Shared house for professionals? Madness!

[Twiglet]

I think we'll see more professionals sharing, with the rise of tuition fees.

 

Repayment levels won't rise in line with the fees so in 'real' terms new graduates won't be any poorer - so probably not.

[Darth Vader]

Repayment levels won't rise in line with the fees so in 'real' terms new graduates won't be any poorer - so probably not.

 

But graduates will be saddled with more debt, over a longer term, which will make the prospect of a mortgage even more daunting.

[Alien]

Owning a house isn't everyones main aim in life.

 

This is very true, but likely because of means..or should I say lack of. Or simply resigned to the fact it'll never be within their means.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I'm confused as to what you mean by 'unrealistic' house prices. Do you mean you think that house prices in England are too low, or too high?

 

Given, the content of your post, I presume that you are saying they are too low?

 

Too high!

 

My wife watches 'properdee' programmes on British TV which make me cringe:

 

Estate agents (who make their money from commission) 'advise' would-buyers that if they buy such-and-such a house, they can live in it for a part of the year and obtain £n000 income from letting it out for the remainder of the time (ignoring the risks of holiday lets.)

 

Estate Agents who tell potential buyers that such-and-such a property is 'good value'. (I look at some of those houses and I think "I could buy 3 or 4 houses like that elsewhere for the price of that one.")

 

Then there are the buyers who think that the house is 'an investment'. If they buy a property and spend a few thousand on it, they expect to make 40 or 50% profit within 6 months.

 

Back in 1981, I bought a two-up two-down end-terrace house in Godmanchester for £22,500. I sold it 3 years later for £29,000. (I thought I had done well ... it took 2 days to sell and I could've sold 3 of them.)

 

In 2001 (20 years after I had bought it) it was on the market again ... for £220,000. Nearly TEN TIMES what I'd paid for it.

 

How on earth can anybody justify that sort of price rise?

 

Simple. Less than 60 minutes by train from King's Cross. Commuter land. Silly prices (but who can afford a house in London?)

 

From this year, we will be spending the winter in Florida. I went there in February and bought a house. Prices in Florida have fallen considerably. - Not because people are out of work, but because there is a natural turnover. - The state has a lot of retired people and eventually they tend to move out of their houses, either into care homes or into cemeteries. People aren't moving into the state - many are having difficulty in selling houses elsewhere - but they are still moving out. A 3-bedroom 2300 sq ft house cost £60,000.

 

What about the UK? Well, there was a recession. House sales slowed down, new building starts reduced dramatically.

 

But people still expect their houses to increase in value year on year. Why?

 

Construction costs have increased - because material costs and wages have increased - but it seems that in the UK, the price of houses is driven not by construction costs, but by some sort of arbitrary 'rule' which says: "House prices have to continue to rise, because if they don't we won't all get richer."

 

Increased market prices do not make home owners richer. (Unless, of course, they happen to own 2 or 3 houses.)

 

Increased market prices mean that many people will never be able to afford to buy a house and unless rents rise, the return on the money paid by a landlord for a house becomes so low that renting out a house is no longer cost-effective.

 

The UK does need a better supply of reasonably-priced good standard rental accommodation, but the rents must be cost-effective (or tax-effective) to induce landlords to provide that accommodation. If the return on investment is lower than that which can be obtained elsewhere, landlords won't bother.

 

Property speculation needs to be curbed. - Perhaps by taxing the profits on houses which are sold within, say, 10 years of purchase?

 

Leases should be controlled - but enforced against both parties. In Germany, the standard lease is 3 years. At the end of the lease, the outgoing tenant is required to pay for the house to be re-decorated. The rent is fixed; both the tenant and the landlord have clearly-defined responsibilities which are enforced by law. I understand that landlords receive significant tax breaks on their rented property - tax advantages which encourage them to provide the rental properties. The contract is fair - and it works both ways.

 

In the UK, tenants have little recourse against bad landlords and landlords have little recourse against bad tenants.

[Cyclone]

Those programs were probably made at the high of the recent bubble, not even estate agents are telling fibs like that at the moment.

 

Prices are whatever the market rate is though, except when there's a bubble there is no 'too high or too low'.

 

Profit on selling a house is taxed as capital gains unless it's your primary residence.

 

I'm not sure that your opinion regarding letting is accurate either, there is already a large body of legislation around it.

[Darth Vader]

Too high!

 

My wife watches 'properdee' programmes on British TV which make me cringe:

 

Estate agents (who make their money from commission) 'advise' would-buyers that if they buy such-and-such a house, they can live in it for a part of the year and obtain £n000 income from letting it out for the remainder of the time (ignoring the risks of holiday lets.)

