First Time Buyers go on strike over extortionate house prices

As long as Jews are making a 'killing', house prices will remain unaffordable for the average young couple.

Regards, John G

Which the best thing they can do. The only way that there will be a downward adjustment in house prices is if people decline to buy at these prices. That must start with first time buyers.

S'ok GB has a plan.

wrote

Let's think about this statistic a little.

The "long-term average" proportion of buyers who are FTBs, is "almost 54%" ? That means that the "long term average" is for people to only ever buy *two* houses in their lifetime (on average)?

[The first time they buy they'll be a FTB; the second time they buy they won't be. If people bought any more than two houses on average in a lifetime, say three, then the proportion of FTB's would be only 33%.]

Whatever happened to "the average length of time spent in one house is 7-10 years"?

"mogga" wrote

In one breath the article says "there will be no means test" then it says "will have to sift out deserving applicants whose salaries simply will not stretch to the average-priced house".

How is that *not* a means test??

Can they afford to rent? Why do people assume they have a "right" to own almost as soon as they leave school or college?

X-No-Archive: yes In message , Tim writes

We've been here before in the 1960s and 1970s with the Wilson administration's ill-fated option mortgage scheme, and the even more ill-fated Land Commission. We have high house prices because we like high house prices and have created a market that can't be bucked and nor can treasury. High prices are man made -- not handed down on a mountain top. Although, on second thoughts, treasury is as pretty close to a mountain top, or so they think.

Any bright wheeze that isn't brought into the world with the aid of treasury forceps, is strangled by treasury.

I see it more as an attempt to stop the property market from crashing.

They got voted in partly on the basis that the Tories would cause a major disaster in the housing market, so don't want the same thing to happen to them.

I can do without either of these, though I can see they may be useful from time to time.

I would be more worried about food and water, personally.

Phil

the planning system is an issue too, strangling the supply by one group of people deciding what is acceptable (irrespective of what people want) and another group trying to fit what they want into that template.

Phil

You think we live in a world where we get what we want?

What are you smoking?

Think about it a little more. People often buy flats/houses when single then get married to someone who has done the same. Then move into a new house together. That makes 3 property purchases, 2 by FTB's. They could then buy another property together, making 4 purchases in total, 2 by FTB's. Each has bought 3 times, but 50% of the purchases were by FTB's.

It probably includes renting, living with parents, etc. I've lived in 7 places since I was 18, only two were owned by me. I'm guessing I won't move again before I retire.

Exactly. And why not just leave it to the market to sort out instead of trying to prop up the unsustainable?

If nurses, firemen, and teachers can't afford to live in a particular area you'd soon see house prices falling if schools and hospitals can't get staff.

what on earth scam is this... the government owns half 'your' house and rents it to you.....

if it is anything like housing associations there will be no serious security of tenure.

as the servicing prices of 'ownership' will go down....so therefore it is very likely that the price of the properties may well rise to reflect greater perceived advantage for the outlay (esp as first time buyers are not likely to be good at spotting yet another government scam.....

meanwhile 1 taxes have to rise as once more a socialist gov't interferes in markets....this will possibly knock on to non-first buyer housing.. so becomes a tax on property owners as i have been predicting for some years that this socialist government would eventually try (now the election is over)

meanwhile 2 the government continues to drive up inflation and eventually cashes their 50% of the house in, making profits well above the pretend interest they have paid while also collecting a rent..... who will then purchase this growing tranche of property the government then will own? does it come back as more taxation? does brown start lassoing the rest to claim as retread council housing? will people pay a lower going rate for these houses half owned by brown, thus undermining the equity values? will non-first time buyers be picking up these half government owned houses?

this has socialist scam written all over... it also has socialist voodoo economics written all over it.....

roll up roll up...how can you lose....you know it is socialism.....

in the above you also have

how can this be if adults move house every 5-7 years? saying 40% of the market is first time buyers makes no sense.....even 18% sounds high....(a large part of the market is also now second purchases for rent) what is your source for those %ages?

regards...

there are suggestions that much of the uk housing market is getting creaky and looking to correct.... so...let's shore up the prices with taxation! until that no-longer works.... so let's tempt those dumb first time buyers in.....

no...if they were serious you'd see wages rising....this is in part the case by the use of contract staff in place of 'permanent' staff

regards...

House prices in some areas are driven up by incoming retired couples and second-homers. Why should they subsidise local teachers? They don't need 'em! They tend to use out-of-area medical services too. Of course if it's a social objective to have inclusive, 'balanced' communities then young families with children have to be encouraged into the area as well. But market forces are far to blunt an instrument to support social engineering objectives.

It's nothing to do with a "right" to own, it's due to the inconvenience of renting - moving house every couple of years as the landlord decides they'd rather sell the house, or reckon that a 20% rent increase would be worth a gouge, or doesn't bother maintaining the property well enough whilst he's got a sitting tennant.

Then there's the hassle involved in even doing simple things like putting up a satellite dish, getting the drains unblocked, the heating repaired etc. decorating the place in some vaguely interesting way etc.

Other than council and housing association rentals, the options are really very, very limited, buying is the only way to get the stability in living people want.

Jim.

Planning is done at a local level by elected representatives. How does this make it "irrespective of what [the] people want"?

Maybe because it's done at a local level by elected representatives... That means that the only people who can influence decisions in an area are people who already live there. At an extreme example consider the country divided into 2, the left half with a population density of

1000 per sq. mile, and the right half with 0.0001 per sq. mile, the right half would vote for no new houses to built in their half as it would effect their lifes, the left half would love to build some more houses so they can have some more space to live in, yet...

Jim.