Now that everyone is renting their music and cars
Discussion
HustleRussell said:
Vincefox said:
god knows how young/first time buyers do it nowadays.
We can’t. Not without bank of Mum and Dad providing significant help. If you’re hoping to buy on your own without help you can forget it unless you are earning three times the average salary (Surrey).
New/young buyers have my sympathy, something needs to change here. Community thrives when people feel they have their own stake in it.
I bought at 34, (45 now) so late-ish for my generation. Aiming to have home paid for somewhere between 50-55. I don't have kids though. House worth approx 210-220. If I had to do it again now, from scratch, even on the salary I'm on now, not then, I don't think I'd be able to. Seems very wrong.
I bought at 34, (45 now) so late-ish for my generation. Aiming to have home paid for somewhere between 50-55. I don't have kids though. House worth approx 210-220. If I had to do it again now, from scratch, even on the salary I'm on now, not then, I don't think I'd be able to. Seems very wrong.
HustleRussell said:
We can’t. Not without bank of Mum and Dad providing significant help.
If you’re hoping to buy on your own without help you can forget it unless you are earning three times the average salary (Surrey).
That is not strictly speaking true. While there is no doubt that residential property prices have been inflated beyond fair value by deliberately relaxed lending it is not the case that you cannot purchase a home if you’re earning less than 3x national average salary. If you’re hoping to buy on your own without help you can forget it unless you are earning three times the average salary (Surrey).
And let’s separate the action of building up a deposit from the future lending aspect of any purchase as they are two highly distinct phases and while there are obvious relationships between the two acts they are both fealty with very differently.
First of all you need to strip down the group of people who are complaining they cannot buy a property into those for whom it has never been feasible and those for whom it should be. Ie removed the unrealistic from the scenario.
Second, with the group who are left who should be your traditional workers with a serious intent to own their family home we need to them look at why they are struggling to build up a deposit. Of course we must recognise that during the period of lax lending and the deliberate inflation of property values the deposit requirements were artificially deflated and that today they are back at more prudent and appropriate levels but what is it that is stopping those in their 20s who fit the traditional home buying demographic from building a deposit? If you’re of this correct demographic then what is it that after paying your rent, utilities and pension contributions that is meaning there is no money left to allocate to a deposit?
In the past it used to be that those who were in the socio economic group where owning a property was feasible would save for a deposit by not renting a flat but renting just a room, by going without meals out except for special occasions, not going shopping as a past time but focusing solely on building up that deposit and increasing their salary.
Now my business does a lot of analysis of consumer spending habits as we need to understand which groups have the wealth levels that will enable them to become customers and the big shift that we have seen among the under 35s of today who fit the income and work profile of logically being home owners is that they are not being frugal but are being profligate. Highly profligate. They have the monthly spending characteristics of the traditional bottom end renter, spending all net income on leisure. They aren’t acting as potential future home owners. When we look at the data we see people spending huge amounts on renting entire properties and with numerous monthly contracts for non essential goods and services and almost daily cars expenses on buying lunch and eating and drinking out.
People in their 20s are buying homes without being given their deposit. They’re out there in abundance but they are doing so by having the appropriate career path and by not consuming non essential goods so as to create the required deposit themselves.
If someone genuinely wants to buy a home they need to understand that lenders need to see evidence that the customer is a grown up who understands life priorities and not someone living the life of the 70s disco diva.
The big problem is that rental is now making money for those who have swept up houses over all the years in combination with councils not building council houses.
In my younger days there was a mix of council rental and private ownership, in our area most likely weighed more council in the towns.
Maggie selling off the council houses didn’t help anyone and only forced up the cost of housing, we were all pulled in that you had to own your own house.
Private rental is problematic where the landlord can give you notice, sell etc and you have to move on.
Council houses were for life with some passing through generations.
I stay North of Scotland and can see problem as as everything is relevant, I can’t imagine what is is like in the London area where normal working people are being pushed further and further from their roots and employment.
In my younger days there was a mix of council rental and private ownership, in our area most likely weighed more council in the towns.
