Budget

Lynton

Lynton

awkward customer
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,606
Name
Lynton (yes really!)
Edit My Images
No
Hmm.. well that's good news.. first time buyers with £12K in savings can get £3k from the govt if they are purchasing a £450K house in London.

How many first time buyers are looking at £450K properties?
 
Lynton said:
Hmm.. well that's good news.. first time buyers with £12K in savings can get £3k from the govt if they are purchasing a £450K house in London.

How many first time buyers are looking at £450K properties?
Click to expand...


I didn't think you needed to be buying a £450k house to qualify?
 
If they're buying in London probably quite a few, but I be willing to bet it will be in the hundreds not the thousands...

To be honest I didn't watch the budget today for the first time in years as I forgot it was on, twas to busy feeding my fish :P
 
Lynton said:
Hmm.. well that's good news.. first time buyers with £12K in savings can get £3k from the govt if they are purchasing a £450K house in London.

How many first time buyers are looking at £450K properties?
Click to expand...
Well the last lot of financial help did nothing for the people who had nowt but was a neat windfall for helping the double barrelleds get their kids on the housing ladder.

The truth ought to be obvious, house prices have made property ownership a pipe dream once more for ordinary working people.
You have to laugh at Eastenders, more ridiculous than no-one having a kettle or a washing machine is the idea that a market trader or cabbie could afford to move in to somewhere that close to the centre of London.
 
The £3000 pound hand out does not go to the buyer of the house it just goes to the Conservative parties paymasters in the building industry who build the houses at over inflated prices.It's called using tax payers money to pay your donners back. It's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
Hmm.. well that's good news.. first time buyers with £12K in savings can get £3k from the govt if they are purchasing a £450K house in London.

How many first time buyers are looking at £450K properties?
Click to expand...
Out of principle I'm very much against any of such policies regardless of the levels involved. Government interference like this will distort the market and doesn't allow it to find its own level.

Saying that, I was a first time buyer like that quite a while ago and it would have brought a smile to my face if I benefitted from it. Still doesn't agree with it.

PS. And yes Phil, you just can't help yourself with the digs can't you...
 
Want a house?
Save.
 
boliston said:
More should be done to encourage renting rather than buying like is the "norm" in continental europe.
Click to expand...

whichis fine until you retire and can't pay the rent anymore
 
The entier system of private house buying has become corupted since the 80's when dergulation of the financial market happened.
In the 70's 80's one could only borrow 2 1/2 to 3 times annual sallery no matter what.Then deregulation came in so the people who had the houses said to the estate agent "how much is my house worth" and the estate agent says "as much as someone can borrow" and because people could borrow 5 or 6 times their annual sallary houses went up accordingly.All parties involved, the Bank lending the money,the solicitor charching a fee based on price and the estate agent selling it based on price all had a vested interest in house prices going up.And so did the builders.
The house that are turned out now are of very low quality( have you seen what they call a garage now) and the government will not regulate to make builders produce quality or stop them holding land whilst prices are not going up. :(
 
shapeshifter said:
The social pay the rent if you retire and can not pay it.
Click to expand...

but only enough for you to live in some poxy s*** hole where the police only go in ARVs - on the whole I think i'd rather buy
 
As the presenter will pop up and say soon..

"other locations to buy houses are available other than London"

:-)
 
dejongj said:
...
PS. And yes Phil, you just can't help yourself with the digs can't you...
Click to expand...
What you ought to see as the nonsense that it is! when I spout lefty principles it's me having a dig! but you can say this...

dejongj said:
Out of principle I'm very much against any of such policies regardless of the levels involved. Government interference like this will distort the market and doesn't allow it to find its own level...
Click to expand...

And it's not your 'political opinion' but should be read as fact:thinking:

You need to accept, whilst communism was never proven to have worked, neither has the free market.

Having left leaning principals isn't a sign of lack of weakness, it's an opinion just like having right wing leanings is. :D

It's fine to disagree, can we act like adults?
 
big soft moose said:
but only enough for you to live in some poxy s*** hole where the police only go in ARVs - on the whole I think i'd rather buy
Click to expand...
When not possible to buy.There are some nice houses that people live in when retired that are paid for by the state. I think where private landlords are concerned it may be a problem because as you say only so much money is forthcoming from the state,and quite rightly so.But if you can get council it is OK. As another poster said they need to build more council.
 
