Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Lepista

Does Owning Your Own House Give You A Stake In Society?

Recommended Posts

The first person prosecuted for looting in the riots was a 31-year-old primary school teacher, who lives with his parents.

He's 31, doesn't even earn enough to rent his own pad, let alone save up enough deposit to put down for a house in London. Does anybody else see this as tragic?

Wind back 30 years. A 31-year-old teacher would have a bright future ahead of them. Possibly married, a couple of their own kids, a nice semi detatched 3-bedroom house in a shiney new housing estate.

I expect this thread is going to be pretty short, because

1. The above is obvious, isn't it?; and

2. I started it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The above is obvious, isn't it?;

I suspect that it is obvious, but I don't know if there is any good research.

Just another example of how high house prices poison everything,

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first person prosecuted for looting in the riots was a 31-year-old primary school teacher, who lives with his parents.

He's 31, doesn't even earn enough to rent his own pad, let alone save up enough deposit to put down for a house in London. Does anybody else see this as tragic?

Wind back 30 years. A 31-year-old teacher would have a bright future ahead of them. Possibly married, a couple of their own kids, a nice semi detatched 3-bedroom house in a shiney new housing estate.

I expect this thread is going to be pretty short, because

1. The above is obvious, isn't it?; and

2. I started it.

Apparently he's not a teacher. He's a teaching assistant.

Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Males without a house are not considered "worthy" by women for marriage and kids. This is a FACT, no matter how many people try to deny it.

The housing crisis will cause fewer and fewer eligible batchelors and lead to more lawlessness.

I predict that the next wave of violence will see the middle classes join in en masse. They will see that they have little to lose.

I mean, right now, I have nothing to lose. I don't own anything of value, I have effectively zero savings and I have no prospects of ever getting a house, let alone paying for my pension. Seeing as everyone else is sponging off taxpayers money, it seems almost like I must commit looting in order to simply get my fair share of taxes. After all, I don't claim any benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first person prosecuted for looting in the riots was a 31-year-old primary school teacher, who lives with his parents.

He's 31, doesn't even earn enough to rent his own pad, let alone save up enough deposit to put down for a house in London. Does anybody else see this as tragic?

Wind back 30 years. A 31-year-old teacher would have a bright future ahead of them. Possibly married, a couple of their own kids, a nice semi detatched 3-bedroom house in a shiney new housing estate.

I expect this thread is going to be pretty short, because

1. The above is obvious, isn't it?; and

2. I started it.

To be fair, he is (was?) a teaching assistant rather than a teacher, probably was trying to work his way into teaching as a mature student. But all the same, yes, his take home pay they said was £1000 a month. In stockwell, where he lives, that would pay you the rent on a one bed flat - and then that would be it, no money for bills let alone food. Or, in a flat share he could get a room for £600 maybe, and then have £400 a month for council tax, bills and everything else.

I don't think you need to own your own house to have a stake - but you do need to be able to live at a comfortable level so, a) be able to afford a rent and B-) if you are renting, not be at the mercy of 2 months notice on an AST.

Edited by TeddyBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Op is onto something. But perhaps it should be re-worded along the lines of:-

Does the inability to provide a stable home life for yourself and family lead to feelings of exclusion?

Homeownership is not the be all and end all here. I rent, yet I worried I may have to defend the family home if the unrest spread to residential areas. The difference is I can provide for my family. Hundreds of thousands, nay Millions can only do so by resorting to benefits.

Somewhere deep down that must damage male pride and ***** feelings of resentment towards conspicuous consumption such as flash watches, chelsea tractors etc.

Edit to add :- D'oh! The ***** stands for a word that means to pierce something with a fine point, if the the swear filter took the word into context, I obviously wasnt referring to street slang for male genitalia!

Edited by Caveat Mortgagor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, he is (was?) a teaching assistant rather than a teacher, probably was trying to work his way into teaching as a mature student. But all the same, yes, his take home pay they said was £1000 a month. In stockwell, where he lives, that would pay you the rent on a one bed flat - and then that would be it, no money for bills let alone food. Or, in a flat share he could get a room for £600 maybe, and then have £400 a month for council tax, bills and everything else.

I don't think you need to own your own house to have a stake - but you do need to be able to live at a comfortable level so, a) be able to afford a rent and B-) if you are renting, not be at the mercy of 2 months notice on an AST.