Maggie selling off the council houses didn’t help anyone and only forced up the cost of housing, we were all pulled in that you had to own your own house.
Private rental is problematic where the landlord can give you notice, sell etc and you have to move on.
Council houses were for life with some passing through generations.
I stay North of Scotland and can see problem as as everything is relevant, I can’t imagine what is is like in the London area where normal working people are being pushed further and further from their roots and employment.
House prices are cyclical, they'll come back (relative to income) at some point, even now they're not hugely out of whack (look at household income, not personal stats, especially as you can't compare it to the 1960's when more women didn't work...)
Of myself and my friendship group (mid-late 20's) 70% of us have bought, the majority without parental help and in the London suburbs. It is possible but typically requires a couple or friends to do it for affordability, unless your in a good job - at our age £70k+ salaries if you work in town aren't uncommon, without dependents you can save a decent chunk....houses are affordable.
Of myself and my friendship group (mid-late 20's) 70% of us have bought, the majority without parental help and in the London suburbs. It is possible but typically requires a couple or friends to do it for affordability, unless your in a good job - at our age £70k+ salaries if you work in town aren't uncommon, without dependents you can save a decent chunk....houses are affordable.
HustleRussell said:
Vincefox said:
god knows how young/first time buyers do it nowadays.
We can’t. Not without bank of Mum and Dad providing significant help. If you’re hoping to buy on your own without help you can forget it unless you are earning three times the average salary (Surrey).
I bought our first house last year at 43 ! I could afford the monthly repayments at £1450, but I couldn't raise the 36K deposit or the 8K stamp duty as well as all the other fee's. The only way we could do it was with a 20K handout from bank of dad. With that little boost the goal was in sight and I sold all my cars/bikes and spares to raise the balance.
The issue I found with buying later on is you usually have kids etc and therefore need a larger house to begin with. Our first house is a 4 bed detached which we paid £360k for. It was built 5 years previously and the owner bought it for 280k. We thought moving to a cheaper area but on the face of it there wasn't really such a thing unless we migrated north. Even some of the local 'scummy areas' have gone up massively.
I will now make sure I do everything under my power to get our kids on the ladder asap when they will only need a little two bed flat or something that's actually affordable to initially get on the ladder.
The issue I found with buying later on is you usually have kids etc and therefore need a larger house to begin with. Our first house is a 4 bed detached which we paid £360k for. It was built 5 years previously and the owner bought it for 280k. We thought moving to a cheaper area but on the face of it there wasn't really such a thing unless we migrated north. Even some of the local 'scummy areas' have gone up massively.
I will now make sure I do everything under my power to get our kids on the ladder asap when they will only need a little two bed flat or something that's actually affordable to initially get on the ladder.
DonkeyApple said:
That is not strictly speaking true. While there is no doubt that residential property prices have been inflated beyond fair value by deliberately relaxed lending it is not the case that you cannot purchase a home if you’re earning less than 3x national average salary.
And let’s separate the action of building up a deposit from the future lending aspect of any purchase as they are two highly distinct phases and while there are obvious relationships between the two acts they are both fealty with very differently.
First of all you need to strip down the group of people who are complaining they cannot buy a property into those for whom it has never been feasible and those for whom it should be. Ie removed the unrealistic from the scenario.
Second, with the group who are left who should be your traditional workers with a serious intent to own their family home we need to them look at why they are struggling to build up a deposit. Of course we must recognise that during the period of lax lending and the deliberate inflation of property values the deposit requirements were artificially deflated and that today they are back at more prudent and appropriate levels but what is it that is stopping those in their 20s who fit the traditional home buying demographic from building a deposit? If you’re of this correct demographic then what is it that after paying your rent, utilities and pension contributions that is meaning there is no money left to allocate to a deposit?
In the past it used to be that those who were in the socio economic group where owning a property was feasible would save for a deposit by not renting a flat but renting just a room, by going without meals out except for special occasions, not going shopping as a past time but focusing solely on building up that deposit and increasing their salary.
