Nigel on the other hand is a middle class, middle ranking stock-broker who drinks red wine in high end restaurants.
His other great piece of psychological projection (straight from the Trump playbook) was when he said he was going to root out bigots from Reform. Quite how he would retain his membership under such a requirement remains a mystery.
Yes that shocked me. Telling half his voters to fuck off basically. Not smart politics.
Quite the opposite
This tellls me Farage is deadly serious about turning Reform into an election winning party (which I did not expect). He is following the path of Le Pen and Meloni. Sacking the nutters and tacking somewhat to the centre (but staying firmly on the hard right when it comes to migration/asylum/kulturkampf, etc)
He really wants to do this. He can sense a unique opportunity. Given that he is arguably the most consequential and successful British politician of the 21st century I would be worried in Labour AND Tory HQs
That does require him not to die of liver disease before the next General Election.
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
Nigel on the other hand is a middle class, middle ranking stock-broker who drinks red wine in high end restaurants.
His other great piece of psychological projection (straight from the Trump playbook) was when he said he was going to root out bigots from Reform. Quite how he would retain his membership under such a requirement remains a mystery.
Yes that shocked me. Telling half his voters to fuck off basically. Not smart politics.
Quite the opposite
This tellls me Farage is deadly serious about turning Reform into an election winning party (which I did not expect). He is following the path of Le Pen and Meloni. Sacking the nutters and tacking somewhat to the centre (but staying firmly on the hard right when it comes to migration/asylum/kulturkampf, etc)
He really wants to do this. He can sense a unique opportunity. Given that he is arguably the most consequential and successful British politician of the 21st century I would be worried in Labour AND Tory HQs
That does require him not to die of liver disease before the next General Election.
For a man with an apparently less-than-healthy lifestyle, Farage looks quite slim and chipper
Maybe Starmer was so desperate to move the country forward by giving an entire conference speech without mentioning Europe that he accidentally blurted out Brexit pain-point sausages
"Two figures tell me that it should have been shut down earlier and more emphatically, instead of running over the weekend into conference. "We should have killed it off, it looks bad," said one senior government figure."
Not only did he not shut it down, he made it worse. The initial reaction of go away, I will continue to take whatever freebies I want, as within the rules etc. I think he could have probably got out in front and said actually I don't want to even give the appearance of being like the Tories, lets reform the rules around this.
Instead he took another freebie to hang out with some lobbyists at the Spurs. Weirdly Gary Neville isn't bothered it was the same people behind the ESL, that thing he was apoplectic about and all of those involved.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
So your argument is that we have to stop renters from buying property from landlords, because the only way to house everyone in the country is to force young people to rent in HMOs from landlords instead?
That is a counsel of despair if ever I saw one.
No. My argument is to build more houses, as stated to Bart below, until we do that, everything else is just fiddling round the edges with some winners (those who can afford to buy) and some losers (the remainder stuck in the rental trap).
I subscribe to The Housing Theory of Everything (TM), again, posted on this site ad infinitum - https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ - and would vote for a political party that promised to (and had a plan to) build a million new homes every year for the next five years, even if it also promised the murder of every firstborn son and to raise CGT to 95%.
Make housing affordable again, stop housing from being the primary driver of wealth in this country, and you free up a huge amount of capital from unproductive assets, as well as a huge amount of disposable income to be spent elsewhere in the economy.
It's simple. If I were standing for election tomorrow, my manifesto would contain three words.
Build. More. Houses.*
(*with a detailed plan on how to make that happen on pages 2-23.)
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Maybe Starmer was so desperate to move the country forward by giving an entire conference speech without mentioning Europe that he accidentally blurted out Brexit pain-point sausages
The Euro sausage featured in Yes Minister/Prime-minister, so hits the spot for Jim Hacker cosplay
My guess is Starmer raises tax by far more than what's required to fix his fictitious hole on 30th October as part of a plan to fund the NHS over 10-years, with muchos Statism on top, and he goes for broke on that.
Gives him a bit of a two-term narrative and plays well to Labour's USP.
So maybe £40bn+ of tax rises phased in, rather than the twenty-two he's already ballooned to with his name your price deals.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
My guess is Starmer raises tax by far more than what's required to fix his fictitious hole on 30th October as part of a plan to fund the NHS over 10-years, with muchos Statism on top, and he goes for broke on that.
Gives him a bit of a two-term narrative and plays well to Labour's USP.
So maybe £40bn+ of tax rises phased in, rather than the twenty-two he's already ballooned to with his name your price deals.
Sounds like counter cyclical fiscal policy heading into a likely global economic contraction. Once the US election is out of the way and the Fed/Treasury smoke and mirrors disappear, 2025 might look not so great
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
My guess is Starmer raises tax by far more than what's required to fix his fictitious hole on 30th October as part of a plan to fund the NHS over 10-years, with muchos Statism on top, and he goes for broke on that.
Gives him a bit of a two-term narrative and plays well to Labour's USP.
So maybe £40bn+ of tax rises phased in, rather than the twenty-two he's already ballooned to with his name your price deals.
In a way, though, the revenue account is a sideshow. The key bit is how much capital spending on useful stuff can be enabled and how quickly.
Partly the GDP boost while it happens, mostly because if you want productivity gains that's where they will be, but also... It will make the country feel less shabby and depressing.
It's not just housing, though that's a very important part of it.