Phil V said:
What you ought to see as the nonsense that it is! when I spout lefty principles it's me having a dig! but you can say this...



And it's not your 'political opinion' but should be read as fact:thinking:

You need to accept, whilst communism was never proven to have worked, neither has the free market.

Having left leaning principals isn't a sign of lack of weakness, it's an opinion just like having right wing leanings is. :D

It's fine to disagree, can we act like adults?
Click to expand...
I'm not threatening anyone with violence, nor make silly digs at anyone with double barrelled names ;) So if you want to grow up and be an adult I would welcome that... Very much so indeed.

The only reason, in my opinion, the free market hasn't worked is because it has been subject to state interference and not really been a free market. This thread is a great example of artificially making more expensive houses become affordable to those who can't afford it, opposed to let the market value them downwards and find their real value...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Right, JP and Phil, I like you both, I really don't want to have to remove either of your from these threads because the sniping at each other is getting on other peoples nerves and is personal, but it is getting a bit silly now. Can you both just ignore each other, or go and take some photos or something else that isn't sitting here poking at each other from your respective sides of the fence. Thankyou.
 
boliston said:
More should be done to encourage renting rather than buying like is the "norm" in continental europe.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that every political party that has declared a preference has indicated that they will make renting harder not easier after the election. (That's an editorialised view - they plan to add to tenants rights which are already pretty good which will make it less attractive for landlords to rent. I bet they will say that they actually intend to encourage renting.)
 
I agree, and distort and inflate the housing market further by providing financial assistance to those who don't have the money (or perhaps already do but now can "afford" even more). It's madness in my opinion.
 
That's the problem when we have an economy based on the price of houses. We should have an economy based on trade of goods and services in balance, not house prices. London is filling up with glorified tenement blocks akin to the old eastern block ones, just massively over priced.

Houses are only worth what someone will pay for them. I've never paid more than 75% of an asking price. If people stopped paying silly prices and let the 'market' drop to sensible levels the quick buck merchants would be brought to book. We need a housing market crash tbh.

Do like Malaysia is doing to Singapore. In Singapore they have massive volumes of new tenement blocks that won't sell due to silly prices. Malaysia are building houses, not apartments across the causeway for a third of the selling price. Build similar outside London, by cash rich councils (there are lots of those around London) that sell the properties, to break the stupidity.
 
KEEFYP said:
That's the problem when we have an economy based on the price of houses. We should have an economy based on trade of goods and services in balance, not house prices. London is filling up with glorified tenement blocks akin to the old eastern block ones, just massively over priced.

Houses are only worth what someone will pay for them. I've never paid more than 75% of an asking price. If people stopped paying silly prices and let the 'market' drop to sensible levels the quick buck merchants would be brought to book. We need a housing market crash tbh.

Do like Malaysia is doing to Singapore. In Singapore they have massive volumes of new tenement blocks that won't sell due to silly prices. Malaysia are building houses, not apartments across the causeway for a third of the selling price. Build similar outside London, by cash rich councils (there are lots of those around London) that sell the properties, to break the stupidity.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle with building new houses outside of the larger cities/towns however the main obstacles of building there are green belt land and NIMBYs.

Everyone's crying out for more houses being built but no one wants them built near there home or on green belt land.

I agree with the need to protect green/open spaces and not to overwhelm local infrastructure but something's got to give.
 
KEEFYP said:
That's the problem when we have an economy based on the price of houses. We should have an economy based on trade of goods and services in balance, not house prices. London is filling up with glorified tenement blocks akin to the old eastern block ones, just massively over priced.

Houses are only worth what someone will pay for them. I've never paid more than 75% of an asking price. If people stopped paying silly prices and let the 'market' drop to sensible levels the quick buck merchants would be brought to book. We need a housing market crash tbh.

Do like Malaysia is doing to Singapore. In Singapore they have massive volumes of new tenement blocks that won't sell due to silly prices. Malaysia are building houses, not apartments across the causeway for a third of the selling price. Build similar outside London, by cash rich councils (there are lots of those around London) that sell the properties, to break the stupidity.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
Britons need to get over their snobbery so far as apartment living goes.
Build more by all mean, but build up, not out.
 
