Yeah, it's now expected that you'll slave away your best years to afford some shoddy house when you're 50.
The Housing Crisis (UK)
- Thread starter Jericholyte2
- Start date
You ain't getting a 25-year mortgage at 50!
What's worse is that buying a modern new build is a minefield as there are many cases of them being so badly constructed that once the issues get discovered it makes the house unsellable until they're fixed.
I would never go near a new build, too much risk attached.
I would never go near a new build, too much risk attached.
The deposit only tells one story. You'd still need an annual/joint income of 60k+ to afford a 250k property in the north.
Our economy needs the grey market, like it or not. We should not vilify all of it as exploitative when it serves a purpose for all involved. Focus on the ones that genuinely do exploit, the ones coming here for economic resons, and the rest of the people all need somewhere to live and they're never going to be able to buy.
It doesn't sound good until you break it down and remember we have 29,900,000 houses in the UK and only 29,579 schools.
Let's say you're a blind man and accidentally stumble into a random building on your way out to buy a copy of The Morning Star. You're more than 980 times more likely to walk into a house than you are a school.
Therefore 1 in 21 adults being a landlord is kinda small comparatively.
Checkmate comrade.
What you're quite obviously missing is the inherent disparity in power. I can be happy to take almost any offer if my situation is sufficiently desperate. This is what makes me exploitable. This is not a transaction between equals.
Agreed. Seems like every week there are stories like this on the bbc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7kgz5dv51o
Have to feel for people in that position. Developers build a shitty house and then can't be bothered to fix it properly. At least with houses that have been standing for 60 years+ there is a decent chance they were built to last.
Maybe it's just me but I think lot of new builds look shite too.
Nothing worth having is every easy.
Officially banks may require 4.5 x salary but my experiences shows they will bend over backwards to offer credit.
A £ 250,000 house was only an example. You can buy a small terraced for between £ 120,000-£ 150,000. For a couple it IS possible.
Renting isn't that cheap either. A tiny one bed apartment will likely set you back at least £ 600 a month round my way
Northern Europe has the UK/US beat in that respect.
And you ask "why"? Independence. Privacy. Freedom. The ability to date someone who's very loud during sex.
Last edited:
Never said it was easy, I'm actually arguing the opposite, you made the original claim downplaying the difficulty and why people can't save 12.5k for a deposit. Using the avg salary as a bench mark for a 250k home, means banks will need to lend at a 6.75 ratio, you will be hard pressed to find a bank that will do this.
Now you are moving the goalposts and adding further conditions to your original claim (you need a partner and have to buy at the cheaper end of the market). This just demonstrates that housing is unaffordable for the average person, it's the same with the rental market.
Last edited:
I want the govt to buy some. I want the value of the majority to fall through the floor. I dont want the govt backing deposits for people like me with a decent job, i want the govt backing low income families to be able to buy these sorts of houses.
I agree it serves the worker in some instances, however the employer and worker are not the only sides involved. I'm not happy with businesses paying staff cash in hand, at all.
If they are underpaying staff then it means their overheads are reduced, and they can price their products cheaper than law abiding businesses. They are not paying employer NICs contributions, so tax paying businesses and individuals are left with a heavier tax burden. Nor is the worker paying income tax, more strain on tax payers. Plus if they're income is off the books, they are also able to claim benefits in some cases, above what their income would actually entitle them to.
The grey economy is not a good thing at all, and the sooner everything is digitized and cash is a thing of the past, the better. Its the only way everyone will ever pay the correct tax.
The bigger travesty is obviously the wealthiest individuals and biggest business not paying their fair share of tax, but it doesn't excuse low level tax evasion.
So you're telling me that not only do I need to try and find an affordable house, I also have to find a fecking partner too!? 
I'm currently in this boat. I actually have a decent deposit saved up but don't really feel all that keen on buying a house with one income in this economy. Although I'm aware even that puts me in a better position than a lot of people right nowSo you're telling me that not only do I need to try and find an affordable house, I also have to find a fecking partner too!?
What planet do you live on?
Are you looking to move there?
Nope, it's so I know which one to avoid
People have been wishing for house prices to crash for years now.
Danger with getting low income families on the property ladder with deposit support is how vulnerable they'll be if they lose an income or rates increase.
I fully agree with you BUT most modern economies rely on it and big sections would cease to function without it. If you eliminate it, what happens when the estimated million or so illegal residents come out of the woodwork?
So, we have to accept their presence, stop new ones arriving, and plan to house the ones that are already here. But anyway, this thread is about housing costs.
Can't see deposit support happening, some form of shared equity with a path to full equity is possibly one way forward
What did I write that was so "out of this world" to you?
1/ You need 5% deposit for a residential mortgage?
2/ It's impossible for people to accumulate savings in the 21st Century?
3/ You can buy a reasonably decent house for £ 250,000 in some/many parts of the north west?