Fixing that- if it can be done- will cover a lot of sins. Frankly, it's going to have to.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
Fo sho
I just think Starmer could have handled it much better, than with a narrowly partisan put-down which will please a subset of his audience (anti-Corbynite Labour people) but annoy many more beyond - whether they have a point or not
He's not a very good politician, it is as simple as that. He really is Continuity Sunak without the billionaire homonculoid charm
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
I have seen the clip now. Hmm, yeah that isn't a great look, a) Starmer was there in 2019, b) making a joke on such a sensitive topic, particularly one that has been 3rd rail stuff for the left.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
Wages haven't even doubled since 2000, yes, whereas house prices have more than tripled.
What part of that are you not getting?
To scale from £18,800 to £35,800 wages house prices today should be £97,100 today. Not £130k plus.
The fact that you think £180k is affordable shows just how completely out of touch you are.
Its not that complex a problem, the problem is the lack of housing and is the fault of those who object to houses being constructed especially those who want to see their house go up in value because they've bought and paid off their mortgage so consider high prices as anything other than an unalloyed bad thing.
I didn't see the speech, did Starmer have anything imaginative or interesting to say about how we will get the increase in productivity and magic growth required to get the country back on track?
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.⁷
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
How's the job hunting in the Middle East going?
Looking at a great opportunity in Khan Younis, actually.
Said previously that 2024 is giving me the brexit itch. Now I'm coming out in hives.
2016 was the US Brexit as nobody expected Trump to win. Now Trump has at least a 50% chance to win, though if Harris does win it will be largely to keep him out rather than great enthusiasm for her
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.⁷
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
How's the job hunting in the Middle East going?
Looking at a great opportunity in Khan Younis, actually.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
We could since the issue is not building costs.
In the 1930s when housing construction outpaced anything ever seen post-war land cost about 2% of the price of a house.
Today land costs about 1/3rd of the price of the house.
The problem is the 1948 planning act and subsequent acts, its nothing to do with standards when land with not a damned thing on it costs a fortune.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
Wages haven't even doubled since 2000, yes, whereas house prices have more than tripled.
What part of that are you not getting?
To scale from £18,800 to £35,800 wages house prices today should be £97,100 today. Not £130k plus.
The fact that you think £180k is affordable shows just how completely out of touch you are.
I would suggest it is far lower than many and you simply have ignored my observations why house prices are rocketing
Housing is a problem but I doubt it will be resolved anytime soon
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.⁷
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
How's the job hunting in the Middle East going?
Looking at a great opportunity in Khan Younis, actually.
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
I have seen the clip now. Hmm, yeah that isn't a great look, a) Starmer was there in 2019, b) making a joke on such a sensitive topic, particularly one that has been 3rd rail stuff for the left.
Perhaps Starmer is Tony Blair repeating as farce.
In his mind he’s accomplished something similar in transforming the party and making it electable, but it’s all just a pale imitation of what came before.
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
Per se
I don't lose sleep over it, but I am mildly anti children of any colour anywhere dying in pain and terror. For Klouseau it has to be in Lancashire.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
Wages haven't even doubled since 2000, yes, whereas house prices have more than tripled.
What part of that are you not getting?
To scale from £18,800 to £35,800 wages house prices today should be £97,100 today. Not £130k plus.
The fact that you think £180k is affordable shows just how completely out of touch you are.
I would suggest it is far lower than many and you simply have ignored my observations why house prices are rocketing
Housing is a problem but I doubt it will be resolved anytime soon
Empty MOD property, prefabs, pods. Where there's a will there's a way.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
Wages haven't even doubled since 2000, yes, whereas house prices have more than tripled.
What part of that are you not getting?
To scale from £18,800 to £35,800 wages house prices today should be £97,100 today. Not £130k plus.
The fact that you think £180k is affordable shows just how completely out of touch you are.
I would suggest it is far lower than many and you simply have ignored my observations why house prices are rocketing
Housing is a problem but I doubt it will be resolved anytime soon
House prices are rocketing because of the cost of land with consent being absurdly high and the lack of there being sufficient construction due to planning restrictions.
Energy standards are peanuts.
Cut the price of land back to 2% of cost and you can afford all the high quality energy efficiency you want while still having affordable homes.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
You need a bloody big grater though.
You’d need to weigh it first.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
I once attempted to test ChatGPT's understanding of the world by asking it that very question. It got unnecessarily cross about the ethics of doing so.
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
So constipated Victorians used to seek relief, by shoving disgestive buscuits up their fundaments?
I didn't see the speech, did Starmer have anything imaginative or interesting to say about how we will get the increase in productivity and magic growth required to get the country back on track?
Christ you're like a broken record. You, Leon and Starmer could all slug it out for the dreariest contribution of the day. At least tongue tied Starmer raised a smile by not being able to differentiate a hostage from a sausage.
I didn't see the speech, did Starmer have anything imaginative or interesting to say about how we will get the increase in productivity and magic growth required to get the country back on track?
Christ you're like a broken record. You, Leon and Starmer could all slug it out for the dreariest contribution of the day. At least tongue tied Starmer raised a smile by not being able to differentiate a hostage from a sausage.
WTF are you talking about. I think you are seeing every comment at the moment as direct criticism, when it wasn't there.
I asked a serious question, I didn't see the speech, did he have anything interesting to say? I was trying to get past just the gaffes, I was genuinely interested what was the substance, was there anything interesting on his vision for how we get growth.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
You need a bloody big grater though.
You’d need to weigh it first.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
I once attempted to test ChatGPT's understanding of the world by asking it that very question. It got unnecessarily cross about the ethics of doing so.
It now tells me, "you would weigh a whale in Wales."
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
New build prices especially so. Three-quarters of the new build developments currently selling houses in West Cork don't even list prices - they are "price on application".
This is a feature of a market where sellers have strong pricing power. It's not because building standards are too high.