A lot of today's problems would have been avoided if we would have kept to only being able to borrow 3 times your salary. But we are not at that point. House prices will only go down now if there is another crash, and look where the last one got us. We do need to do something though.
The main reason in this country why the rental market has expanded is because it is getting difficult to get a deposit. But rental prices are so high, that once people get a rented property they still cant save enough for a deposit. So as a parent with a daughter living at home, I welcome the idea of a boost from the government. (Mind you the detail may be a bit different)
 
KEEFYP said:
Houses are only worth what someone will pay for them. I've never paid more than 75% of an asking price. If people stopped paying silly prices and let the 'market' drop to sensible levels the quick buck merchants would be brought to book. We need a housing market crash tbh.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but that means you've never bought of anyone with a high ish loan to value of their mortgage. There are also great swathes of the country you've never bought in either. Not recently anyhow
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Well the last lot of financial help did nothing for the people who had nowt but was a neat windfall for helping the double barrelleds get their kids on the housing ladder.

.
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with affluent people or people with double barreled surnames? I sense a great chip on the shoulder...

I don't see the problem with the budget. A raise in personal allowances and the ability to turn over ISAs flexibly is a real boon. All in all very pleasing.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
I disagree.
Britons need to get over their snobbery so far as apartment living goes.
Build more by all mean, but build up, not out.
Click to expand...
All well and good if purpose built with good sound insulation and punitive financial and criminal penalties for people making a lot of noise that disturbs other people, e.g. OAPs turning the telly up to save the battery in their hearing aid, or those using a vacuum cleaner at any time that people might be sleeping.

I bought a small, detached bungalow because they come with larger plots, so I have room for the garage for the racing car, the trailer for the racing car and the tow vehicle for the racing car trailer. Storing that lot if you live in a flat is a considerable challenge. I could have had a considerably bigger house, or flat, in terms of internal area, number of bedrooms etc. but those didn't meet my requirements for a home. A colleague lives in a very nice new build flat in the centre of Bristol, worth about the same as my little bungalow. Her home, nice though it is, would be entirely unsuitable for me - lack of parking notwithstanding, noise from the street in the city centre never stops and I would never sleep. My home would be entirely unsuitable for her as she has no car, public transport is hopeless and it is not really a pracitical cycle ride (her mode of transport locally) twice a day.


I'd suggest more social housing and removing mortgage interest as an allowable expense for landlords, which should stop the rise and rise of private BTLs inflating property prices.
 
ST4 said:
Do you have a problem with affluent people or people with double barreled surnames?
Click to expand...
Neither, I use humour and sweeping generalisations to make points which are too complicated to discuss in depth. It appears some people park their SoH when entering political debates. Whether this is done for point scoring, or because they like to be outraged, or because they don't have a sense of fun, I have no idea. But it's tiresome. :)
 
Russ77 said:
I agree in principle with building new houses outside of the larger cities/towns however the main obstacles of building there are green belt land and NIMBYs.

Everyone's crying out for more houses being built but no one wants them built near there home or on green belt land.

I agree with the need to protect green/open spaces and not to overwhelm local infrastructure but something's got to give.
Click to expand...

Developers currently hold land banks. Sensible planning decisions can deliver open spaces. Brownfield is available, just reduces the profit for greedy developers. If they thought long term and developed solutions to housing in place of short term mega profit then decent houses with local area heat grids etc could actually provide valued housing.

viv1969 said:
I disagree.
Britons need to get over their snobbery so far as apartment living goes.
Build more by all mean, but build up, not out.
Click to expand...

Having lived in apartments in Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, US, Israel, South Africa I prefer a house or bungalow. Not snobbery but practical living in a home where I can enjoy life. Have outside storage for cars, camper vans etc and a garden to dine out in, sit in the hot tub. The Malaysia example I quoted earlier seems a good compromise, some outdoor space, lots of floors (4) with a small footprint.

boyfalldown said:
Possibly, but that means you've never bought of anyone with a high ish loan to value of their mortgage. There are also great swathes of the country you've never bought in either. Not recently anyhow
Click to expand...

I have, hence their desperation to sell quickly due to putting a non refundable deposit on a more expensive new house that they had snookered themselves into. There are always opportunities if you investigate and not rush in. Bought and sold in 'trendy' areas to move to less trendy areas where prices are realistic. Why pay more for a different postcode and the increased costs associated therewith?
 