Not necessarily in Stockwell, but I've just found quite a few S London flatshares on findaproperty, around £425-460 inc. bills.

Look reasonably OK.

TBH it's just not realistic for anyone on a lowish salary to expect to be able to rent a flat on their own, when sharing works out so much cheaper.

Younger daughter of similar age to the TA-looter is in a nice flatshare in W5 that works out about £525 a month inc. bills.

She has never even contemplated renting on her own - it would eat up far too much of her take-home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning your home gives you something to 'protect'.

Owing Northern Rock £250,000 which you have no hope of paying down over the remainder of your working life for a mortgage on 2bed execuflat in a city centre war zone shared with a partner you no longer get on with due to money problems, less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning your home gives you something to 'protect'.

Owing Northern Rock £250,000 which you have no hope of paying down over the remainder of your working life for a mortgage on 2bed execuflat in a city centre war zone shared with a partner you no longer get on with due to money problems, less so.

Whereas renting gives you the freedom to run like hell ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH it's just not realistic for anyone on a lowish salary to expect to be able to rent a flat on their own,

It may not be now, but, should it be? If the OP's hypothesis is correct, then it would presumably be something for society to aim for?

How does this compare with other countries (such as the "goody-two shoes Scandinavians" for instance)?

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first person prosecuted for looting in the riots was a 31-year-old primary school teacher, who lives with his parents.

He's 31, doesn't even earn enough to rent his own pad, let alone save up enough deposit to put down for a house in London. Does anybody else see this as tragic?

Wind back 30 years. A 31-year-old teacher would have a bright future ahead of them. Possibly married, a couple of their own kids, a nice semi detatched 3-bedroom house in a shiney new housing estate.

I expect this thread is going to be pretty short, because

1. The above is obvious, isn't it?; and

2. I started it.

I'm still pretty wary about making excuses for people - maybe he is just an asshole.

I thought that the perceived wisdom is that 'aspiration' gives you a stake in society. Whether you've got a little or a lot, if you can see that through your own efforts you can improve your quality of life, then you will try.

When you see no hope or path for the future beyond more mind numbing boredom, then why wouldn't you riot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Does owning your own house give you a stake in society?"

I think it's more a case that owning a house gives you a tangible stake in your local community, not necessarily wider society. You could also argue that while it gives you a personal interest in functioning law and order and property rights, it can insulate you from people who aren't property owners - so you have less of a stake in things like social justice and tackling poverty.

Good OP question though, which leads to a number of related questions:

Does not owning a house but renting privately mean you have less of a stake in society?

Does having all your living costs paid for by the state mean you have less of a stake in society?

Does not owning a house but sitting on a large STR fund mean you have less of a stake in society?

Does owning more than one house mean you have more of a stake in society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does owning more than one house mean you have more of a stake in society?

Probably, though I doubt that it is simple arithmetic. E.g. owning 1 house leads to 1 stake in society; but owning two only leads to 1.5 stake in society - so, it's better if 2 people own 1 house each than is one person owns 2 houses and the other none,

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, he is (was?) a teaching assistant rather than a teacher, probably was trying to work his way into teaching as a mature student. But all the same, yes, his take home pay they said was £1000 a month. In stockwell, where he lives, that would pay you the rent on a one bed flat - and then that would be it, no money for bills let alone food. Or, in a flat share he could get a room for £600 maybe, and then have £400 a month for council tax, bills and everything else.

The figures in that last sentence actually indicate that relative rents have fallen since my experience of London! Even taking a teaching assistant as equivalent to a fully-qualified teacher back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently he's not a teacher. He's a teaching assistant.

Big difference.

One has a qualification the other hasn't.....does that make one better than the other..either in teaching skills or moral values? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Owning Your Own House Give You A Stake In Society?

YES!!

Its's SO obvious I could cry.

Simplest bottom-line is, yes, it protects your assets and income from the ravages of means-testing when your earnings take a turn for the worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simplest bottom-line is, yes, it protects your assets and income from the ravages of means-testing when your earnings take a turn for the worse.

You can always put it in a pension. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first person prosecuted for looting in the riots was a 31-year-old primary school teacher, who lives with his parents.

He's 31, doesn't even earn enough to rent his own pad, let alone save up enough deposit to put down for a house in London. Does anybody else see this as tragic?