I didn't see the speech, did Starmer have anything imaginative or interesting to say about how we will get the increase in productivity and magic growth required to get the country back on track?
Christ you're like a broken record. You, Leon and Starmer could all slug it out for the dreariest contribution of the day. At least tongue tied Starmer raised a smile by not being able to differentiate a hostage from a sausage.
WTF are you talking about. I asked a serious question, I didn't see the speech, did he have anything interesting to say? I was trying to get past just the gaffes, I was genuinely interested what was the substance.
Yes, he mistakenly confused a hostage with a sausage.
His put down was reasonably effective unless you are cheerleading for Corbyn.
Other than that it was a well delivered load of conference nonsense for the faithful. Much like most leader's conference speeches.
Oh and the bit about Hillsborough.
Edit: I've seen your edit. If the cap fits wear it!
I didn't see the speech, did Starmer have anything imaginative or interesting to say about how we will get the increase in productivity and magic growth required to get the country back on track?
Christ you're like a broken record. You, Leon and Starmer could all slug it out for the dreariest contribution of the day. At least tongue tied Starmer raised a smile by not being able to differentiate a hostage from a sausage.
WTF are you talking about. I asked a serious question, I didn't see the speech, did he have anything interesting to say? I was trying to get past just the gaffes, I was genuinely interested what was the substance.
Yes, he mistakenly confused a hostage with a sausage.
His put down was reasonably effective unless you are cheerleading for Corbyn.
Other than that it was a well delivered load of conference nonsense for the faithful. Much like most leader's conference speeches.
Well normally there is the odd policy to give some examples of the vision a leader wants to portray. The pre-briefing was about getting tougher on benefit fraud, anything else?
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
So constipated Victorians used to seek relief, by shoving disgestive buscuits up their fundaments?
Surprise, surprise!
You eat them.
Look, there's a reason why the number one item we are asked to bring with us by Americans when we cross the Atlantic is biscuits. The British simply do biscuits better than the Americans, however hard oreos may be advertised.
VP Harris campaign: “Ahead of Donald Trump’s economic speech in Savannah… Teamsters Joint Council 75 representing Georgia, Florida, and Alabama endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for President” https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1838568094723133537
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
You need a bloody big grater though.
You’d need to weigh it first.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
I once attempted to test ChatGPT's understanding of the world by asking it that very question. It got unnecessarily cross about the ethics of doing so.
It now tells me, "you would weigh a whale in Wales."
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Agreed. He's so desperate to bring in his line about a changed party again, he makes a crass joke that really jars.
Though I liked the main thrust of the 30 mins or so of the speech that I could be bothered to listen to. If his comments about not shying away from tough decisions is anything more than empty rhetoric then I'll happily overlook some frankly second-rate politics over freebies etc.
He really skewered the Tories when he talked about Rwanda etc - fundamentally unserious policy responses to the big issues we face.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
You need a bloody big grater though.
You’d need to weigh it first.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
I once attempted to test ChatGPT's understanding of the world by asking it that very question. It got unnecessarily cross about the ethics of doing so.
It now tells me, "you would weigh a whale in Wales."
That's genuinely interesting. It can spot a joke and attempt to carry it on. It's not uproariously funny, but also not as horribly unfunny as the jokes it told a year ago. It has a certain surreal charm.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
Wages haven't even doubled since 2000, yes, whereas house prices have more than tripled.
What part of that are you not getting?
To scale from £18,800 to £35,800 wages house prices today should be £97,100 today. Not £130k plus.
The fact that you think £180k is affordable shows just how completely out of touch you are.
I would suggest it is far lower than many and you simply have ignored my observations why house prices are rocketing
Housing is a problem but I doubt it will be resolved anytime soon
Empty MOD property, prefabs, pods. Where there's a will there's a way.
As a child my parents would take me to visit family in Liverpool and all along the East Lancs Road were prefabs
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
So constipated Victorians used to seek relief, by shoving disgestive buscuits up their fundaments?
Surprise, surprise!
You eat them.
Look, there's a reason why the number one item we are asked to bring with us by Americans when we cross the Atlantic is biscuits. The British simply do biscuits better than the Americans, however hard oreos may be advertised.
Store-bought? Perhaps, though I seriously doubt it.
Home-made? No freaking way that home-baked UK "biscuits" surpass US made-from-scratch cookies.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Now, it is two acres, and it is within the development boundary for the village, so you would expect to get planning permission, and it *is* Glandore. But still. €485,000 for a site?
Possibly worse is this site near Rosscarbery. It's only 0.45 acres, and while it already has planning permission, that permission will expire in June 2025, and you'd have to get construction of the house to gable height by that date to prevent it from lapsing. €350,000.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
You need a bloody big grater though.
You’d need to weigh it first.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
I once attempted to test ChatGPT's understanding of the world by asking it that very question. It got unnecessarily cross about the ethics of doing so.
It now tells me, "you would weigh a whale in Wales."
That's genuinely interesting. It can spot a joke and attempt to carry it on. It's not uproariously funny, but also not as horribly unfunny as the jokes it told a year ago. It has a certain surreal charm.
I don't know if it is that interesting. Google it, there are reddit threads on the topic of jokes, of which Wales comes up as an answer.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
So constipated Victorians used to seek relief, by shoving disgestive buscuits up their fundaments?
Surprise, surprise!
You eat them.
Look, there's a reason why the number one item we are asked to bring with us by Americans when we cross the Atlantic is biscuits. The British simply do biscuits better than the Americans, however hard oreos may be advertised.
Oreos are rubbish.
