Council trying to evict English couple who live in a shed due to low wages.

[Leah-Lacie]

Its the younger generation wanting something for nothing.

 

When I bought my home, I chose put down a 30% deposit so, my £30,000 home I needed to put down £9000

 

These kids only need to put down 10%, so if you look at a modest home, say one for £120.000 (unless you want to pay £70,000 and live at parson cross with all the anti-social behaviour), then that person only has to put down £12,000

 

 

The younger generation are bad at saving, they don't have 10% deposits. Then they expect a perfect house, all nice and modern, needs no work, in a nice area, for a dirt cheap price. Everyone wants a bargain or something for nothing, as you put it. I blame eBay (and the news for going on about falling house prices which in fact aren't as low as people would like).

 

I'm in no position to buy a house now, although I was a few years ago, but I could only get an 80% mortgage, which put it just out of reach. I could only really gather a 10-15% deposit for the houses I was looking at at the time. They were only £60,000-£70,000 houses, or even repossessions for under £50,000, but owning one would have been nice. I'm quite glad it didn't happen though, what with the changes of circumstances I've had, I wouldn't be living in it now.

[Cyclone]

KInd of.

 

In the 90s, you bought a house for £40,000 with interest rates of about 9%

 

In 2011, you get the same kind of house for £200,000, but with the interest rates being lower, its cheaper to get on the housing ladder if you are a worker in your 20s

 

In what way is it cheaper to borrow five times as much.

 

The rate was only that high for the first two years of the 90's by the way.

[Tony]

A bit off topic I know, but do a search for sub-100K houses in Rotherham.

 

Absolutley loads of them.

 

Half the problem is some people don't want to start off on the lower rungs of the housing ladder (so called for a reason).

 

Nope, they want a 3 bed semi with a drive and a garage from the off. Preferably in a "nice" area. Nothing wrong with that as such, but it's a bit unrealistic as a first property. I know a couple of people who look at me a bit goggle eyed when I've suggested that they can afford a house despite what they think, they just have massively unrealistic expectations as to what type/size and where.

 

Right

on

the

money

 

 

But you did miss out the bit that many people don't want to save up and go without for a while in preference to carrying on spending everything that they earn on stuff that don't need.

[perplexed]

Right

on

the

money

 

 

But you did miss out the bit that many people don't want to save up and go without for a while in preference to carrying on spending everything that they earn on stuff that don't need.

 

Quite so, you're right.

 

One of the examples I mentioned for example, who "simply can't afford a deposit" has:

 

2 iphones

 

3 sat navs

 

2 lap tops

 

1 PC

 

God knows what other gadgets.

 

Changes the car every 18 months. For a new one.

 

Smokes about 30 a day.

 

But cannot possibly afford to save for a deposit.

[Ms Macbeth]

There is no ladder.

 

My parents were by no means big earners, and on my fathers wage alone they bought a 3bed semi with a garden, after having lived in a 2bed council house for a few years after getting married. They had to wait about a week for a council house.

 

Your family experience was similar to many, but certainly not all. Like your parents, we were by no means big earners, but having had the nerve to move away from our council flat in our home town (with our baby) couldn't even get on the council list in Donny! We lived in sub standard private rented and scraped together a deposit on a very basic new 3 bed semi in a cheap area. We had old bits of furniture, and couldn't afford carpets for the first year. Our children were housed and fed, but we had no spare money til I went back to work. Then we saved and moved to another 3 bed semi in a nicer area.

 

We struggled with a mortgage when interest rates went up to double figures, but gave up on other stuff to ensure it was always paid. I knew lots of other youngish families in similar situations in the 70s.

 

Around 2/3 of homes in England are now owner occupied, the numbers have risen steadily since the 70s, although they have slowed down recently. When council housing was at its peak, the majority of ordinary families needed somewhere decent to rent as they were often living with family, or in overcrowded and poor conditions. Getting a council house was often a step up! Then, the Right to Buy was offered, and people grabbed the chance of buying at a discount. Perhaps they didn't realise they were depriving their children's generation of the opportunity to have a council home? Perhaps they didn't even think about it, but that in essence is what happened. I don't believe we will ever see much of an increase in the number of council houses.

 

The changes to housing benefit may make some single people and couples living in family sized homes decide to downsize to smaller properties, which could free up larger houses for the families who need them.

 

Back on topic - I have no problem if this couple choose to live in a shed, but the building in the article isn't a shed.

[chem1st]

MsMacbeth, getting a council house once again is a step up!

 

They stopped building in the 1980s, in 1968 over 400000 homes were built! (the year recently named as the best in British history for quality of life!), home ownership has been in decline since 2002 and private renting took off in 1981 (when they stopped building and RTB came into existence).

 

If we utilised our labour efficiently we could build 1 million a year for 3 years, solve the crisis then reduce the working week to 25 hours, then thereafter to avoid high unemployment.

 

However, without the support of the masses that's unlikely to happen. The powers that be wish for us to live in a form of slavery where we yield rent to our Landlord masters, and they themselves can remain extremely wealthy and grow richer without having to commit themselves or their capital to productive work, by extracting rent off of impoverished workers.

 

Perhaps after the next round of QE, when pensioners fixed incomes are decreased further, there will be a political motivation to bring about a change to the current system which seeks to protect wealthy landowners at the expense of everyone else. Land can be taxed and a basic income introduced for all.

 

The only worry is, will further QE create a food bubble, and result in a famine, when investors try to cash in.

 

Afterall, what matters more than adequate housing and a stable food supply? Nobody need be homeless and nobody need starve.

[Tony]

You're being hysterical again Chem1st.

 

Housing associations have built hundreds of thousands of homes for rent in the last 30 years. They spend around £3bn of taxpayers money every year on building new affordable homes.

[chem1st]

You're being hysterical again Chem1st.

 

Housing associations have built hundreds of thousands of homes for rent in the last 30 years. They spend around £3bn of taxpayers money every year on building new affordable homes.

 

The decline in house building has been driven by a fall in public sector completions. Between 1959 and 2009, there was a 69% decline in the number of public sector completions. This was much greater than the 23% fall in private sector completions. The government significantly reduced local authority house building in the 1980s, but building by housing associations has not risen sufficiently to compensate. Accordingly, the proportion of all completions accounted for by the private sector increased from 54% in 1959 to an estimated 75% in 2009.

 

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/pdfs/research/2010/50_Years_of_Housing_UK.pdf

[Sean Hughes]

I think it's true that the younger generation have got a "buy now, pay later" attitude or perhaps a "buy now, worry about not being able to afford it later" attitude and until that culture changes, this country will still be in big trouble. Having said that, it cannot be easy to get on the property ladder these days with house prices and I feel sorry for the people who work very hard, but have to wait until they are in their mid to late 30s before they can stop renting and start building a home

[chem1st]

I think it's true that the younger generation have got a "buy now, pay later" attitude or perhaps a "buy now, worry about not being able to afford it later" attitude and until that culture changes, this country will still be in big trouble. Having said that, it cannot be easy to get on the property ladder these days with house prices and I feel sorry for the people who work very hard, but have to wait until they are in their mid to late 30s before they can stop renting and start building a home

 

It wasn't the young people who run up the debt!

 

And seeing as they are forced to pay for their education, they are forced to buy now and pay later if they wish to get a job, and even then, they will struggle to find employment!

 

It is not they who are spending freely without thought for the future, to the contrary, the people with most debt and most likely to go bankrupt are the now elderly women who 'burnt their bras'!