Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
lostinessex

The Rage of Renters is on its way

Recommended Posts

There seems to be more and more articles in the mainstream press accepting housing is in crisis - plus now there seems to be a realisation that infinite HPI comes with nasty side-effects

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/28/we-must-let-theresa-may-build-more-houses--or-the-rage-of-the-re/

BTW apoogies if this as already been posted elsewhere - I can never remember where I pick up the links in the first place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no good just building more if they all get snaffled up by overseas investors; we need much more provision of social housing with rents at ~33% of average household income after tax, to serve as a back-stop option in order to anchor rents to affordable reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build all you want...no one can afford to buy until prices collapse.

 

BTLers will out bid the young famillies with the idiot IO mrotgages.

 

The rules need to be changed.

A massive crash is desperately needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RENT SLAVES 

Rent unaffordable across half of England for the poorest working families, as they’re forced to blow over a third of their wages on the costs

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2065179/rent-unaffordable-across-half-of-england-for-the-poorest-working-families-as-theyre-forced-to-blow-over-a-third-of-their-wages-on-the-costs/

Interesting to see The Sun, which has already advocated a big housebuilding programme, making an issue of unaffordable rents. You can tell it's a big deal for them as the political editor has claimed the story. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29 September 2016 at 10:52 AM, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Build all you want...no one can afford to buy until prices collapse.

 

BTLers will out bid the young famillies with the idiot IO mrotgages.

 

The rules need to be changed.

A massive crash is desperately needed.

I second that, a crash is needed and the rules on BTL are in desperate need for reform. A home should not be seen as an investment by greedy landlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Patient London FTB said:

RENT SLAVES 

Rent unaffordable across half of England for the poorest working families, as they’re forced to blow over a third of their wages on the costs

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2065179/rent-unaffordable-across-half-of-england-for-the-poorest-working-families-as-theyre-forced-to-blow-over-a-third-of-their-wages-on-the-costs/

Interesting to see The Sun, which has already advocated a big housebuilding programme, making an issue of unaffordable rents. You can tell it's a big deal for them as the political editor has claimed the story. 

 

Only one third?

Me thinks they're underestimating.

My maths calculated that someone on the median income in south east Essex spunks circa 50% on putting a roof over their head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted on another thread but relevant here.

The government as well are to blame due to tax benefits of btl. If a property is BTL, they will make tax revenue on the sale. They will also make tax revenue on the rental income, prolly 40%. If it goes to a home owner they make nothing. Its in their interests to get everyone renting. Why should they favour the homeowner at all?

 

1 hour ago, Noallegiance said:

Only one third?

Me thinks they're underestimating.

My maths calculated that someone on the median income in south east Essex spunks circa 50% on putting a roof over their head.

55% of net salary on rent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Noallegiance said:

Only one third?

Me thinks they're underestimating.

My maths calculated that someone on the median income in south east Essex spunks circa 50% on putting a roof over their head.

LHA rate for a three bedder in Guildford is £244 p.w

For that to be 1/3 of your take home, you need to be earning £59,500 p.a.

At which point, competing with housing benefit people, you are deemed so wealthy you don't need any child benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CunningPlan said:

LHA rate for a three bedder in Guildford is £244 p.w

For that to be 1/3 of your take home, you need to be earning £59,500 p.a.

At which point, competing with housing benefit people, you are deemed so wealthy you don't need any child benefit.

FUBAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Approx 25% of my take home salary goes on rent, and I'm in the 95th centile for earnings. We're in quite a small house so that we can save more deposit, so in a more suitable house I reckon we'd be talking 40% of take home pay. I struggle to see how families with 2 or more kids on even an anverage income can get by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2016 at 6:45 PM, Si1 said:

Notice how the poll 'should we build on green belt' is still going to the NIMBYs.

Build on around 2% of existing green land (not sure how much of this would be considered 'green belt' ) and you could double the UK housing stock. Just a factoid that 'they' dont want people to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, steve99 said:

Build on around 2% of existing green land (not sure how much of this would be considered 'green belt' ) and you could double the UK housing stock. Just a factoid that 'they' dont want people to know.

2% Can you give reference? I'm just interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

2% Can you give reference? I'm just interested

I think this sounds pretty accurate.

i know only 8% of the UK is built on.

If half of this is industrial, motorways, retail and other business use, then perhaps 4% is housing. Given that a proportion of new houses could be higher density than the current average, then 2% seems perfectly accurate and doable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/10/2016 at 0:53 PM, CunningPlan said:

LHA rate for a three bedder in Guildford is £244 p.w

For that to be 1/3 of your take home, you need to be earning £59,500 p.a.

At which point, competing with housing benefit people, you are deemed so wealthy you don't need any child benefit.

Which is totally crazy and all Gordon Brown's fault. People who don't work and never have shouldn't be made relatively well off by the state. The £59,500 figure is also into something like the 95th percentile which is crazy. Basically the state has been driving up house prices and it time LHA (i.e. A Landlord subsidy) was abolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, steve99 said:

Build on around 2% of existing green land (not sure how much of this would be considered 'green belt' ) and you could double the UK housing stock. Just a factoid that 'they' dont want people to know.

Problem with that is its likely to be public land that is built on not private land. There needs to be 2% of private land built on.  By allowing planning at say 5 times its agricutural value and price of the development capped at affordable housing, lansdowner and would be owners are happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Which is totally crazy and all Gordon Brown's fault. People who don't work and never have shouldn't be made relatively well off by the state. The £59,500 figure is also into something like the 95th percentile which is crazy. Basically the state has been driving up house prices and it time LHA (i.e. A Landlord subsidy) was abolished.

Driving up house prices...which benefit the rich...the MPs and the MPs backers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

2% Can you give reference? I'm just interested

UK as a whole is around 7% built on including roads, rail, industrial and housing and part of this includes gardens and parks etc. Good article here

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096

Also we dont need to double our housing stock, just another few % should do it. But why not?

Amongst the NIMBYs we have some pretty evil creatures, for eg

Landed gentry owns much and has massive political influence.

As we know, there is resistance to increasing housing stock due to the massive amount of parasites feeding off high house prices including most of our politicians.

These things are often discussed here but what is not discussed is the fact that UK culture/society has a deep ingrained and ongoing history of keeping people down and in their place. Torys are the worst for this but Labour dont do a lot better once they get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we have to build on green belt? Just build higher density housing in major cities that are habitable. i.e. not rabbit hutches.

The ex council blocks in London are very spacious if a little outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.