A friend of mine is a teacher with very singular opinions. A pupil at his school once offered him an Oreo. The pupil was met with a heartfelt tirade about how he would not be taking his Oreo, because Oreos were essentially an inferior, American version of bourbons* which, like grey squirrels, were driving out the native product through a massive advertising budget (here the squirrel analogy got a little strained). The Oreo went uneaten. As it turned out, the pupil had painstakingly removed the white filling from the Oreos and replaced it with toothpaste as an April Fool's day joke. He had expected a telling off, but not exactly THAT telling off.
*note for the benefit of SSI - a bourbon is a biscuit: a bit like an Oreo, but better. Smaller, browner, more unremarkable to look at, but better engineered and with a smoother flavour.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
And if you owned that asset you would want market value
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
It comes down to a very simple question - did you buy a house prior to 2001/4 the date depends on where you are in the country. If you did you are quids in, if not purchasing a house was hard work as prices after that date reflected 3-4 times household earnings rather than highest single income earnings.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
And if you owned that asset you would want market value
What we have today is not free market value, because we do not have a free market.
Prior to the 1948 act land was 2% of house prices not because we had less land than today, but because you could build where you wanted within reason so why pay over the odds.
The 1948 is responsible for adding 00s to the price of land when it has consent. Not when it has insulation, norr when it has EV chargers, nor when it has LED lighting. When it has nothing but the land.
Nigel on the other hand is a middle class, middle ranking stock-broker who drinks red wine in high end restaurants.
His other great piece of psychological projection (straight from the Trump playbook) was when he said he was going to root out bigots from Reform. Quite how he would retain his membership under such a requirement remains a mystery.
Yes that shocked me. Telling half his voters to fuck off basically. Not smart politics.
Quite the opposite
This tellls me Farage is deadly serious about turning Reform into an election winning party (which I did not expect). He is following the path of Le Pen and Meloni. Sacking the nutters and tacking somewhat to the centre (but staying firmly on the hard right when it comes to migration/asylum/kulturkampf, etc)
He really wants to do this. He can sense a unique opportunity. Given that he is arguably the most consequential and successful British politician of the 21st century I would be worried in Labour AND Tory HQs
That does require him not to die of liver disease before the next General Election.
For a man with an apparently less-than-healthy lifestyle, Farage looks quite slim and chipper
Contrast with Boris
He's the same age as Nick Clegg. Nick looks about 15 years younger.
I didn't see the speech, did Starmer have anything imaginative or interesting to say about how we will get the increase in productivity and magic growth required to get the country back on track?
Christ you're like a broken record. You, Leon and Starmer could all slug it out for the dreariest contribution of the day. At least tongue tied Starmer raised a smile by not being able to differentiate a hostage from a sausage.
WTF are you talking about. I asked a serious question, I didn't see the speech, did he have anything interesting to say? I was trying to get past just the gaffes, I was genuinely interested what was the substance.
Yes, he mistakenly confused a hostage with a sausage.
His put down was reasonably effective unless you are cheerleading for Corbyn.
Other than that it was a well delivered load of conference nonsense for the faithful. Much like most leader's conference speeches.
Oh and the bit about Hillsborough.
Edit: I've seen your edit. If the cap fits wear it!
Caring about children being killed is, like, totally retro unless you are cheerleading for Corbyn?
The relevant children weren't being killed in the relevant way anyway in 2019 which makes it even sillier and nastier than it looks at first sight.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Don't feel bad. Politicians are there to be pointed and laughed at and kicked when their down... especially joyless, pompous ones with absolutely no sense of humour like Starmer.
Look at the way Liz Truss has been treated for the past two years - Albeit SKS hasn't plumbed the depths of the "lettuce"... Yet!
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Other thing is his heckler put down. Starmer says something like respect for all. The guy says does that include children in Gaza? I don't think Hur hur 2019 is an intelligent or attractive comeback.
I don't understand this? Can you explain.
"Hur hur [he thinks it is still] 2019" was my attempt to summarise Starmer's putdown. Point being I don't think it is very clever to suggest that caring about Gazan children is discredited bearded lefty shit
Yes, it pleased the audience but it might have enraged many more, beyond
But it is discredited bearded lefty shit.
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
Per se
I don't lose sleep over it, but I am mildly anti children of any colour anywhere dying in pain and terror. For Klouseau it has to be in Lancashire.
I would make exceptions for some of the kids at my childrens' schools.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
And if you owned that asset you would want market value
What we have today is not free market value, because we do not have a free market.
Prior to the 1948 act land was 2% of house prices not because we had less land than today, but because you could build where you wanted within reason so why pay over the odds.
The 1948 is responsible for adding 00s to the price of land when it has consent. Not when it has insulation, norr when it has EV chargers, nor when it has LED lighting. When it has nothing but the land.
If you expect land prices to revert to 2% then I am afraid you are in for a very long wait
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
And if you owned that asset you would want market value
What we have today is not free market value, because we do not have a free market.
Prior to the 1948 act land was 2% of house prices not because we had less land than today, but because you could build where you wanted within reason so why pay over the odds.
The 1948 is responsible for adding 00s to the price of land when it has consent. Not when it has insulation, norr when it has EV chargers, nor when it has LED lighting. When it has nothing but the land.
If you expect land prices to revert to 2% then I am afraid you are in for a very long wait
Land is about 2% already today if it doesn't have consent.
It is when consent is added that 00s get added to land price.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
And if you owned that asset you would want market value
What we have today is not free market value, because we do not have a free market.
Prior to the 1948 act land was 2% of house prices not because we had less land than today, but because you could build where you wanted within reason so why pay over the odds.
The 1948 is responsible for adding 00s to the price of land when it has consent. Not when it has insulation, norr when it has EV chargers, nor when it has LED lighting. When it has nothing but the land.
