• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Grays_1890 said:
Not sure what is insecure about people in stable jobs on good money who are being priced out of the housing market being given the opportunity of a fairer market
Click to expand...

What's insecure about it is that if the housing market is dropping out of its behind on value due to your changes, banks will risk-price it accordingly and reduce the LTV they'll lend to in order to protect their positions. They'll also tighten who they'll lend to. People that have not previously owned a house/held a mortgage are high risk and a lot of these people in the rental market have poor credit history or irregular income.
 
Kompakted said:
You've said that you're advocating banks giving 100% mortgages to people that have thus far struggled to get a mortgage and get on the housing ladder. That's exactly what happened in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Click to expand...
That was a joke ... apologies if it wasn't clear lol. I thought from my other replies it would be clear I wouldn't condone that kind of approach?
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
That was a joke ... apologies if it wasn't clear lol. I thought from my other replies it would be clear I wouldn't condone that kind of approach?
Click to expand...
Ok, my bad. But the "obvious answer" of people previously paying rent giving their money to a mortgage lender is only an obvious answer if banks will lend to them. Since 2008 banks haven't been lending to those sorts of people. Hence the growth in % of people renting from under the last Labour government and the restructuring of the housing market.
 
Kompakted said:
What's insecure about it is that if the housing market is dropping out of its behind on value due to your changes, banks will risk-price it accordingly and reduce the LTV they'll lend to in order to protect their positions. They'll also tighten who they'll lend to. People that have not previously owned a house/held a mortgage are high risk and a lot of these people in the rental market have poor credit history or irregular income.
Click to expand...

Everyone is a first time buyer at some point

And thats a massive generalisation, I know plenty who are stuck in a cycle of renting because the housing market prices them out, absolutely nothing to do with poor credit or irregular outcome. Hard to squirrel away the needed deposits when you are pushed into renting from leaving home (who these days have the ability to buy from leaving home) and the rental market is in its self volatile and expensive, people stuck paying high rents with no real prospect of doubling down and raising what's now needed for a deposit.

I bought my first home in 2002 on a 95% Mortgage from a £18,000 a year secure regular income, all my friends from the same time who I am still close to have their homes from similar market conditions and have managed to grow into better home and are secure on the ladder. I look around associates I know of the same age we were and its virtually impossible for people to get a start and not be forced into renting........that needs to change
 
Grays_1890 said:
Everyone is a first time buyer at some point

And thats a massive generalisation, I know plenty who are stuck in a cycle of renting because the housing market prices them out, absolutely nothing to do with poor credit or irregular outcome. Hard to squirrel away the needed deposits when you are pushed into renting from leaving home (who these days have the ability to buy from leaving home) and the rental market is in its self volatile and expensive, people stuck paying high rents with no real prospect of doubling down and raising what's now needed for a deposit.

I bought my first home in 2002 on a 95% Mortgage from a £18,000 a year secure regular income, all my friends from the same time who I am still close to have their homes from similar market conditions and have managed to grow into better home and are secure on the ladder. I look around associates I know of the same age we were and its virtually impossible for people to get a start and not be forced into renting........that needs to change
Click to expand...
Something fundamental has changed in who banks will lend to since 2002 though. Banks shouldn't have been giving 95% mortgages to young people on starter ladder jobs in 2002. We've still not recovered from the consequences of that.
 
Kompakted said:
Ok, my bad. But the "obvious answer" of people previously paying rent giving their money to a mortgage lender is only an obvious answer if banks will lend to them. Since 2008 banks haven't been lending to those sorts of people. Hence the growth in % of people renting from under the last Labour government and the restructuring of the housing market.
Click to expand...
It's always been a bizarre affordability quirk that if I paid a landlord £1500 a month for 10 years for example...it doesn't go someway to proving that I am capable of paying £1500 to a mortgage company... especially how then I'd have even greater motivation to make that payment each month given this is now 'my' house.

Yes there are always the sub prime groups who will fail affordability at the first hurdle (well except for a certain period of time pre 2008).

But capable payers are a growing group, probably most of the growth in the rental sector. Of course, a deposit is a barrier
 
Last edited:
Houses have always traditionally been about 3x average salary. They have now risen to 9x that. So basically houses should be 1/3 of their current value, if the artifical bubble bursts and things return to normal.
 
