but also a situation where people cannot afford to work the net pay will not cover the rent and other essential costs.

The only way to slove this is to build housing on a massive scale and they are not doing that so whatever they say they will carry on funding BTL empires by proxy.

Exactly. Let's see the new planning system, to be published today. But it is not promising / liberalising enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh careful now. You seem to be suggesting that we should go in for market controls and regulation here in order to mitigate against the theft of the landlord classes.

Are you some kind of Commie?

How about a free market solution?

We remove all benefits and replace them with a universal citizen's income / negative income tax regime and let people sort out their own housing under that system.

The result is that market distortions caused by government policy (whether real or only perceived) on the housing market are removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct

And so far all I have heard from IDS could be compared to rearanging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,

Low pay , high tax rates and high housing cost's have led to a situation where it is not just about people choosing to sit on their ar5e all day and let the tax payer pay instead , but also a situation where people cannot afford to work the net pay will not cover the rent and other essential costs.

The only way to slove this is to build housing on a massive scale and they are not doing that so whatever they say they will carry on funding BTL empires by proxy.

If we're a small island with limited land to build on, and social housing builds are too unaffordable, then it's only fair that multi-homeowners start paying their fair share. You wouldn't even need to tax the 5hit out of them. Granting more european style rights and protections to tenants would help to weed out many an unscrupulous amateur. Those with surplus properties intentionally left empty or used for recreation should be heavily taxed accordingly.

There's other solutions then concreating over everything.

Edited by PopGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're a small island with limited land to build on, and social housing builds are too unaffordable, then it's only fair that multi-homeowners start paying their fair share. You wouldn't even need to tax the 5hit out of them. Granting more european style rights and protections to tenants would help to weed out many an unscrupulous amateur. Those with surplus properties intentionally left empty or used for recreation should be heavily taxed accordingly.

There's other solutions then concreating over everything.

We are not such a small island that they have us beleive there is enough land to build without concreating over everything , they just don't let us .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not such a small island that they have us beleive there is enough land to build without concreating over everything , they just don't let us .

Lack of land is not the issue, the fact that one person can buy a whole street of houses or tower block of flats is. Let's deal with the tax dodging property hoarders first, before providing them with more studded walled fodder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, you've diverted attention from my serious reply to you by starting a fight with someone else.

If you do reply, I won't see it till later, as I have to go and so some work now.

As promised...

People who were born in the West just post the 2nd world war were the luckiest generation alive, ever. This is not to castigate them for their good fortune. I am merely stating facts. They bought into our economy at the very bottom in terms of asset prices. In particular, house prices. In real terms, even when you take into account monetary debasement due to inflation, house prices were fantastically low for this post war generation.

On top of the above was the "job for life" many of this generation enjoyed. They were born into a world where, if you kept you nose clean, if you kept you head down and worked hard, you could be guaranteed a decent private pension and a house that was affordable for one major wage earner. However, if you were not a big wage earner, you could be guaranteed to be looked after by the state in terms of cheap housing, healthcare, education and, finally, a state pension that would allow you to live a dignified old age. Beverage's "cradle to grave" society, in other words.

Those days are gone now. Today's generation, just jumping on board the system, can expect to have no state pension by the time they retire. They can expect to see health care fully privatised before they reach retirement. Indeed, even if they are able to afford to pay into a private pension, they can expect to see the value of it well below the value their parents and grandparents enjoyed as they will be paying into a contracting economy giving ever smaller returns on investments (not to mention the fact that, in terms of their state pension contributions, these are being used to pay for today's pensioners).

This government, and other governments around the Western world, have been busily "printing" money (or the functional equivalent to "printing") like there is no tomorrow in order to keep asset prices (in particular, real estate) at their current insane levels. Just stop and think about the implications of this for a minute. To help you do that, I want to paint an entirely typical anecdote for you involving one of today's pensioners. This person is one of that post war generation I was talking about, above. He started work in the mid-fifties. He steadily worked his way up to a middling position in his industry, got married and bought a decent detached house commensurate with his economic position. His mortgage was low enough that he could afford to pay into his private pension regularly which was, of course, performing very well as the economy was heading perpetually north. All of this on just the one primary wage coming into his family.