If you expect land prices to revert to 2% then I am afraid you are in for a very long wait
Land is about 2% already today if it doesn't have consent.
It is when consent is added that 00s get added to land price.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
You need a bloody big grater though.
You’d need to weigh it first.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
I once attempted to test ChatGPT's understanding of the world by asking it that very question. It got unnecessarily cross about the ethics of doing so.
It now tells me, "you would weigh a whale in Wales."
Ye Gods. It’s the same four miserable bores droning on night after night, with repetitive dour invective from @IshmaelZ/@mercantor. Somebody please - PLEASE! - make it stop.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
And if you owned that asset you would want market value
What we have today is not free market value, because we do not have a free market.
Prior to the 1948 act land was 2% of house prices not because we had less land than today, but because you could build where you wanted within reason so why pay over the odds.
The 1948 is responsible for adding 00s to the price of land when it has consent. Not when it has insulation, norr when it has EV chargers, nor when it has LED lighting. When it has nothing but the land.
If you expect land prices to revert to 2% then I am afraid you are in for a very long wait
Land is about 2% already today if it doesn't have consent.
It is when consent is added that 00s get added to land price.
The problem and the solution are the same thing.
The solution you want is a pipedream
The solution I want has been implemented, successfully, in other countries around the world.
There is not a single reason why it could not be done in this country and for you to witter on about energy efficiency and pretend that's the reason why houses are expensive when land without a building on is far too pricy . . . just shows you don't even want to tackle the problem.
Nigel on the other hand is a middle class, middle ranking stock-broker who drinks red wine in high end restaurants.
His other great piece of psychological projection (straight from the Trump playbook) was when he said he was going to root out bigots from Reform. Quite how he would retain his membership under such a requirement remains a mystery.
Yes that shocked me. Telling half his voters to fuck off basically. Not smart politics.
Quite the opposite
This tellls me Farage is deadly serious about turning Reform into an election winning party (which I did not expect). He is following the path of Le Pen and Meloni. Sacking the nutters and tacking somewhat to the centre (but staying firmly on the hard right when it comes to migration/asylum/kulturkampf, etc)
He really wants to do this. He can sense a unique opportunity. Given that he is arguably the most consequential and successful British politician of the 21st century I would be worried in Labour AND Tory HQs
That does require him not to die of liver disease before the next General Election.
For a man with an apparently less-than-healthy lifestyle, Farage looks quite slim and chipper
Contrast with Boris
He's the same age as Nick Clegg. Nick looks about 15 years younger.
Clegg’s aged a lot recently based on the interview that was posted on here. He’s starting to acquire the look of an aging minor rockstar who retired to California.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
I suspect you underestimate the level of intergenerational anger with regards to the housing market.
As a 40-something, many of us had parents who bought in their 20s for about 3x their annual salary, by the time we came to buy, it was 10x our salaries, plus deposit which either meant being insanely lucky or having parental help.
As a 40-something, many more twenty somethings can't even manage it with parental help, as house prices have further pulled away from annual salaries, hence the 6x mortgages announced this week - the ponzi must continue at any cost.
It is, to borrow a trumpism, a rigged system. The idea that you throw much of your early life away paying a landlord half your take home. Then, if you're super lucky, your parents give you enough cash to throw half your salary away paying the bank.
If we built a shit ton of new houses such as the new equilibrium was people paying 20-25% of income to either rent or (with lower rental costs) save up to buy a place of their own, huge amounts of money would be diverted from the unproductive sector (bricks and mortar) to business.
Ask anyone under the age of 40 and they will tell you the system is fundamentally broken.
Bart isn't angry with you. He - like me - is angry at the system.
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
So constipated Victorians used to seek relief, by shoving disgestive buscuits up their fundaments?
Surprise, surprise!
You eat them.
Look, there's a reason why the number one item we are asked to bring with us by Americans when we cross the Atlantic is biscuits. The British simply do biscuits better than the Americans, however hard oreos may be advertised.
Store-bought? Perhaps, though I seriously doubt it.
Home-made? No freaking way that home-baked UK "biscuits" surpass US made-from-scratch cookies.
What US manufactured cookie surpasses the chocolate hobnob ?
Nigel on the other hand is a middle class, middle ranking stock-broker who drinks red wine in high end restaurants.
His other great piece of psychological projection (straight from the Trump playbook) was when he said he was going to root out bigots from Reform. Quite how he would retain his membership under such a requirement remains a mystery.
Yes that shocked me. Telling half his voters to fuck off basically. Not smart politics.
Quite the opposite
This tellls me Farage is deadly serious about turning Reform into an election winning party (which I did not expect). He is following the path of Le Pen and Meloni. Sacking the nutters and tacking somewhat to the centre (but staying firmly on the hard right when it comes to migration/asylum/kulturkampf, etc)
He really wants to do this. He can sense a unique opportunity. Given that he is arguably the most consequential and successful British politician of the 21st century I would be worried in Labour AND Tory HQs
That does require him not to die of liver disease before the next General Election.
For a man with an apparently less-than-healthy lifestyle, Farage looks quite slim and chipper
Contrast with Boris
He's the same age as Nick Clegg. Nick looks about 15 years younger.
Clegg’s aged a lot recently based on the interview that was posted on here. He’s starting to acquire the look of an aging minor rockstar who retired to California.
I was just thinking that, the interview from last week, he was looking noticeably older. No Farage old, but definitely looking his age now.
Colston Bassett blue stilton with Okanagan strawberry chilli jam???
Who knew???
Fuck. That's good
Oh ffs. It's grub. Get a grip.