Wind back 30 years. A 31-year-old teacher would have a bright future ahead of them. Possibly married, a couple of their own kids, a nice semi detatched 3-bedroom house in a shiney new housing estate.

I expect this thread is going to be pretty short, because

1. The above is obvious, isn't it?; and

2. I started it.

It's a sad sad situation and no need for it atall. No excuse for riots, but this country and others are now 'property poor'. When you think that some 2 up 2 downs are such a stupid price they require professionally qualified people to buy them! They were built for fishermen or farmworkers and labourers who thought they were poor!

The advent of second incomes aswell over the last 40 years has also had an effect. The lending criteria should always be fixed to 2x the main income ( no second income atall) and a 10% deposit by law. Nothing less stringent allowed. BTL should be 30% deposit minimum by law and the mortgage payment at a notional 7.5% covered by 1.3 x the realistic rent. No Interest only loans for any purpose atall. All repayment.

If these rules were maintained permanently you would not see the economy skewed by property prices again. There would be fluctuations but within bounds. Our country would be more competitive as wages would not need to be so high just to get a roof over your head. Rents would be lower and the Housing benefit bill much lower. Property will go down to 2 x incomes as this crisis proceeds.

Look at all those terraced vitorian homes. Lots of them are now flats when a single family had them when built. We are poorer in housing terms than those days in many cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Owning Your Own House Give You A Stake In Society?

YES!!

Its's SO obvious I could cry.

This was the rationale behind Thatcher's "Right to Buy" in the 1980s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the rationale behind Thatcher's "Right to Buy" in the 1980s...

I think it means that you can't move about so easily, like getting on a bicycle, as Norman Tebbit did in the 1930s, or alt least talked about!

I think that rationale might be wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Owning Your Own House Give You A Stake In Society?

YES!!

Its's SO obvious I could cry.

The corollary to this statement is that people without legal title to a pile of bricks have no stake in society.

Personally, I find that really sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corollary to this statement is that people without legal title to a pile of bricks have no stake in society.

Personally, I find that really sad.

We've been witnessing over the past week what happens periodically when there are enough people with no stake in society:

- random violence and looting

However, its obviously much more important to reduce the 50% rate of income tax...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corollary to this statement is that people without legal title to a pile of bricks have no stake in society.

Personally, I find that really sad.

Wrong....a pile of bricks is only a pile of bricks when it is only worth a pile of bricks.....when no one aspires to owning a pile of bricks, because that pile of bricks will not bring them wealth and riches for free beyond their dreams and beyond their realistic chances of earning it beyond owning property....... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sad sad situation and no need for it atall. No excuse for riots, but this country and others are now 'property poor'. When you think that some 2 up 2 downs are such a stupid price they require professionally qualified people to buy them! They were built for fishermen or farmworkers and labourers who thought they were poor!

The advent of second incomes aswell over the last 40 years has also had an effect. The lending criteria should always be fixed to 2x the main income ( no second income atall) and a 10% deposit by law. Nothing less stringent allowed. BTL should be 30% deposit minimum by law and the mortgage payment at a notional 7.5% covered by 1.3 x the realistic rent. No Interest only loans for any purpose atall. All repayment.

If these rules were maintained permanently you would not see the economy skewed by property prices again. There would be fluctuations but within bounds. Our country would be more competitive as wages would not need to be so high just to get a roof over your head. Rents would be lower and the Housing benefit bill much lower. Property will go down to 2 x incomes as this crisis proceeds.

Look at all those terraced vitorian homes. Lots of them are now flats when a single family had them when built. We are poorer in housing terms than those days in many cases.

+1

You got me thinking about groups and standards of living/housing

1. Those on benefits

2. Highest household earner below average wage

3. Highest household earner comfortably above average but below £100k

4. Highest household earner £100k+

5. Highest household earner £1m+, elites etc

Our son and daughter have two children and are both in group 3

They live in a house I would say should be for people between 1 & 2

Their house has been on the market for months without a single viewing. They want to move to a larger house which will cost twice as much as the one they are selling and would have been possible on just his salary prior to New Labour. The daughter-in-law is currently on maternity leave and would love to spend more time with the children but she is going to have to work full time to contribute to her banker's bonus.

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.

  • 334 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.