During this time, ever more credit was being lent into existence, inflating the money supply. This credit chased assets in the economy looking for a home that would give a good return on investment. In the fifties and sixties, this would have been in any number of sectors. However, since the mid seventies, much of the primary wealth-generating industries in this country (indeed across the western world) have since moved to developing countries. Nevertheless, money continued to be lent into the economy. This led to that money being diverted into largely a single asset class. Namely, property. Ever since then, an asset class that was already steadily rising in value began to take off. And so we now find ourselves in the position of insanely high house prices. These prices have not risen due to a massive rise in demand (though there has been some of course). They have not risen due to a sudden collapse of supply (though, there is, of course, some shortages). No, the major reason house prices have risen so much is due to a wall of credit chasing them. Indeed, one could argue that we have already had rampant inflation in the Western world for the last twenty to thirty years. It's just that it has expressed itself in inflationary driven price rises in just the one sector and so has not been recognised for what it is.

So what has this got to do with my anecdote, you may ask? To continue his story, he retired about ten years ago and began receiving his pension. About 7 years ago, he decided to sell his detached house which now, instead of being worth the indexed equivalent of the £1000 he paid for it back in the mid sixties, was now worth 300k. He downsized and bought himself a smaller place for 150k and is using the money released from the sale of his house to go on several holidays per year and generally live a very nice retirement.

The thing is, though, you have to consider where all of that "money" has come from. The answer is that is has come from the future. Yours and mine and that of our descendants.

When money is lent into existence in a FIAT system of FRB, what is really happening is that a loan has been taken out from someone's future productive fruits. If the money loaned more or less matches the current supply/demand driven value of the asset it is being borrowed for in order to buy, then the money has been borrowed from the future productive value of the person who has taken the loan out (all other things being equal). However if the amount that is being lent into existence massively outstrips the value of the asset for which it was borrowed, then the "price" of that asset will rise to reflect the debasing rise in supply of the credit that is chasing it. This is what has happened in the real estate market. The upshot of this is that, in a giant ponzi-like scheme, each successive buyer of a given property has been placed in the unavoidable position of having to pay for the rise in value of the previous owner. In other words, the high-on-the-hog lifestyle that is being enjoyed by the now retired person used in my example is being funded by the person who has taken out the massive mortgage when they purchased his 300k house off him.

All of the above is why Landlords who have bought with debt (a very large proportion of them) demand the rents they do because they have to in oder to services the debt and return a profit. This particularly true now that property prioces are no longer rising. none of the above deny that landlords will attempt to achieve the highest resturn. But, that is a secondary issue to the one I have described.

The only way that rents come down is if the source of the problem, is fixed. Namnely, that there has to be a massive housing market collapse. There has to be a wholseale firesale of BTL properties. The prices have to crash. At which point the debt's get reset and so either the properties become affordable for people to buy who would have otherwise rented and/or landlords do not have to seek such high yields to cover debt repayments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a free market solution?

We remove all benefits and replace them with a universal citizen's income / negative income tax regime and let people sort out their own housing under that system.

The result is that market distortions caused by government policy (whether real or only perceived) on the housing market are removed.

But the market is not free.

Until/unless there is monetary reform limiting the amount of credit that is allowed to flood the economy (or in the absence of limiting such credit, until/unless the lenders are allowed to fail if they f*ck up) and until/unless there is land reform, all of the above will come to nothing.

You are talking about treating symptoms, not causes.

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the market is not free.

Until/unless there is monetary reform limiting the amount of credit that is allowed to flood the economy (or in the absence of limiting such credit, until/unless the lenders are allowed to fail if they f*ck up) and until/unless there is land reform, all of the above will come to nothing.

You are talking about treating symptoms, not causes.

I agree that the cause of the property market problem is that market is not free. Not allowing failed banks to be put into receivership, the antiquated planning system and government price fixing in the rental market are all symptoms of the cause of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a free market solution?

We remove all benefits and replace them with a universal citizen's income / negative income tax regime and let people sort out their own housing under that system.

The result is that market distortions caused by government policy (whether real or only perceived) on the housing market are removed.

I like. ;)

But there is also a need for an accompanying policy and reform. For example, policy must reflect that housing is for shelter not investment and also must offer more stability to tenants. You would soon see that there is really no shortage of housing and that costs would fall in line with affordability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit is set to the market average in a given area. This is stated government policy. In what way does that lead the market?

The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amount of debt a BTL has to service. This is, in turn, is set by the of size of the debt and/or size of interest rates on that debt

How much do you think the market average rent would be if houses cost £100? How big do you think the housing benefit would be at that point?