Your miserablism is a joy. Labour are such a disappointment. It's delicious to watch
Tho not as delicious as Colston Bassett stilton with Okanagan chili jam
I can well imagine. I have had a similar combination with Stilton, and it's magnificent.
What are you eating this concoction on? For a long time I sidestepped cheese as vaguely unsatisfactory but it turned out what was actually unsatisfactory was the cracker or oatcake or otger taste vacuum it sat on. My solution is a digestive or hovis biscuit.
The term "digestive biscuit" is NOT a masterpierce of British marketing.
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Well, that just shows where you are wrong. Digestive biscuits are made with bicarbonate of soda, which is a mild laxative, and so the name was chosen deliberately to sell them as a Victorian era health food to aid in digestion. This marketing was so popular that digestive biscuits are still a staple biscuit in Britain today.
So constipated Victorians used to seek relief, by shoving disgestive buscuits up their fundaments?
Surprise, surprise!
You eat them.
Look, there's a reason why the number one item we are asked to bring with us by Americans when we cross the Atlantic is biscuits. The British simply do biscuits better than the Americans, however hard oreos may be advertised.
Oreos are rubbish.
A friend of mine is a teacher with very singular opinions. A pupil at his school once offered him an Oreo. The pupil was met with a heartfelt tirade about how he would not be taking his Oreo, because Oreos were essentially an inferior, American version of bourbons* which, like grey squirrels, were driving out the native product through a massive advertising budget (here the squirrel analogy got a little strained). The Oreo went uneaten. As it turned out, the pupil had painstakingly removed the white filling from the Oreos and replaced it with toothpaste as an April Fool's day joke. He had expected a telling off, but not exactly THAT telling off.
*note for the benefit of SSI - a bourbon is a biscuit: a bit like an Oreo, but better. Smaller, browner, more unremarkable to look at, but better engineered and with a smoother flavour.
Ye Gods. It’s the same four miserable bores droning on night after night, with repetitive dour invective from @IshmaelZ/@mercantor. Somebody please - PLEASE! - make it stop.
STOP FUCKING DOXXING
Look, we all get that you're bitterly disappointed that the long-awaited Labour government is a pile of dead donkey shite, and Starmer is the stiffened donkey. It must be dismaying. Fair enough. We see the acrid disgruntlement in all your comments, and those of @Mexicanpete and @kinabalu and the rest; that's life, and that's politics...
So, whatever. Feel free to vent and abuse. But stop the doxxing, it is against the rules and you will be banned
Ye Gods. It’s the same four miserable bores droning on night after night, with repetitive dour invective from @IshmaelZ/@mercantor. Somebody please - PLEASE! - make it stop.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
How thick is a whale omelette? And - come to mention it - how does one make a whale omelette, given whales are mammals?
Same way you make a cheese omelette, but with whales.
You need a bloody big grater though.
You’d need to weigh it first.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
Well, I thought it was funny.
Couldn’t you just employ the Archimedean principle ?
It's extraordinary. I feel bad about laughing about it. It feels like a primary school playground pile on on the weird kid without any friends But it is telling that it's gone global. Can't imagine Blair or even Sunak getting this level of kicking
Don't feel bad. Politicians are there to be pointed and laughed at and kicked when their down... especially joyless, pompous ones with absolutely no sense of humour like Starmer.
Look at the way Liz Truss has been treated for the past two years - Albeit SKS hasn't plumbed the depths of the "lettuce"... Yet!
I too feel bad, as a voter. If we pile on every mistake, if we deliberately infer the worst, then it's not surprising that the only people who want to do the job are these weirdos. But most of this lot (I'm looking at you in particular, Angela, though no-one is innocent here) have spent the last four years - what's the opposite of cheerleading? anyway, doing that - to the previous incumbents of the office. It's hard to feel too much sympathy.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
This is a local development near to us and the prices have shocked the community
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
Its only shocked you because you've not been paying attention.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
Why are you so rude
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
When you post things like "my 49 year old has a house" as a retort to a discussion that house prices are making housing unaffordable for too many today then that is demeaning to the millions of people in their 20s and 30s who do not and can not afford one because prices today are not what they were 25 years ago, nor are price-earning ratios.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
And if you owned that asset you would want market value
What we have today is not free market value, because we do not have a free market.
Prior to the 1948 act land was 2% of house prices not because we had less land than today, but because you could build where you wanted within reason so why pay over the odds.
The 1948 is responsible for adding 00s to the price of land when it has consent. Not when it has insulation, norr when it has EV chargers, nor when it has LED lighting. When it has nothing but the land.
If you expect land prices to revert to 2% then I am afraid you are in for a very long wait
Land is about 2% already today if it doesn't have consent.
It is when consent is added that 00s get added to land price.
The problem and the solution are the same thing.
The solution you want is a pipedream
The solution I want has been implemented, successfully, in other countries around the world.
There is not a single reason why it could not be done in this country and for you to witter on about energy efficiency and pretend that's the reason why houses are expensive when land without a building on is far too pricy . . . just shows you don't even want to tackle the problem.
I have grandchildren so can you stop being rude
Of course I want it tackled and building more homes is the only answer
Nigel on the other hand is a middle class, middle ranking stock-broker who drinks red wine in high end restaurants.
His other great piece of psychological projection (straight from the Trump playbook) was when he said he was going to root out bigots from Reform. Quite how he would retain his membership under such a requirement remains a mystery.
Yes that shocked me. Telling half his voters to fuck off basically. Not smart politics.