Flats/appartments just aren't solution.

Young couples are managing to get on the propery ladder by buying small flats/appartments but they're not that suitable for children, the problem comes when they try to sell up and buy a house. The demand for family homes is so great that supply/demand increases the prices where the jump is nigh on impossible to make.

There is only so much you can sell a 1-2 bedroom flat for but the 2-3 bed house market seems to increase disproportinately. For example, in 2013, we sold our 1 bed flat for £131K (it was a new build, 4 years old on a nice housing development), last year one of our old neighbours sold his flat which is effectively the same for £145K.

The house we're now living in (a 3 bed semi, off street parking for 2 cars, 100ft rear garden in a reasonable area) we paid £193.5K for, it was the last properly bought in the street on the land registry site although one more has sold recently. Similar properties in neighbouring streets which aren't extended like ours and/or not in as good condition are being marketed for £240K-£250K

Whilst in terms of a deposit there's not much difference, in terms of getting a mortage, even on two wages £240K is going to be getting out of reach to people earning near the national average.
 
Phil V said:
Neither, I use humour and sweeping generalisations to make points which are too complicated to discuss in depth. It appears some people park their SoH when entering political debates. Whether this is done for point scoring, or because they like to be outraged, or because they don't have a sense of fun, I have no idea. But it's tiresome. :)
Click to expand...

If I had quoted the word chav, oik, pleb, in saying the budget wouldn't suit them you'd be beyond fuming.

Its ok to mock rich people but not poor people?
 
ST4 said:
If I had quoted the word chav, oik, pleb, in saying the budget wouldn't suit them you'd be beyond fuming.

Its ok to mock rich people but not poor people?
Click to expand...
I think you'll find (not that you will check) I don't do 'outrage on behalf of' I only get offended when people attack me personally.
I'm sure it won't alter your belief, but it is true ;)
 
viv1969 said:
I disagree.
Britons need to get over their snobbery so far as apartment living goes.
Build more by all mean, but build up, not out.
Click to expand...

I disagree why should we live in hutches like rabbits when the answer is to many people chasing to few houses. I am not giving up my bundle of land and nice quiet house, no way....

the developed world is going through a population explosion and nothing will sort this out until that is addressed.
 
KEEFYP said:
I have, hence their desperation to sell quickly due to putting a non refundable deposit on a more expensive new house that they had snookered themselves into. There are always opportunities if you investigate and not rush in. Bought and sold in 'trendy' areas to move to less trendy areas where prices are realistic. Why pay more for a different postcode and the increased costs associated therewith?
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons, jobs, schools being just a couple. I'm genuinly not sure (atleast at the moment) how you could investigate a seller like that. Atleast round here you'd have had three offers before you'd asked the question
 
Mr Bump said:
I disagree why should we live in hutches like rabbits when the answer is to many people chasing to few houses. I am not giving up my bundle of land and nice quiet house, no way....

the developed world is going through a population explosion and nothing will sort this out until that is addressed.
Click to expand...

If you have a nice detached house in a good area, great. I believe the point is people expect them, when in actual fact if they set their sights on something more modest they'd be able to afford a home more easily.

The country is too large population wise for everyone to live in detached houses with gardens.
 
most people I know plan there housing around school location that's pretty much it.
I find that desperately sad.
 
Phil V said:
Neither
Click to expand...

Phew

I've a double-barrelled surname but I'm not rich

That said - I'm much better off in terms of house & what piddly bit of mortgage I have left because of where I chose to live.
 
Mr Bump said:
most people I know plan there housing around school location that's pretty much it.
I find that desperately sad.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the convenience of being close to the school or that they choose somewhere based on the reputation of the school ?

If it's the latter then I don't think it's sad that people think about school catchment areas and their children's education.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
Do you mean the convenience of being close to the school or that they choose somewhere based on the reputation of the school ?

If it's the latter then I don't think it's sad that people think about their children's education.
Click to expand...

School reputation makes a massive difference to house prices. I think thats what is meant
 
Mr Bump said:
most people I know plan there housing around school location that's pretty much it.
I find that desperately sad.
Click to expand...

What about those that don't have children? People like to live in posh areas, where there is low crime, vandalism, noise.

If we were a more ordered society many more less expensive areas wouldn't put people off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top