As I was saying...

Cart...horse...

Why this year have rents risen so fast particularly in London?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit is set to the market average in a given area. This is stated government policy. In what way does that lead the market?

The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amount of debt a BTL has to service. This is, in turn, is set by the of size of the debt and/or size of interest rates on that debt

How much do you think the market average rent would be if houses cost £100? How big do you think the housing benefit would be at that point?

As I was saying...

Cart...horse...

Why this year have rents risen so fast particularly in London?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why this year have rents risen so fast particularly in London?

Off the top of my head....

Punitive interest rate re-sets on BTL debt coupled with a combination of refusal to buy on the part of buyers and refusal to sell on the part of low-debt-holding sellers in the domestic market leading to higher rental demand from frustrated domestic buyers.

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised...

People who were born in the West just post the 2nd world war were the luckiest generation alive, ever. This is not to castigate them for their good fortune. I am merely stating facts. They bought into our economy at the very bottom in terms of asset prices. In particular, house prices. In real terms, even when you take into account monetary debasement due to inflation, house prices were fantastically low for this post war generation.

On top of the above was the "job for life" many of this generation enjoyed. They were born into a world where, if you kept you nose clean, if you kept you head down and worked hard, you could be guaranteed a decent private pension and a house that was affordable for one major wage earner. However, if you were not a big wage earner, you could be guaranteed to be looked after by the state in terms of cheap housing, healthcare, education and, finally, a state pension that would allow you to live a dignified old age. Beverage's "cradle to grave" society, in other words.

Those days are gone now. Today's generation, just jumping on board the system, can expect to have no state pension by the time they retire. They can expect to see health care fully privatised before they reach retirement. Indeed, even if they are able to afford to pay into a private pension, they can expect to see the value of it well below the value their parents and grandparents enjoyed as they will be paying into a contracting economy giving ever smaller returns on investments (not to mention the fact that, in terms of their state pension contributions, these are being used to pay for today's pensioners).

This government, and other governments around the Western world, have been busily "printing" money (or the functional equivalent to "printing") like there is no tomorrow in order to keep asset prices (in particular, real estate) at their current insane levels. Just stop and think about the implications of this for a minute. To help you do that, I want to paint an entirely typical anecdote for you involving one of today's pensioners. This person is one of that post war generation I was talking about, above. He started work in the mid-fifties. He steadily worked his way up to a middling position in his industry, got married and bought a decent detached house commensurate with his economic position. His mortgage was low enough that he could afford to pay into his private pension regularly which was, of course, performing very well as the economy was heading perpetually north. All of this on just the one primary wage coming into his family.

During this time, ever more credit was being lent into existence, inflating the money supply. This credit chased assets in the economy looking for a home that would give a good return on investment. In the fifties and sixties, this would have been in any number of sectors. However, since the mid seventies, much of the primary wealth-generating industries in this country (indeed across the western world) have since moved to developing countries. Nevertheless, money continued to be lent into the economy. This led to that money being diverted into largely a single asset class. Namely, property. Ever since then, an asset class that was already steadily rising in value began to take off. And so we now find ourselves in the position of insanely high house prices. These prices have not risen due to a massive rise in demand (though there has been some of course). They have not risen due to a sudden collapse of supply (though, there is, of course, some shortages). No, the major reason house prices have risen so much is due to a wall of credit chasing them. Indeed, one could argue that we have already had rampant inflation in the Western world for the last twenty to thirty years. It's just that it has expressed itself in inflationary driven price rises in just the one sector and so has not been recognised for what it is.

So what has this got to do with my anecdote, you may ask? To continue his story, he retired about ten years ago and began receiving his pension. About 7 years ago, he decided to sell his detached house which now, instead of being worth the indexed equivalent of the £1000 he paid for it back in the mid sixties, was now worth 300k. He downsized and bought himself a smaller place for 150k and is using the money released from the sale of his house to go on several holidays per year and generally live a very nice retirement.

Good post, nothing that I would take issue with.

The thing is, though, you have to consider where all of that "money" has come from. The answer is that is has come from the future. Yours and mine and that of our descendants.