Now my business does a lot of analysis of consumer spending habits as we need to understand which groups have the wealth levels that will enable them to become customers and the big shift that we have seen among the under 35s of today who fit the income and work profile of logically being home owners is that they are not being frugal but are being profligate. Highly profligate. They have the monthly spending characteristics of the traditional bottom end renter, spending all net income on leisure. They aren’t acting as potential future home owners. When we look at the data we see people spending huge amounts on renting entire properties and with numerous monthly contracts for non essential goods and services and almost daily cars expenses on buying lunch and eating and drinking out.
People in their 20s are buying homes without being given their deposit. They’re out there in abundance but they are doing so by having the appropriate career path and by not consuming non essential goods so as to create the required deposit themselves.
If someone genuinely wants to buy a home they need to understand that lenders need to see evidence that the customer is a grown up who understands life priorities and not someone living the life of the 70s disco diva.
Absolutely this. It took the wife and I an absolute age to save a sizeable enough deposit and we had to cut down on all sorts of things to do so. And let’s separate the action of building up a deposit from the future lending aspect of any purchase as they are two highly distinct phases and while there are obvious relationships between the two acts they are both fealty with very differently.
First of all you need to strip down the group of people who are complaining they cannot buy a property into those for whom it has never been feasible and those for whom it should be. Ie removed the unrealistic from the scenario.
Second, with the group who are left who should be your traditional workers with a serious intent to own their family home we need to them look at why they are struggling to build up a deposit. Of course we must recognise that during the period of lax lending and the deliberate inflation of property values the deposit requirements were artificially deflated and that today they are back at more prudent and appropriate levels but what is it that is stopping those in their 20s who fit the traditional home buying demographic from building a deposit? If you’re of this correct demographic then what is it that after paying your rent, utilities and pension contributions that is meaning there is no money left to allocate to a deposit?
In the past it used to be that those who were in the socio economic group where owning a property was feasible would save for a deposit by not renting a flat but renting just a room, by going without meals out except for special occasions, not going shopping as a past time but focusing solely on building up that deposit and increasing their salary.
Now my business does a lot of analysis of consumer spending habits as we need to understand which groups have the wealth levels that will enable them to become customers and the big shift that we have seen among the under 35s of today who fit the income and work profile of logically being home owners is that they are not being frugal but are being profligate. Highly profligate. They have the monthly spending characteristics of the traditional bottom end renter, spending all net income on leisure. They aren’t acting as potential future home owners. When we look at the data we see people spending huge amounts on renting entire properties and with numerous monthly contracts for non essential goods and services and almost daily cars expenses on buying lunch and eating and drinking out.
People in their 20s are buying homes without being given their deposit. They’re out there in abundance but they are doing so by having the appropriate career path and by not consuming non essential goods so as to create the required deposit themselves.
If someone genuinely wants to buy a home they need to understand that lenders need to see evidence that the customer is a grown up who understands life priorities and not someone living the life of the 70s disco diva.
We also couldn’t buy in our preferred location and had to compromise on location/property.
HRL said:
DonkeyApple said:
That is not strictly speaking true. While there is no doubt that residential property prices have been inflated beyond fair value by deliberately relaxed lending it is not the case that you cannot purchase a home if you’re earning less than 3x national average salary.
And let’s separate the action of building up a deposit from the future lending aspect of any purchase as they are two highly distinct phases and while there are obvious relationships between the two acts they are both fealty with very differently.
First of all you need to strip down the group of people who are complaining they cannot buy a property into those for whom it has never been feasible and those for whom it should be. Ie removed the unrealistic from the scenario.
Second, with the group who are left who should be your traditional workers with a serious intent to own their family home we need to them look at why they are struggling to build up a deposit. Of course we must recognise that during the period of lax lending and the deliberate inflation of property values the deposit requirements were artificially deflated and that today they are back at more prudent and appropriate levels but what is it that is stopping those in their 20s who fit the traditional home buying demographic from building a deposit? If you’re of this correct demographic then what is it that after paying your rent, utilities and pension contributions that is meaning there is no money left to allocate to a deposit?
