Why do people think they are entitled to home ownership?

[Cyclone]

But how much did that house eventually cost you? On top of the initial price of £35,000 you will have also paid compound interest on the mortgage with interest rates much higher than now.

 

That's pretty much irrelevant.

 

We bought in 2001 for about 50k, as two recent graduates we had a household income of high 30's.

 

Today two recent graduates in Sheffield will have a household income of mid 40's, but the same house would cost 135k and require a 13.5k deposit instead of 5k.

 

Just about doable, but much, much harder, even if we were paying 5% interest on the mortgage (which sounds about right). A low deposit, 1st time buyer today will still be paying 3.5% I bet. To get the lowest rates you need a large deposit.

[mrcharlie]

I'm sticking to ny guns on this topic.

Granted "parasites" may be the wrong term... Can you think of a better one?

I'm lucky in that we too purchased our house in 1999/2000 just before the boom. At the time we paid £75k which was unheard of within my circle of friends. But we both loved the house and spent the next 7yrs completely ripping out and converting from 4 - 3bedroom which balanced the house out and made the rooms much bigger, brighter.

 

Our friends back then were enjoying themselves and completely missed out....now they simply cannot afford to buy a house, partly because of the massive increase and partly because of the sheer cost of renting. Bitter is not the word as to how they feel. And, I share their bitterness too. I think it is wrong, that individuals should be allowed to monopolise their property portfolio for nothing other than financial gain. It traps people into a cycle they can see no way out of.

I read earlier on the BBC news website that private landlords are milking the housing benefit system... Are we suprised??

 

This whole buy to let mentality needs to be brought to book and overhauled to ensure that landlords cannot profit in the way they are obviously doing so at present.

We all deserve the chance to be a home owner, but because of the greed of those who see it as a means to a relatively lucrative way to earn vast amounts of extra money it now needs to be reigned in and ALL loopholes closed.

Edited August 20, 2016 by mrcharlie

[Anna B]

I wonder what will happen in the future when there are far fewer people who own their own homes and probably no state pensions either.

 

Some people now are able to downsize to fund their old age, or to give money to the younger generation to provide a deposit on a home or a multitude of other means of necessary support. They can also use the money to pay for medical treatment or assistance in the home.

Finally they can sell the home to pay for a residential or care home.

 

All the above are increasingly unavailable state funded, so what in the future will pay for them?

[I1L2T3]

I'm sticking to ny guns on this topic.

Granted "parasites" may be the wrong term... Can you think of a better one?

I'm lucky in that we too purchased our house in 1999/2000 just before the boom. At the time we paid £75k which was unheard of within my circle of friends. But we both loved the house and spent the next 7yrs completely ripping out and converting from 4 - 3bedroom which balanced the house out and made the rooms much bigger, brighter.

 

Our friends back then were enjoying themselves and completely missed out....now they simply cannot afford to buy a house, partly because of the massive increase and partly because of the sheer cost of renting. Bitter is not the word as to how they feel. And, I share their bitterness too. I think it is wrong, that individuals should be allowed to monopolise their property portfolio for nothing other than financial gain. It traps people into a cycle they can see no way out of.

I read earlier on the BBC news website that private landlords are milking the housing benefit system... Are we suprised??

 

This whole buy to let mentality needs to be brought to book and overhauled to ensure that landlords cannot profit in the way they are obviously doing so at present.

We all deserve the chance to be a home owner, but because of the greed of those who see it as a means to a relatively lucrative way to earn vast amounts of extra money it now needs to be reigned in and ALL loopholes closed.

 

Yes the story earlier was £9.3bn of housing benefit money going to private landlords.

 

This is more than double the cost of DWP error and fraud.

 

Who are the biggest spongers off the state?

[Cyclone]

Don't worry Anna, the Market will provide.

 

Soylent green?

[mrcharlie]

It's really stoked me this topic.

I feel that strongly about it.

 

In reflection to my earlier posts I would say by and large I view landlords in the same vein as I view those who take advantage of others for nothing other than sheer greed. They don't want to work for their money, they would sooner have others toil away to line their pockets.

 

A really revolting insight of this modern day life we now live in.

 

Just horrible, the fact that their greed actually brings misery to others less fortunate is truly harrowing and I have nothing but absolute revulsion for those who couldn't care less so long as they get their whack.

 

As they say....

What goes around, ALWAYS comes around.

[Wayne B]

It's good to give people aspirations to achieve more.

Yes. live within your means but aim to better your life in any way you can

[apelike]

I've never worked it out but the interest rate thing is a red herring. We paid high rates, and enjoyed low rates at times.

 

Its not a red herring but a question as I am interested what the final cost after paying the mortgage was. I keep hearing people state that they bought their house for X amount but when you take into consideration interest over that mortgage period it works out much more.

 

Arguing that it's OK now for house prices to be high because interest rates are low is extremely dangerous.

 

And who was arguing that? as I cant see a post stating it.

[lil-minx92]

When they die or move into a retirement home perhaps, their home then goes to their heirs rather than to somebody else who might need it more.

 

The virtue of the new right to buy scheme is that all proceeds go into more social housing, so the total supply of social housing should be at worst constant.

 

Unfortunately the houses are sold at up to 70% discount, and to replace it a new one has to be built or bought at full market price. Only the tax payer loses out in this great cash give away which is exactly what it is.

It's a constant cycle - sell house at discount, build a new one, sell it at a discount, build a new one etc etc. It would be more fair if any tax payer could buy a council house cheap but many don't fit the criteria to be eligible.

[I1L2T3]

Its not a red herring but a question as I am interested what the final cost after paying the mortgage was. I keep hearing people state that they bought their house for X amount but when you take into consideration interest over that mortgage period it works out much more.

 

 

 

And who was arguing that? as I cant see a post stating it.

 

Your point about total cost of purchase is not relevant. The only very tenuous way it can be relevant is if you are arguing that high prices don't matter if interest rates are low, maybe because you are making some kind of affordability argument. Off the back of that it's obvious that the affordability argument, if considered in the short term, might make some financial sense to some but against the long-term of 25-35 years of unknown interest rates it makes much less sense. In fact it is most likely highly reckless for a lot of borrowers.