 

Estate Agents who tell potential buyers that such-and-such a property is 'good value'. (I look at some of those houses and I think "I could buy 3 or 4 houses like that elsewhere for the price of that one.")

 

Then there are the buyers who think that the house is 'an investment'. If they buy a property and spend a few thousand on it, they expect to make 40 or 50% profit within 6 months.

 

Back in 1981, I bought a two-up two-down end-terrace house in Godmanchester for £22,500. I sold it 3 years later for £29,000. (I thought I had done well ... it took 2 days to sell and I could've sold 3 of them.)

 

In 2001 (20 years after I had bought it) it was on the market again ... for £220,000. Nearly TEN TIMES what I'd paid for it.

 

How on earth can anybody justify that sort of price rise?

 

Simple. Less than 60 minutes by train from King's Cross. Commuter land. Silly prices (but who can afford a house in London?)

 

From this year, we will be spending the winter in Florida. I went there in February and bought a house. Prices in Florida have fallen considerably. - Not because people are out of work, but because there is a natural turnover. - The state has a lot of retired people and eventually they tend to move out of their houses, either into care homes or into cemeteries. People aren't moving into the state - many are having difficulty in selling houses elsewhere - but they are still moving out. A 3-bedroom 2300 sq ft house cost £60,000.

 

What about the UK? Well, there was a recession. House sales slowed down, new building starts reduced dramatically.

 

But people still expect their houses to increase in value year on year. Why?

 

Construction costs have increased - because material costs and wages have increased - but it seems that in the UK, the price of houses is driven not by construction costs, but by some sort of arbitrary 'rule' which says: "House prices have to continue to rise, because if they don't we won't all get richer."

 

Increased market prices do not make home owners richer. (Unless, of course, they happen to own 2 or 3 houses.)

 

Increased market prices mean that many people will never be able to afford to buy a house and unless rents rise, the return on the money paid by a landlord for a house becomes so low that renting out a house is no longer cost-effective.

 

The UK does need a better supply of reasonably-priced good standard rental accommodation, but the rents must be cost-effective (or tax-effective) to induce landlords to provide that accommodation. If the return on investment is lower than that which can be obtained elsewhere, landlords won't bother.

 

Property speculation needs to be curbed. - Perhaps by taxing the profits on houses which are sold within, say, 10 years of purchase?

 

Leases should be controlled - but enforced against both parties. In Germany, the standard lease is 3 years. At the end of the lease, the outgoing tenant is required to pay for the house to be re-decorated. The rent is fixed; both the tenant and the landlord have clearly-defined responsibilities which are enforced by law. I understand that landlords receive significant tax breaks on their rented property - tax advantages which encourage them to provide the rental properties. The contract is fair - and it works both ways.

 

In the UK, tenants have little recourse against bad landlords and landlords have little recourse against bad tenants.

 

But your previous post stated that England is the most densely populated country in Europe and there are far more people now, chasing after fewer houses, so of course, that's going to effect prices.

 

I also have to say I find it very odd that someone who resides in Germany finds property prices in England high. In my previous line of work, my German counterparts were on 3 times my salary, but living in properties not a patch on mine, as property in Germany was so expensive.

[Bulgarian]

In answer to Bulgarian, I worked for SCC for a few years from 2000 and there were many council properties standing empty. Single people were getting keys to family homes that had been vacant for lengthy periods just to get some rent in. Also, the fabric of some flats and houses didn't make it viable to spend loads of money 'tarting them up' as they were no longer sustainable. Hence the decision, which was right given the circumstances at the time, to demolish some properties. Who knew 10 years ago that people would be queuing up again to rent council properties.

 

It was sad though, I loved that flat, the view was awsome, I was on the 15th floor, and it was massive (by todays standards)

[TJC1]

I think 'professionals' just means 'not students'. No offence to students but most non-students have a job and a different lifestyle. Plus, you have to pay coucil tax for the whole property if you live with students.

[Bobthebobs]

I think 'professionals' just means 'not students'. No offence to students but most non-students have a job and a different lifestyle. Plus, you have to pay coucil tax for the whole property if you live with students.

 

It's a polite way of saying, no students, no benefits, no baggage, and an office / research based job.

[TJC1]

It's a polite way of saying, no students, no benefits, no baggage, and an office / research based job.

 

Or a polite way of saying, 'look I dont care what you do, aslong as the rents paid and you dont wreck the place'.