In the past it used to be that those who were in the socio economic group where owning a property was feasible would save for a deposit by not renting a flat but renting just a room, by going without meals out except for special occasions, not going shopping as a past time but focusing solely on building up that deposit and increasing their salary.
Now my business does a lot of analysis of consumer spending habits as we need to understand which groups have the wealth levels that will enable them to become customers and the big shift that we have seen among the under 35s of today who fit the income and work profile of logically being home owners is that they are not being frugal but are being profligate. Highly profligate. They have the monthly spending characteristics of the traditional bottom end renter, spending all net income on leisure. They aren’t acting as potential future home owners. When we look at the data we see people spending huge amounts on renting entire properties and with numerous monthly contracts for non essential goods and services and almost daily cars expenses on buying lunch and eating and drinking out.
People in their 20s are buying homes without being given their deposit. They’re out there in abundance but they are doing so by having the appropriate career path and by not consuming non essential goods so as to create the required deposit themselves.
If someone genuinely wants to buy a home they need to understand that lenders need to see evidence that the customer is a grown up who understands life priorities and not someone living the life of the 70s disco diva.
Absolutely this. It took the wife and I an absolute age to save a sizeable enough deposit and we had to cut down on all sorts of things to do so. And let’s separate the action of building up a deposit from the future lending aspect of any purchase as they are two highly distinct phases and while there are obvious relationships between the two acts they are both fealty with very differently.
First of all you need to strip down the group of people who are complaining they cannot buy a property into those for whom it has never been feasible and those for whom it should be. Ie removed the unrealistic from the scenario.
Second, with the group who are left who should be your traditional workers with a serious intent to own their family home we need to them look at why they are struggling to build up a deposit. Of course we must recognise that during the period of lax lending and the deliberate inflation of property values the deposit requirements were artificially deflated and that today they are back at more prudent and appropriate levels but what is it that is stopping those in their 20s who fit the traditional home buying demographic from building a deposit? If you’re of this correct demographic then what is it that after paying your rent, utilities and pension contributions that is meaning there is no money left to allocate to a deposit?
In the past it used to be that those who were in the socio economic group where owning a property was feasible would save for a deposit by not renting a flat but renting just a room, by going without meals out except for special occasions, not going shopping as a past time but focusing solely on building up that deposit and increasing their salary.
Now my business does a lot of analysis of consumer spending habits as we need to understand which groups have the wealth levels that will enable them to become customers and the big shift that we have seen among the under 35s of today who fit the income and work profile of logically being home owners is that they are not being frugal but are being profligate. Highly profligate. They have the monthly spending characteristics of the traditional bottom end renter, spending all net income on leisure. They aren’t acting as potential future home owners. When we look at the data we see people spending huge amounts on renting entire properties and with numerous monthly contracts for non essential goods and services and almost daily cars expenses on buying lunch and eating and drinking out.
People in their 20s are buying homes without being given their deposit. They’re out there in abundance but they are doing so by having the appropriate career path and by not consuming non essential goods so as to create the required deposit themselves.
If someone genuinely wants to buy a home they need to understand that lenders need to see evidence that the customer is a grown up who understands life priorities and not someone living the life of the 70s disco diva.
We also couldn’t buy in our preferred location and had to compromise on location/property.
All the cars are paid off, no loans.
Getting a mortgage for a uk guy in romania is not so easy so I'm spending most of my savings on land and a self build. It's way cheaper than the UK. 660sq mtrs on the outskirts of the city 16k euros.
Think we can build using only wages a decent 4 bed house with triple car garage in three years.
We rent an apartment now but it only costs 130 euros pm. Think this is cheaper to rent than a caravan in the UK.
Getting a mortgage for a uk guy in romania is not so easy so I'm spending most of my savings on land and a self build. It's way cheaper than the UK. 660sq mtrs on the outskirts of the city 16k euros.
Think we can build using only wages a decent 4 bed house with triple car garage in three years.
We rent an apartment now but it only costs 130 euros pm. Think this is cheaper to rent than a caravan in the UK.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff