Won't somebody think of "young people"? (Edit: and No, older people aren't "to blame")

[Billy_wizz]

Personally think rent should be capt at X of market value as we've now reached the point of stupidity where renters affectively buy houses for people who can afford a deposit because rent costs more than mortgage repayments

 

[doctor Bob]

Not that high risk - you'll get your money back one way or another, but extremely high profit possible. As I said it's a speculators' market, unconnected/unrelated to housing needs.
PS Still fund raising for Shelter - see link below!
What about 7 acres of low cost housing to be run by a housing association for people with housing needs?
n.b. Don't have a builder doing your app - you need a smart alec town planner/architect

Sorry Jacob, you don't understand para 55 if you think it's not high risk.

 

[Jacob]

Sorry Jacob, you don't understand para 55 if you think it's not high risk.

Higher than some risks, but you aren't likely to lose by it - unless you are getting bad advice. But if you don't want to speculate with an element of risk you are in the wrong game! Get a herd of sheep instead? Grow brussel sprouts? Could be good now that Brussels is closed for us.

 

[Jacob]

Personally think rent should be capt at X of market value as we've now reached the point of stupidity where renters affectively buy houses for people who can afford a deposit because rent costs more than mortgage repayments

Or rent could be capped at a proportion of the tenant's income. Traditionally rent and housing costs have often been about a third. If you gave tenants security and also imposed better controls on landlords obligations, property prices would come zooming down.

 

[doctor Bob]

Higher than some risks, but you aren't likely to lose by it - unless you are getting bad advice.

Total clap trap, just talking out of your arrsee for the sake of it.

 

[Jacob]

Total clap trap, just talking out of your arrsee for the sake of it.

Let us know how you get on.

 

[doctor Bob]

Let us know how you get on.

I need to decide if the risk is worth it, no rush.

 

[Billy_wizz]

Or rent could be capped at a proportion of the tenant's income. Traditionally rent and housing costs have often been about a third. If you gave tenants security and also imposed better controls on landlords obligations, property prices would come zooming down.

Unfortunately that's not a great option as you will just end up with people on low earnings trying to rent large expensive houses that they can't afford

 

[Spectric]

delivery drivers on zero hour contracts working 12 hour shifts to make the rent

There is a local delivery company round here that the guys earn a real fortune if they put in the time, a lot work very hard for two or three years and end up with a deposit for a house. I believe they are paid per drop, and the amount depends on whether big town or more rural delivery area.

 

[Jacob]

Unfortunately that's not a great option as you will just end up with people on low earnings trying to rent large expensive houses that they can't afford

Then the house owner has to lower the rent! Housing problems move towards being solved!

 

[Billy_wizz]

Then the house owner has to lower the rent! Housing problems move towards being solved!

Why should someone who has worked hard to buy an extra property as an investment be punished as well? Because some idiot likes the idea of a massive house that they can't afford?

 

[Jelly]

Why should someone who has worked hard to buy an extra property as an investment be punished as well? Because some silly person likes the idea of a massive house that they can't afford?

Why should a public good (being safely housed) be an investment vehicle for someone to make money at low risk and low rates of taxation, whilst not contributing anything significant back into the economy?

If someone needs a large house, but can't afford it (say a blended family where grandparents have had to move in due to care needs, or a young couple who unexpectedly had triplets) why should they be expected have to make do with unsuitable accommodation in order to allow someone substantially better off than themselves to turn a profit?

Fundimentally the question we have to answer as a society is do we value making money as being above human dignity?

 

[RobinBHM]

I know agricultural land is valued at £10k/ acre ish. However try and buy 1-5 acres on the edge of a village for that price, doesn't happen.
I have 7 acres I'm trying to get planning on, I'd happily let the community fund the £100,000 I may have to spend on a para 55 application (very high risk) and repay them double or triple if we got planning.

the big property developers have deep pockets to throw at planning and they have top planning consultants.

Ecological surveys can cost a fortune -I had a customer that spent £10k on a bat survey.
And even if you get planning there is the Community Infrastructure Levy.

I hate to think how much an architects fees would be to achieve 'exceptional architectural standards'

Kudos to you if you do it

 

[doctor Bob]

Some nice stuff there Jelly, sounds like you are going to do well in life, bit of dough and a nice house probably.
How about responding back in 40 years to see if you still have the same ideologies.
Surprising how things change in life as you mature.

 

[Nigel Burden]

When me and my wife bought our first house in 1978 the maximum mortgage available was 2.5 times the main salary plus one times the lesser. We had to put down a 30 percent deposit to be able to get the mortgage at IIAC 7.5 percent.
At first we struggled when the interest rates increased and were moved onto an indefinite term. Then my employment took an upturn and we were able to return to a normal term. Two years later we sold that house and bought our present house, that was 1982, and the price of the house was roughly double my annual earnings. Mortgages were still calculated on the same basis IIRC and we paid £25K for a three bedroom semi which today would sell for between £320k and £350k.

My two children both have mortgages secured on single salaries which are around average. Both stayed at home until they were in their early thirties and saved the deposits. Five years down the line and both have paid back reasonable amounts of capital, my son about forty percent off the mortgage. This has not come without sacrifice, ie. only going out infrequently etc. The fact that interest rates are currently so low has allowed them to do this. Shortly after we bought our second house mortgage rates were in excess of fifteen percent.

De-regulation has been one of the main drivers responsible for the disproportionate difference between property/land prices and earning though.

Nigel.

 

[RobinBHM]

That's a generalisation too.

Yes I know -it was tongue in cheek

but it does underline a serious point....there many people that fall into in work poverty and high cost of rent is a key reason

 

[Billy_wizz]

Why should a public good (being safely housed) be an investment vehicle for someone to make money at low risk and low rates of taxation, whilst not contributing anything significant back into the economy?

If someone needs a large house, but can't afford it (say a blended family where grandparents have had to move in due to care needs, or a young couple who unexpectedly had triplets) why should they be expected have to make do with unsuitable accommodation in order to allow someone substantially better off than themselves to turn a profit?

Fundimentally the question we have to answer as a society is do we value making money as being above human dignity?

If there is no money in renting houses then there will be no houses to rent and just because someone had triplets doesn't mean they need or should expect a big house and would have approximately 10 years to put themselves in a position to afford the house they need! Giving people a cheap house just because they have kids just leads to some people to see having kids as an opportunity for a big house at someone else's expense! Renting should be affordable and dictated by the market value but not at the extortionate percentage it currently is I don't have a problem with someone working hard to earn a 70-80% deposit for buy to rent! But would limit the number of houses anyone can own in each tax bracket to stop all the cheaper houses being vacuumed up

 

[Jacob]

If there is no money in renting houses then there will be no houses to rent ....

The houses won't evaporate and could be available to buy instead. Or to buy for housing associations or local authorities.
Very few landlords actually build houses they are just intermediaries and serve no useful purpose beyond a low skill element of property management, which they tend to do badly.

 

[RobinBHM]

At which point I discovered that I'm several hundred pounds a month better off than I was in the private rented sector (and trust me it wasn't anything fancy I was renting),

yeah this is what it boils down to.

I cant help thinking those that say "its no worse than in my day", probably have masses of equity in their house......it makes a huge difference, if you are renting, if you become ill you are only a few pay cheques from being homeless.

I'm in my mid 30's, have a Masters

if its in virology you have struck gold!

 

[Jacob]

Unfortunately that's not a great option as you will just end up with people on low earnings trying to rent large expensive houses that they can't afford

Or homeless people renting tiny houses which they can just afford.