Quite the opposite
This tellls me Farage is deadly serious about turning Reform into an election winning party (which I did not expect). He is following the path of Le Pen and Meloni. Sacking the nutters and tacking somewhat to the centre (but staying firmly on the hard right when it comes to migration/asylum/kulturkampf, etc)
He really wants to do this. He can sense a unique opportunity. Given that he is arguably the most consequential and successful British politician of the 21st century I would be worried in Labour AND Tory HQs
That does require him not to die of liver disease before the next General Election.
For a man with an apparently less-than-healthy lifestyle, Farage looks quite slim and chipper
Contrast with Boris
He's the same age as Nick Clegg. Nick looks about 15 years younger.
Clegg’s aged a lot recently based on the interview that was posted on here. He’s starting to acquire the look of an aging minor rockstar who retired to California.
Someone on here, a few years ago, when I was about 55, warned me that a lot of apparently well-preserved men age really suddenly after about 55
Tragically, that turns out to be true. I could pass for early 40s into my mid 50s. Not any more
Ye Gods. It’s the same four miserable bores droning on night after night, with repetitive dour invective from @IshmaelZ/@mercantor. Somebody please - PLEASE! - make it stop.
I'm new here. You seem disturbed and I am not sure how to help. Perhaps have a comforting plate of hostages and mash and a good night's sleep?
Comments
I have, in Iceland. It's OK. Like slightly fishy beef, but not off-puttingly fishy
Would eat again, unlike puffin
He doesn't seem to go there much at present.
Contrast with Boris
Didn't think it was anything special to be honest.
Not only did he not shut it down, he made it worse. The initial reaction of go away, I will continue to take whatever freebies I want, as within the rules etc. I think he could have probably got out in front and said actually I don't want to even give the appearance of being like the Tories, lets reform the rules around this.
Instead he took another freebie to hang out with some lobbyists at the Spurs. Weirdly Gary Neville isn't bothered it was the same people behind the ESL, that thing he was apoplectic about and all of those involved.
I subscribe to The Housing Theory of Everything (TM), again, posted on this site ad infinitum - https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ - and would vote for a political party that promised to (and had a plan to) build a million new homes every year for the next five years, even if it also promised the murder of every firstborn son and to raise CGT to 95%.
Make housing affordable again, stop housing from being the primary driver of wealth in this country, and you free up a huge amount of capital from unproductive assets, as well as a huge amount of disposable income to be spent elsewhere in the economy.
It's simple. If I were standing for election tomorrow, my manifesto would contain three words.
Build. More. Houses.*
(*with a detailed plan on how to make that happen on pages 2-23.)
Gives him a bit of a two-term narrative and plays well to Labour's USP.
So maybe £40bn+ of tax rises phased in, rather than the twenty-two he's already ballooned to with his name your price deals.
Where would you weigh a whale ?
At a whale weigh station.
Ba dum Tish.
The reason "Gaza" gets so much traction is that it's where all left-wing prejudices on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism all meet - and anti-semitism is the tonic on top - so it's a perfect erogenous zone for them served up with ecstasy and crack cocaine.
They don't actually give that much of a shit about the Palestinians, per say.
https://x.com/genevieve_holl/status/1838595762348789994
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
Sounds like something a vet would prescribe for a consipated parrot.
Partly the GDP boost while it happens, mostly because if you want productivity gains that's where they will be, but also... It will make the country feel less shabby and depressing.
It's not just housing, though that's a very important part of it.
Fixing that- if it can be done- will cover a lot of sins. Frankly, it's going to have to.
This ad is absolute wank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJbIMF8dTVA
Said previously that 2024 is giving me the brexit itch. Now I'm coming out in hives.
I just think Starmer could have handled it much better, than with a narrowly partisan put-down which will please a subset of his audience (anti-Corbynite Labour people) but annoy many more beyond - whether they have a point or not
He's not a very good politician, it is as simple as that. He really is Continuity Sunak without the billionaire homonculoid charm
What part of that are you not getting?
To scale from £18,800 to £35,800 wages house prices today should be £97,100 today. Not £130k plus.
The fact that you think £180k is affordable shows just how completely out of touch you are.
Its not that complex a problem, the problem is the lack of housing and is the fault of those who object to houses being constructed especially those who want to see their house go up in value because they've bought and paid off their mortgage so consider high prices as anything other than an unalloyed bad thing.
Your response was rather funny. Respect!
In the 1930s when housing construction outpaced anything ever seen post-war land cost about 2% of the price of a house.
Today land costs about 1/3rd of the price of the house.
The problem is the 1948 planning act and subsequent acts, its nothing to do with standards when land with not a damned thing on it costs a fortune.
Housing is a problem but I doubt it will be resolved anytime soon
In his mind he’s accomplished something similar in transforming the party and making it electable, but it’s all just a pale imitation of what came before.
I don't lose sleep over it, but I am mildly anti children of any colour anywhere dying in pain and terror. For Klouseau it has to be in Lancashire.
Energy standards are peanuts.
Cut the price of land back to 2% of cost and you can afford all the high quality energy efficiency you want while still having affordable homes.
These are not affordable homes for many, and it is why public opinion is very much with the local authority rule of 200% Council tax uplift this year, with 300% to follow for all second homes
https://www.anwylhomes.co.uk/our-developments/parc-bodafon/
Surprise, surprise!
I asked a serious question, I didn't see the speech, did he have anything interesting to say? I was trying to get past just the gaffes, I was genuinely interested what was the substance, was there anything interesting on his vision for how we get growth.
House prices are far too high. Land costs are far too high. Search for undeveloped land with consent, you'll be looking at more than six figures for the plot of land alone.
But get the exact same plot without consent and you can knock a couple of 0's off that price.
It is the 1948 act that is the problem, not pissing about with energy standards. Energy standards are a good thing, not a bad one and are utter peanuts in the housing costs.