When money is lent into existence in a FIAT system of FRB, what is really happening is that a loan has been taken out from someone's future productive fruits. If the money loaned more or less matches the current supply/demand driven value of the asset it is being borrowed for in order to buy, then the money has been borrowed from the future productive value of the person who has taken the loan out (all other things being equal). However if the amount that is being lent into existence massively outstrips the value of the asset for which it was borrowed, then the "price" of that asset will rise to reflect the debasing rise in supply of the credit that is chasing it. This is what has happened in the real estate market. The upshot of this is that, in a giant ponzi-like scheme, each successive buyer of a given property has been placed in the unavoidable position of having to pay for the rise in value of the previous owner. In other words, the high-on-the-hog lifestyle that is being enjoyed by the now retired person used in my example is being funded by the person who has taken out the massive mortgage when they purchased his 300k house off him.

Here we start to part company.

The monetary ststem is not a time machine where money or wealth are actually transferred through time, but merely a series of promises that payment will be made in the future against credit employed in the present.

Most of the time it looks like what you have described, but once a certain level is reached, there is not enough wealth created in the future to meet the promises made previously. Then you start to get all sorts of problems such as we see now.

But that just hides the fact that promises have been made that cannot be kept.

All of the above is why Landlords who have bought with debt (a very large proportion of them) demand the rents they do because they have to in oder to services the debt and return a profit. This particularly true now that property prioces are no longer rising. none of the above deny that landlords will attempt to achieve the highest resturn. But, that is a secondary issue to the one I have described.

No.

The primary issue is that LLs look to get the most rent they can. And rent does tend to extract surplus income.

Once rent goes too high, the LL cannot find anyone to pay. At this point, one of three things happen:

1. The LL lowers the rent. If that amount is below his mortgage, he must make up the difference or default.

2. The property remains empty.

3. The state steps in with new money.

I do sort of see your point, in that some LLs will hold out for a figure that covers their costs, and if they don't get it will leave the place vacant. But eventually they will get foreclosed on.

The only way that rents come down is if the source of the problem, is fixed. Namnely, that there has to be a massive housing market collapse. There has to be a wholseale firesale of BTL properties. The prices have to crash. At which point the debt's get reset and so either the properties become affordable for people to buy who would have otherwise rented and/or landlords do not have to seek such high yields to cover debt repayments.

Hmm. A firesale of rental properties would reduce the supply of rental properties. That would not tend to make them cheaper.

Of course, there might be a corresponding drop in demand, as the erstwhile renters bought from thier old LLs, but then they wouldn't be paying rent any more.

Edit: in italics.

Edited by Timm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like. ;)

But there is also a need for an accompanying policy and reform. For example, policy must reflect that housing is for shelter not investment and also must offer more stability to tenants. You would soon see that there is really no shortage of housing and that costs would fall in line with affordability.

This is the crucial point - we should ban all speculation and monopolies on things without which life is impossible. There's an agenda for the socialists or lib dems (as they appear to be without one too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised...

People who were born in the West just post the 2nd world war were the luckiest generation alive, ever. This is not to castigate them for their good fortune. I am merely stating facts. They bought into our economy at the very bottom in terms of asset prices. In particular, house prices. In real terms, even when you take into account monetary debasement due to inflation, house prices were fantastically low for this post war generation.

On top of the above was the "job for life" many of this generation enjoyed. They were born into a world where, if you kept you nose clean, if you kept you head down and worked hard, you could be guaranteed a decent private pension and a house that was affordable for one major wage earner. However, if you were not a big wage earner, you could be guaranteed to be looked after by the state in terms of cheap housing, healthcare, education and, finally, a state pension that would allow you to live a dignified old age. Beverage's "cradle to grave" society, in other words.

Those days are gone now. Today's generation, just jumping on board the system, can expect to have no state pension by the time they retire. They can expect to see health care fully privatised before they reach retirement. Indeed, even if they are able to afford to pay into a private pension, they can expect to see the value of it well below the value their parents and grandparents enjoyed as they will be paying into a contracting economy giving ever smaller returns on investments (not to mention the fact that, in terms of their state pension contributions, these are being used to pay for today's pensioners).

This government, and other governments around the Western world, have been busily "printing" money (or the functional equivalent to "printing") like there is no tomorrow in order to keep asset prices (in particular, real estate) at their current insane levels. Just stop and think about the implications of this for a minute. To help you do that, I want to paint an entirely typical anecdote for you involving one of today's pensioners. This person is one of that post war generation I was talking about, above. He started work in the mid-fifties. He steadily worked his way up to a middling position in his industry, got married and bought a decent detached house commensurate with his economic position. His mortgage was low enough that he could afford to pay into his private pension regularly which was, of course, performing very well as the economy was heading perpetually north. All of this on just the one primary wage coming into his family.

