Sunday, December 20, 2015
A subject that will become more politically important
Millions give up on home ownership as house prices soar
Middle class families are giving up their dreams of home ownership as soaring costs and a lack of supply price millions out of the property market, according to Bank of England research. The Bank's annual survey of household finances revealed that just under half of all families who don't already own their own home believe they will never get on the housing ladder. This represents around 4.5m households and compares with 32pc who said they were confident of buying. The figures, which were buried in the depths of the Bank's survey, showed many middle class families also believe home ownership is out of reach, highlighting the depths of Britain's housing crisis.
Posted by quiet guy @ 01:37 PM (6802 views)
11 thoughts on “A subject that will become more politically important”
Add a comment
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
mombers says:
Renters are less likely to vote and this is becoming more so after the change to voter registration. But, judging by the gvmt’s moves against BTL, political pressure is growing… I imagine that people in their 30s and older and those with families will buck the trend and not be as likely to not bother voting?
britishblue says:
I think we are starting to see a major divergence between what the mainstream press is telling us and what people on the ground think and nothing portrays this more than the reaction to Jeremy Corbyns policies in live debates like last weeks Question Time and the negative articles that rain down on him every day. I supect his housing policy got them seriously rattled as it was pure common sense. The Daily Telegraph normally has one new article a day deriding him in a prime position on the front page. Many people are angry. Go speak to anyone under the age of 35 in London, that hasn’t inherited money and you will find that they believe the housing issue is intolerable and let down by previous givernements. We are fed this utter tripe about not building on green belt. much of which is just pesticde covered fields and only effecs a tiny amount of peoples views, yet 10 million people in London are seeing the sides of the Thames dissapear with 14 storey flats and every scrap of Land being develeoped. In other countries, the sides of the THames would be converted to green lands with trees to take away some of the carbon dioxide from the city, land that has held gas buildings would be taken back to green land. It is high time that Londoners waged a campaign to reintrduce green land in London on brown field sites and campained to build new properties on these vaste swathes of green belt. Everyone knows the statitsics. The UK has 13% green belt and 4% of land that is built on.
libertas says:
Renters also, lacking a stake in their community, are less politically active and contribute less to the Community. They also invest less money into improving their part of the area. This aspect is far more disenfranchising than not voting.
britishblue says:
L@3 thats utter stupidity. Not owning your house and renting does not mean you do not have stake in the community or that you contribute less to the community. the only think that homeowners do differently is to improve the appearance of their houses and guess what Buy to Let Landlords are ownders and should be doing this.
mister ed says:
@3
That’s why cities in continental Europe, which have a very high percentage of high-quality rented accomodation, are filled with slums whereas every British city is a utopia.
It’s the same in Japan. Lots of rented accomodation there too, and you should see the state of some of their cities. Crime, disorder, property dilapidation, drug-taking, family breakdown.
I’m glad someone knows the truth and isn’t frightened to speak it.
mombers says:
Short term, insecure tenancies that give the worst value for money in the world, while a shrinking rentier class extracts more and more will certainly undermine social cohesiveness…
Jac Collier says:
The usual precursor to deflation in prices,prolonged this time by money printing but no less inevitable—and this time there are 50 years overpricings to eliminate. The devious market will drag all “hope-to-be-property-millionaires” into its thrall before taking prices back to about where they started in the 1940-50’s, the start of the “bubble”. Betcha!
libertas says:
Europe has rent controls. People do not leave them and get trapped there rather than prefer it to home ownership, because once you get a rental property where there are rent controls, it is almost impossible to get another due to out of control demand. In New York you have to give a CV and be interviewed by a realtor who you pay to find you a place.
Renters actually stand to loose from a place gentrifying, because their rents will rise, so they will not invest in their property or encourage improvements to their area. Get that lovely piece of infrastructure and beautification only to see your rent hiked 20%. Only home owners who have a financial stake will get involved in politics on average and truly engage in improving their area. Sorry, but its a fact.
mister ed says:
@7
Oh dear.
“People do not leave them and get trapped there rather than prefer it to home ownership…”
Any facts to back that up? Anything to show that labour mobility in. say, Germany, a country with a high percentage of renters and rent controls, is lower than the UK?
Thought not.
“…because once you get a rental property where there are rent controls, it is almost impossible to get another due to out of control demand.”
Any facts to back that up? Anything to show that rent controls create “out of control demand”? Anything to show that in mainland Europe it is “almost impossible” to get another place to live?
Thought not
“In New York you have to give a CV and be interviewed by a realtor who you pay to find you a place.”
Ah, New York, New York, a wonderful town, but nothing at all to do with the situation in the UK or wider Europe.
“Renters actually stand to loose from a place gentrifying, because their rents will rise…”
Even with rent controls, no doubt.
“…so they will not invest in their property”
It isn’t their property. They’re renting it.
“…or encourage improvements to their area….”
Any facts to back that up? Any hard evidence that cities in mainland Europe don’t have high-quality infrastructure?
Thought not. You need to travel a bit more.
“Get that lovely piece of infrastructure and beautification only to see your rent hiked 20%. “
Even with rent controls, no doubt.
“Only home owners who have a financial stake will get involved in politics on average and truly engage in improving their area. “
Any facts to back that up? Any hard evidence that people who live in mainland Europe with high levels of renting don’t care about the areas they live in? Any evidence that they engage in politics at a lower level than places with higher levels of home ownership?
Thought not.
“Sorry, but its a fact.”
Ah yes, one of those “Libby facts”, the ones you invent with no actual evidence to back them up.
Must do better, Libby. Resubmit this piece with citations from credible sources to support your claims.
Also see me in my office after school today to discuss your general poor performance this term.
Pricedoutmouse says:
@2 I agree with you that more vegetation along the sides of the Thames would be good, but not with your support for building on green belt. It’s not just about protecting people’s views. It’s about protecting other species that cannot speak up for themselves. You’re right that pesticide covered fields aren’t great for biodiversity but they’re a damn site better than hundreds of concrete drives and human rabbit hutches. Your percentages aren’t that relevant where conservation of species is concerned. The problem is fragmentation of habitat. Our green spaces are all shrinking and there’s constant pressure for new road and rail connections that carve it up further.
I’m no NIMBY and I’m all for houses being built on brown field and empty houses being sold off and occupied, but I honestly don’t believe the inflated prices depend only on a lack of supply. It’s the government meddling. Stick interest rates at 5% for a bit and then see what happens to prices! The market bubbles always corrected in the past and they will again given half a chance. There’s no new paradigm.
Rob Mk says:
As much as I’d like not too I must agree with Libby on some points:
I do not invest in the local community as I may not be there in 2 months times if the rent is hiked too much.
Rent is expensive and I may not be able to keep the same income as I have now, long service is rewarded here. New job is at best the same.
Home owners don’t consider you well or a valued member of society if you rent (actual experience).
Its all broken and I don’t see any politician offering any kind of solution