Conservatives to make under 35s live in tiny rooms in shared houses (HMOs)

[Twiglet]

People need to get a grip. Many single people over 25 on what would be considered very good wages cannot afford their own accommodation privately, particularly in London, so have to put up with living in HMO's. It's not ideal, but it's tolerable. Why, yet again, should being jobless provide you with a higher standard of living than those who work?

[chem1st]

It gets you plenty of houses/flats in sheffield

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Sheffield.html?sortByPriceDescending=false&maxPrice=60000&index=10

 

Plenty of HMO house shares to rent

[donkey]

There's a major aspect to this topic that always gets ignored. House pricers are so high because, as a siociety, we have come to view our houising stocks as a quick way to make money. In fact the root of the global erconomic crash lies in this very issue. It was the attempt to make quick money on housing stocks in the USA which led to rapidly escalating prices fueled by 'sub prime' mortgages.

 

As things stand in the UK, housing prices are still totally out of proportion to earnings. This is a situation which benefits the few and is paid for by the many. Yet, rather than introducing measures to reverse this situation, most the talk is of when the 'housing market' will 'pick up' again. Well I for one don't want it to, because it would be nice if people could buy their own homes at a price which reflects the actual real value, instead of being doomed to paying off other people's mortgages and making profits for the banks, which seems to have now become the primary function of houses in this country.

[TeaFan]

There's a major aspect to this topic that always gets ignored. House pricers are so high because, as a siociety, we have come to view our houising stocks as a quick way to make money. In fact the root of the global erconomic crash lies in this very issue. It was the attempt to make quick money on housing stocks in the USA which led to rapidly escalating prices fueled by 'sub prime' mortgages.

 

As things stand in the UK, housing prices are still totally out of proportion to earnings. This is a situation which benefits the few and is paid for by the many. Yet, rather than introducing measures to reverse this situation, most the talk is of when the 'housing market' will 'pick up' again. Well I for one don't want it to, because it would be nice if people could buy their own homes at a price which reflects the actual real value, instead of being doomed to paying off other people's mortgages and making profits for the banks, which seems to have now become the primary function of houses in this country.

 

Quite right. Speaking as someone with a mortgage, I sincerely hope that house prices absolutely tank in this country. Then we can have a good laugh at anyone who bought their place as an investment :hihi:

[Cyclone]

That's going to get a bit tough when about 500,000 more people are unemployed in a year or two. What the Tories and their cheer leadeers are conveniently forgetting is that most people on benefits aren't scroungers or fraudsters. They are the inevitable result of there being more workers than theire is work. Furthermore, when all this takes it's toll on the private sector, as it inevitably will, there will be a lot of people - some of whom attribute the fact they have always been in employment to some innate sense of superiority - who will get a rude awakening as to the random and uncontrollable effects of economic recession.

 

Given the state of government finances, etc... Why are we even having to discuss that it's right to reduce benefits, particularly of the kind that provide free housing?

Yes, there will be more unemployed people who used to be government employee's. Yes, living in a shared house at 35 is a bit rubbish.

 

But no, the country does not somehow owe you something better. The people that are still working have to pay for this accommodation out of their taxes, so if you can't get a job that pays enough to rent a place for yourself, then why should it be that everyone else is obliged to do it for you? And if they were so obliged, how exactly is the government supposed to fix it's financial situation.

 

It may seem a bit harsh if you're the one moving into an HMO, but the OP has ranted at every reduction in benefit so far. I think he's missing or ignoring the bigger picture.

[Cyclone]

There's a major aspect to this topic that always gets ignored. House pricers are so high because, as a siociety, we have come to view our houising stocks as a quick way to make money. In fact the root of the global erconomic crash lies in this very issue. It was the attempt to make quick money on housing stocks in the USA which led to rapidly escalating prices fueled by 'sub prime' mortgages.

 

As things stand in the UK, housing prices are still totally out of proportion to earnings. This is a situation which benefits the few and is paid for by the many. Yet, rather than introducing measures to reverse this situation, most the talk is of when the 'housing market' will 'pick up' again. Well I for one don't want it to, because it would be nice if people could buy their own homes at a price which reflects the actual real value, instead of being doomed to paying off other people's mortgages and making profits for the banks, which seems to have now become the primary function of houses in this country.

 

Completely agree. It would be nice to see house prices stay flat for 5 years, which with inflation at the current rate would bring it back within touching distance of the historical price to earnings ratio average.

[donkey]

Given the state of government finances, etc... Why are we even having to discuss that it's right to reduce benefits, particularly of the kind that provide free housing?

Yes, there will be more unemployed people who used to be government employee's. Yes, living in a shared house at 35 is a bit rubbish.

But no, the country does not somehow owe you something better. The people that are still working have to pay for this accommodation out of their taxes, so if you can't get a job that pays enough to rent a place for yourself, then why should it be that everyone else is obliged to do it for you? And if they were so obliged, how exactly is the government supposed to fix it's financial situation.

 

It may seem a bit harsh if you're the one moving into an HMO, but the OP has ranted at every reduction in benefit so far. I think he's missing or ignoring the bigger picture.

 

Actually I'm self employed and rent in the 'private sector' and do not claim housing benefit. Your original statement, I'll remind you, was that people claiming housing benefit should 'get a job.' I appreciate that the deficit has to come down, but, like most people, what I object to is that the extremely wealthy people who made personal fortunes out of the type of financial sector gambling which caused the economic crash are left totally unscathed. The cuts don't effect tjhem, and the amount of extra tax they are being asked for is negligable.

 

These types are in the same social elite as the likes of Osbourne and Cameron. Many of them will have a large cross over in business interests with the political elite and know the same people etc. When you take this dimension into account, it becomes truly sickening the extent to which the losses incurred by people of this type are being off loaded onto the rest of us, while they continue on with the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. All in it together? Sure we are.

[Bonjon]

Chem1st, you seem to have a view that no-one can afford to buy unless they are on mega incomes?

 

This is far from the truth me and my partner dont earn a mega income but quite easily bought our house when the market crashed and mortgages were sparce, we easily afford the £600+ a month for our mortgage, and due to this we are looking to buy a second house to rent out(possibly HMO).

 

IMO its all about budgeting, people can and are still buying houses, even people on less income than you quoted earlier (20k).

 

Its not all doom and gloom, I think its a very good move by the Government.

[chem1st]

People need to get a grip. Many single people over 25 on what would be considered very good wages cannot afford their own accommodation privately, particularly in London, so have to put up with living in HMO's. It's not ideal, but it's tolerable. Why, yet again, should being jobless provide you with a higher standard of living than those who work?

 

This is due to the high cost of housing and a lack of housing. Particularly a lack of social housing.

[chem1st]

Given the state of government finances, etc... Why are we even having to discuss that it's right to reduce benefits, particularly of the kind that provide free housing?

Yes, there will be more unemployed people who used to be government employee's. Yes, living in a shared house at 35 is a bit rubbish.

 

But no, the country does not somehow owe you something better. The people that are still working have to pay for this accommodation out of their taxes, so if you can't get a job that pays enough to rent a place for yourself, then why should it be that everyone else is obliged to do it for you? And if they were so obliged, how exactly is the government supposed to fix it's financial situation.

 

It may seem a bit harsh if you're the one moving into an HMO, but the OP has ranted at every reduction in benefit so far. I think he's missing or ignoring the bigger picture.

 

This measure will likely increase benefits, yet people will live in housing of a lower standard.

 

Social housing ain't free, it generates profit. Housing benefit is the problem, and high rents and house prices.