During this time, ever more credit was being lent into existence, inflating the money supply. This credit chased assets in the economy looking for a home that would give a good return on investment. In the fifties and sixties, this would have been in any number of sectors. However, since the mid seventies, much of the primary wealth-generating industries in this country (indeed across the western world) have since moved to developing countries. Nevertheless, money continued to be lent into the economy. This led to that money being diverted into largely a single asset class. Namely, property. Ever since then, an asset class that was already steadily rising in value began to take off. And so we now find ourselves in the position of insanely high house prices. These prices have not risen due to a massive rise in demand (though there has been some of course). They have not risen due to a sudden collapse of supply (though, there is, of course, some shortages). No, the major reason house prices have risen so much is due to a wall of credit chasing them. Indeed, one could argue that we have already had rampant inflation in the Western world for the last twenty to thirty years. It's just that it has expressed itself in inflationary driven price rises in just the one sector and so has not been recognised for what it is.

So what has this got to do with my anecdote, you may ask? To continue his story, he retired about ten years ago and began receiving his pension. About 7 years ago, he decided to sell his detached house which now, instead of being worth the indexed equivalent of the £1000 he paid for it back in the mid sixties, was now worth 300k. He downsized and bought himself a smaller place for 150k and is using the money released from the sale of his house to go on several holidays per year and generally live a very nice retirement.

The thing is, though, you have to consider where all of that "money" has come from. The answer is that is has come from the future. Yours and mine and that of our descendants.

When money is lent into existence in a FIAT system of FRB, what is really happening is that a loan has been taken out from someone's future productive fruits. If the money loaned more or less matches the current supply/demand driven value of the asset it is being borrowed for in order to buy, then the money has been borrowed from the future productive value of the person who has taken the loan out (all other things being equal). However if the amount that is being lent into existence massively outstrips the value of the asset for which it was borrowed, then the "price" of that asset will rise to reflect the debasing rise in supply of the credit that is chasing it. This is what has happened in the real estate market. The upshot of this is that, in a giant ponzi-like scheme, each successive buyer of a given property has been placed in the unavoidable position of having to pay for the rise in value of the previous owner. In other words, the high-on-the-hog lifestyle that is being enjoyed by the now retired person used in my example is being funded by the person who has taken out the massive mortgage when they purchased his 300k house off him.

All of the above is why Landlords who have bought with debt (a very large proportion of them) demand the rents they do because they have to in oder to services the debt and return a profit. This particularly true now that property prioces are no longer rising. none of the above deny that landlords will attempt to achieve the highest resturn. But, that is a secondary issue to the one I have described.

The only way that rents come down is if the source of the problem, is fixed. Namnely, that there has to be a massive housing market collapse. There has to be a wholseale firesale of BTL properties. The prices have to crash. At which point the debt's get reset and so either the properties become affordable for people to buy who would have otherwise rented and/or landlords do not have to seek such high yields to cover debt repayments.

[correction]: One of the Posts of the Year p'raps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[correction]: One of the Posts of the Year p'raps?

No it's not. Tallguy is mixing generations. His example was either a policeman or teacher retiring very early or was born in or before 1940 (if retired early at 60 drawing a private pension). Not many of the population are teachers or policemen.

So what has this got to do with my anecdote, you may ask? To continue his story, he retired about ten years ago and began receiving his pension. About 7 years ago, he decided to sell his detached house which now, instead of being worth the indexed equivalent of the £1000 he paid for it back in the mid sixties, was now worth 300k. He downsized and bought himself a smaller place for 150k and is using the money released from the sale of his house to go on several holidays per year and generally live a very nice retirement.

None of my peers fits the stereotype that Tallguy paints of post-war boomers, we all needed heavy deposits and faced 14% interest almost from the get-go, not possible on one salary, I can't think of any of us who had a job for life, most of us were in manufacturing (remember that?), EXCEPT the aforementioned policemen and teachers. I don't know of any in my peer group who worked for a local council either, they weren't major employers back then, not so many diversity officers and their ilk <_<

But Tallguy is absolutely right in this respect. We (boomers) WERE lucky, because we got established before the credit taps were opened wide.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 317 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.