4/ You consider £ 12,500 in savings to be astronimically unrealistic
So you're telling me that not only do I need to try and find an affordable house, I also have to find a fecking partner too!?
Er......yep.
Preferably one with a decent income otherwise........what's the point. Know what I mean?
It could be a partnership of convenience. There doesn't have to be any sex involved though that would be a bonus
I understand the sentiment and obviously the solution should not be that simplistic (as always). I don't have the knowledge on how we could contain this risk and contingency but this is how I see it:
- I believe in distribution of wealth ---> with the current housing system you are creating 2 classes and the divide is getting wider ---> My only understanding when buying a house is to purchase it to stay on it. The only value on selling it is to get enough money to buy another similar elsewhere (i.e. job change) or adding a bit to get it bigger (i.e. family grow). NEVER TO SPECULATE ---> If we limit the number of housing that someone can own, offer will overflow the demand and the prices will get lower ---> people that accounted for a mortgage to live in it should be able to keep paying and live in it as a residence. They will lose value on the house but they need to live in a house for the rest of their lives. The value of the house will be equivalent to another house in the market if they want to change. So if now a house is 1 million and they want to sell it, they will need to buy another 1 million house to live in it. with the change, if they sell the house for 400k, they will need to buy the another house of 400k that will be the same that was valued at 1 million. If there are financial difficulties, the government will need to bale them out with a program
In the end you all three are talking on how the mortgage holders will lose equity and true as I said, I understand the sentiment. But meanwhile we are shafting millions of people that don't have access to mortgage and they spend more than 60-70% in some cases in rent without being able to save their entire lives and PERPETUATING it for generations. with the changes that, as I said, they never should be that simplistic and should be some risk considerations, would circle back to my first point. Distribution of wealth. Between mortgage holders and people without access, I will always try to protect the ones that have less resources and lets not forget. This is only getting worse
Or we can wait for 70 years, that if climate change doesn't kill us, there will be houses for everyone because populations will more than halve and this equity will be lost anyway
The average savings of a person in the north west is way below that. That level of savings doesn't become the norm in the NW until almost 50 years of age.
https://www.raisin.co.uk/newsroom/better-saving-money/
Did you have Sky TV growing up?
And also, I don't know why a person that is working in London, would need to have a 4 hour commute with the loss of quality of life. Or someone that has his family and friends somewhere, is forced to leave their life
Well, let's remove the housing affordability issue out of the equation and focus on savings then?
If someone hasn't yet bought a home or moved out yet then presumably they are working and therefore able to save money? Yes?
Average salary of £ 35,000. (though where I live there are MANY people earning much less than that) equates to around £ 2300 take home pay. It should be possible to raise a deposit after a couple of years even taking into account car payments, phone, etc
If people are going to uni and after studying expect to buy a house then maybe their expectations are just unrealistic
No. I live in a northern town. We only get electricity when the wind blows westward
4/ The average wage in the NW of England is less than 30K - and that includes all the highly paid footballers, how many people do you think would qualify for a mortgage to buy a 250K house?
Are there any good jobs though? Preferably not occupied by some middle-aged cnut who will stay until they die and then the position is removed entirely because it turns out that they didn't do any actual work for 40 years.
You're conflating different things here. Sure ban or punitively tax second homes, whether bought for holidays or for speculation.
Most people do buy a home to just live in though and punishing millions who've just got on the ladder is patently unfair. If they get into deep negative equity- you're talking about prices falling 60%- they won't be able to afford to move anywhere most likely. They can't swap their £1m home that's now worth £400 k for another one in the same boat cos they might still owe £800k on their mortgage.
Actually build more houses, ban overseas buyers, restore derelict ones etc...there are multiple steps that can be taken before wrecking the lives of millions.
It's a global issue, which makes it even more terrifying.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...ing to the OECD, the,113 per cent in Portugal.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...ing to the OECD, the,113 per cent in Portugal.
I agree with your post, but the idea of negative equity as a crisis you can't ride out is also tied in to a property 'ladder' and house as commodity?
Love how people here act like the NorthWest is some absolute hellhole 
Parts of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, are really nice and affluent. The whole gap between Liverpool and Manchester has some of the wealthiest areas in the country.
Parts of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, are really nice and affluent. The whole gap between Liverpool and Manchester has some of the wealthiest areas in the country.
Yeah I don't think most of us are going to be living there.Love how people here act like the NorthWest is some absolute hellhole
Parts of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, are really nice and affluent. The whole gap between Liverpool and Manchester has some of the wealthiest areas in the country.
The thread is about housing not savings
The average monthly rent in the North West of England is between £1,063 and £1,127
How much of the £1,300 or so left should be saved?
Love how people here act like the NorthWest is some absolute hellhole
Parts of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, are really nice and affluent. The whole gap between Liverpool and Manchester has some of the wealthiest areas in the country.
The key word is average.
What's worse is equating low income sections of society to a hellhole.