Kompakted said:
Something fundamental has changed in who banks will lend to since 2002 though. Banks shouldn't have been giving 95% mortgages to young people on starter ladder jobs in 2002. We've still not recovered from the consequences of that.
Click to expand...

But ultimately there needs to be a balance to be met because we also can't be giving people the insecure start to their lives where they have no opportunity to own their property unless they are stinking rich and to go back to the original point I made, I don't think someone paying 4/5 years of high rent (higher than the mortgage) to pay off someone's 2nd or 3rd home is fundamentally ethical when in reality their rent would have gone along way to securing their mortgage payments.

We are simply pricing people out through greed
 
Grays_1890 said:
But ultimately there needs to be a balance to be met because we also can't be giving people the insecure start to their lives where they have no opportunity to own their property unless they are stinking rich and to go back to the original point I made, I don't think someone paying 4/5 years of high rent (higher than the mortgage) to pay off someone's 2nd or 3rd home is fundamentally ethical when in reality their rent would have gone along way to securing their mortgage payments.

We are simply pricing people out through greed
Click to expand...
A lot of people are pricing themselves out via greed. My brother in law can't save for a deposit for a house for example. Yes, his rent is high. So is the car finance on his 20 plate Audi RS3. So is saving for his annual holiday to ibiza. Yes that's a generalisation, but so is your view that there are all these people being priced out of the housing market. Actually, the first-time buyer mortgage market is doing as well as it always has done.
 
Kompakted said:
A lot of people are pricing themselves out via greed. My brother in law can't save for a deposit for a house for example. Yes, his rent is high. So is the car finance on his 20 plate Audi RS3. So is saving for his annual holiday to ibiza. Yes that's a generalisation, but so is your view that there are all these people being priced out of the housing market. Actually, the first-time buyer mortgage market is doing as well as it always has done.
Click to expand...
Except London a city where you are more likely to be in a professional secure job the social mobility of youth in those jobs is the lowest its been for year. A few dingdong Wittington stories does not mean the market is fair.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Except London a city where you are more likely to be in a professional secure job the social mobility of youth in those jobs is the lowest its been for year. A few dingdong Wittington stories does not mean the market is fair.
Click to expand...
Markets aren't fair though. Life isn't fair. There are always winners and lovers. The unfairest markets tend to be those with constant state intervention to make them "fairer". George Orwell wrote a book about it once.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Houses have always traditionally been about 3x average salary. They have now risen to 9x that. So basically houses should be 1/3 of their current value, if the artifical bubble bursts and things return to normal.
Click to expand...

Grays_1890 said:
But ultimately there needs to be a balance to be met because we also can't be giving people the insecure start to their lives where they have no opportunity to own their property unless they are stinking rich and to go back to the original point I made, I don't think someone paying 4/5 years of high rent (higher than the mortgage) to pay off someone's 2nd or 3rd home is fundamentally ethical when in reality their rent would have gone along way to securing their mortgage payments.

We are simply pricing people out through greed
Click to expand...
It clearly an affordability question.

How do we rebalance this?
A brake on the housing market, either through natural market forces or government rules/taxation?
Wait for wages to catch up?
Rebirth of social housing for rung 1 and 2 of the ladder? Including a reinvestment right to buy loop?
Rent controls?
Innovative housing schemes - cheaper per unit cost?
 
Kompakted said:
Markets aren't fair though. Life isn't fair. There are always winners and lovers. The unfairest markets tend to be those with constant state intervention to make them "fairer". George Orwell wrote a book about it once.
Click to expand...

No one is advocating Orwellian answers, people are pretty accepting that life is not fair and markets are not fair but that does not have to include using housing as it is currently, people deserve better chances to get a roof over their head.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
It clearly an affordability question.

How do we rebalance this?
A brake on the housing market, either through natural market forces or government rules/taxation?
Wait for wages to catch up?
Rebirth of social housing for rung 1 and 2 of the ladder? Including a reinvestment right to buy loop?
Rent controls?
Innovative housing schemes - cheaper per unit cost?
Click to expand...

Its a great question and one I don't have an answer for, I will leave it now for the true experts to debate, had my utopian view hahah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back