New build prices especially so. Three-quarters of the new build developments currently selling houses in West Cork don't even list prices - they are "price on application".
This is a feature of a market where sellers have strong pricing power. It's not because building standards are too high.
His put down was reasonably effective unless you are cheerleading for Corbyn.
Other than that it was a well delivered load of conference nonsense for the faithful. Much like most leader's conference speeches.
Oh and the bit about Hillsborough.
Edit: I've seen your edit. If the cap fits wear it!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wolfgang
Look, there's a reason why the number one item we are asked to bring with us by Americans when we cross the Atlantic is biscuits. The British simply do biscuits better than the Americans, however hard oreos may be advertised.
https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1838568094723133537
Agreed. He's so desperate to bring in his line about a changed party again, he makes a crass joke that really jars.
Though I liked the main thrust of the 30 mins or so of the speech that I could be bothered to listen to. If his comments about not shying away from tough decisions is anything more than empty rhetoric then I'll happily overlook some frankly second-rate politics over freebies etc.
He really skewered the Tories when he talked about Rwanda etc - fundamentally unserious policy responses to the big issues we face.
Of course I have been following house prices and indeed in my company before I retired I lectured on property, regulation and if you believe it was involved with the DCLG advising Yvette Cooper on home information packs
I fear for younger people especially those who rent not least because at retirement their rent will continue unlike a mortgage free home.
Of course many will inherit from their parents which will change their opportunities and why any chancellor attacking IHT will not be popular with some
But please do not blame those who have paid their mortgage as it isn't their fault but that of successive governments failing to build enough houses and I doubt that will change much for a variety of reasons and NIMBYs
Home-made? No freaking way that home-baked UK "biscuits" surpass US made-from-scratch cookies.
Now, it is two acres, and it is within the development boundary for the village, so you would expect to get planning permission, and it *is* Glandore. But still. €485,000 for a site?
Possibly worse is this site near Rosscarbery. It's only 0.45 acres, and while it already has planning permission, that permission will expire in June 2025, and you'd have to get construction of the house to gable height by that date to prevent it from lapsing. €350,000.
Its not the fault of those who've paid off their mortgages, its the fault of those who want to inflate the "value" of their "asset" because they've done so.
A friend of mine is a teacher with very singular opinions. A pupil at his school once offered him an Oreo. The pupil was met with a heartfelt tirade about how he would not be taking his Oreo, because Oreos were essentially an inferior, American version of bourbons* which, like grey squirrels, were driving out the native product through a massive advertising budget (here the squirrel analogy got a little strained).
The Oreo went uneaten.
As it turned out, the pupil had painstakingly removed the white filling from the Oreos and replaced it with toothpaste as an April Fool's day joke. He had expected a telling off, but not exactly THAT telling off.
*note for the benefit of SSI - a bourbon is a biscuit: a bit like an Oreo, but better. Smaller, browner, more unremarkable to look at, but better engineered and with a smoother flavour.
Prior to the 1948 act land was 2% of house prices not because we had less land than today, but because you could build where you wanted within reason so why pay over the odds.
The 1948 is responsible for adding 00s to the price of land when it has consent. Not when it has insulation, norr when it has EV chargers, nor when it has LED lighting. When it has nothing but the land.
The relevant children weren't being killed in the relevant way anyway in 2019 which makes it even sillier and nastier than it looks at first sight.
Look at the way Liz Truss has been treated for the past two years - Albeit SKS hasn't plumbed the depths of the "lettuce"... Yet!
It is when consent is added that 00s get added to land price.
The problem and the solution are the same thing.
There is not a single reason why it could not be done in this country and for you to witter on about energy efficiency and pretend that's the reason why houses are expensive when land without a building on is far too pricy . . . just shows you don't even want to tackle the problem.
As a 40-something, many of us had parents who bought in their 20s for about 3x their annual salary, by the time we came to buy, it was 10x our salaries, plus deposit which either meant being insanely lucky or having parental help.
As a 40-something, many more twenty somethings can't even manage it with parental help, as house prices have further pulled away from annual salaries, hence the 6x mortgages announced this week - the ponzi must continue at any cost.
It is, to borrow a trumpism, a rigged system. The idea that you throw much of your early life away paying a landlord half your take home. Then, if you're super lucky, your parents give you enough cash to throw half your salary away paying the bank.
If we built a shit ton of new houses such as the new equilibrium was people paying 20-25% of income to either rent or (with lower rental costs) save up to buy a place of their own, huge amounts of money would be diverted from the unproductive sector (bricks and mortar) to business.
Ask anyone under the age of 40 and they will tell you the system is fundamentally broken.
Bart isn't angry with you. He - like me - is angry at the system.
Like everyone else our age.
(And Oreos, vile.)
Look, we all get that you're bitterly disappointed that the long-awaited Labour government is a pile of dead donkey shite, and Starmer is the stiffened donkey. It must be dismaying. Fair enough. We see the acrid disgruntlement in all your comments, and those of @Mexicanpete and @kinabalu and the rest; that's life, and that's politics...
So, whatever. Feel free to vent and abuse. But stop the doxxing, it is against the rules and you will be banned
But most of this lot (I'm looking at you in particular, Angela, though no-one is innocent here) have spent the last four years - what's the opposite of cheerleading? anyway, doing that - to the previous incumbents of the office. It's hard to feel too much sympathy.
Of course I want it tackled and building more homes is the only answer
Tragically, that turns out to be true. I could pass for early 40s into my mid 50s. Not any more
https://deadline.com/2024/09/the-evening-standard-to-revive-brian-sewell-ai-form-1236096928/