Should house prices be dropped drastically - to help the young ?

[bobbie]

I seriously worry for the young people of the future, house prices are so high and yet despite putting in a 40 hour working week, many young people will never be able to save up enough of a deposit to put down on a home.

 

Someone on £7 per hour, for 40 hours will get £280 per week, less tax will come to around £240 per week, for the month this would give a net of £960.

 

With rents for anywhere reasonable being around £400 minimum per month, you aren't left with an awful lot for much else. If you pay £600 per month, you can at least be in a decentish area.

 

How on earth will young people of the future ever get on the housing ladder? this could potentially become a very serious problem in 10 or 20 years further down the line

[Paul2412]

I seriously worry for the young people of the future, house prices are so high and yet despite putting in a 40 hour working week, many young people will never be able to save up enough of a deposit to put down on a home.

 

Someone on £7 per hour, for 40 hours will get £280 per week, less tax will come to around £240 per week, for the month this would give a net of £960.

 

With rents for anywhere reasonable being around £400 minimum per month, you aren't left with an awful lot for much else. If you pay £600 per month, you can at least be in a decentish area.

 

How on earth will young people of the future ever get on the housing ladder? this could potentially become a very serious problem in 10 or 20 years further down the line

 

I think it already has become a serious problem. Prices might be lower now but banks aren't willing to touch you unless you've got at least a 10% deposit.

 

I'm not sure whether dropping house prices would do much good, it would put millions into negative equity.

[truman]

I think it already has become a serious problem. Prices might be lower now but banks aren't willing to touch you unless you've got at least a 10% deposit.

 

I'm not sure whether dropping house prices would do much good, it would put millions into negative equity.

 

Only 10%? When I bought my first house 30 ish years ago you had to have 20% deposit and have been saving with the building society for a year before they'd even consider you...how can you artificially drop the price of something that is controlled by supply and demand..the only way is to build more houses...

[epiphany]

People are so impatient to get on the "ladder". I know it's the best investment you can make and it's yours to make your own etc. etc. but there's definitely been a shift in mentality over the years as far as when is the appropriate time to get a mortgage.

 

Renting is cheaper as far as monthly outgoings, you can negotiate rent and furniture and our tenancy regulations, although not as favourable as some European countries, give the tenant a lot more freedom than many realise. You just have to spend time looking for the best deal, and make sure you negotiate with the landlord. Often you can get a better deal if you offer to sign a 12 month contract.

 

The money you save by renting can be saved for buying a better home (than if you had rushed to get on that bottom rung) or investing in something less volatile than the housing market.

[tonkatoy]

It isn't going to happen whilst this government announces house building targets to grab headlines but simply fails to act on them.

 

It is a shortage of housing that is driving up prices largely fueled by foreigners buying into the housing stock.

 

Despite demand increasing house building fell to its lowest level for 80 years in 2001 and that has been the story more or less since.

 

Housing need was identified at between 220,000 and 230,000 new homes per year. Actual figures achieved around 165,000.

 

But there is one Government supporting moron on this forum who starts inumerable threads praising the government for driving house prices beyond the reach of first time buyers. So whatchya going to do.

[truman]

It isn't going to happen whilst this government announces house building targets to grab headlines but simply fails to act on them.

 

It is a shortage of housing that is driving up prices largely fueled by foreigners buying into the housing stock.

 

Despite demand increasing house building fell to its lowest level for 80 years in 2001 and that has been the story more or less since.

 

Housing need was identified at between 220,000 and 230,000 new homes per year. Actual figures achieved around 165,000.

 

But there is one Government supporting moron on this forum who starts inumerable threads praising the government for driving house prices beyond the reach of first time buyers. So whatchya going to do.

 

Not seen him lately..has he sunk without trace?

[millhouses24]

1. You're either a troll or mental because ALL your posts are somewhat controversial

 

2. No, they definitely shouldn't. It would destroy any already shaky consumer confidence. I'm a renter and I think it's a stupid idea.

 

3. Most people I know who want to own a house find, or have found, a way to do so (parents, working their arses off, buying with a mate, taking in lodgers, etc etc). So we're not a generation priced out by any means.

 

4. I don't think you should "worry" over the fact that twenty somethings can't afford to buy. Having no work is bad. Being ill is bad. Living somewhere wartorn is bad. Not being able to afford a property and having to rent is not a disaster in the grand scheme of things.

 

Many of my European chums regard it as the "normal" thing to do, even if you are married with three kids. It's a bit annoying being at the whim of estate agents, but then you get the freedom to move around (which for me personally is going to work out very well). If I wanted to live somewhere "nicer" in my own home I'd work harder and save more, not expect the flaming goverment to sort me out.

[scottf]

Its only the british way of thinking that makes us all want to have amorgage by the time we are 30, the rest of the european population are fine with renting for most of there lifes- and i agree to a point, why not?

[boyfriday]

Only 10%? When I bought my first house 30 ish years ago you had to have 20% deposit and have been saving with the building society for a year before they'd even consider you...

Them were the days truman, remember them well and also the rocketing house prices that meant the £3k you had for your 20% deposit, had to become £4k, by the time everyone had stopped upbidding.

how can you artificially drop the price of something that is controlled by supply and demand..the only way is to build more houses...

 

That's right, house prices cant be artficially kept low, aside from building new houses, I guess there could be schemes to raise finance or joint ownership aimed specifically at first timers.

[apelike]

No way should they be dropped.

 

I agree with epiphany to some extent but the whole notion that being on the housing ladder as an investment is wrong unless you can afford to buy 2 properties at the same time.

 

What's needed is more building of affordable rented accommodation and less reliance on home ownership. Lets face it its basically HP as that home is not yours until that final payment long into the future. I must admit to getting annoyed at people when they say "we own our home" when its on a mortgage for 20-30 years and in reality not theirs.

 

I know several people and family members who are over 60 and have yet to finish paying off their mortgage.