Budget 2015...

[buctootim]

I agree it doesn't, and you have benefitted from it, but I am one of the generation that apparently can't afford to buy a house. I bought my first in 2010 at the age of 25, spent money doing that up (it was a shell), then bought the one I am in now.

 

People can afford to buy houses, but the issue is people don't tend to want to save the deposit. I don't know anyone who has saved the deposit for a house that can't afford one. I wanted a house in London, but couldn't afford it so I moved out into the home counties, and thats how you afford a house. You move to the areas you can afford.

 

 

If you impoverish yourself and earn a great wage you can. Why should that be the criteria for affording a passable place to live an hour from central London. Countries who earn more than us manage to have much better and much cheaper housing commutable to big cities ie not in thr middle of nowhere.

 

This 3bed 3 bathroom detached place an hour from Washington DC is £250,000, beautiful area too.

http://www.myhomesdb.com/realestatephd/FQ8535688

 

This 4 bed place on 4 acres is an hour from New York City and £325,000

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/249-Mt-Holly-Rd-Katonah-NY-10536/33008227_zpid/

Edited 18 March, 2015 by buctootim

[Smirking_Saint]

As long as we are both dead before we're dribbling otherwise the state will ra pe us to pay for our care.

 

Which is a different situation, and unfortunately one I have witnessed first hand. Something I feel strongly about, surely if you have paid all you're life into the tax pot you're care should be provided.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If you impoverish yourself and earn a great wage you can. Why should that be the criteria for affording a passable place to live an hour from central London. Countries who earn more than us manage to have much better and much cheaper housing commutable to big cities ie not in thr middle of nowhere.

 

This 3bed 3 bathroom detached place an hour from Washington DC is £250,000, beautiful area too.

http://www.myhomesdb.com/realestatephd/FQ8535688

 

This 4 bed place on 4 acres is an hour from New York City and £325,000

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/249-Mt-Holly-Rd-Katonah-NY-10536/33008227_zpid/

 

Houses are bigger and cheaper with more land in the US though, due to the amount of space they have to build them, and the frankly **** poor build quality.

 

Plus, you could easily buy a 4 bed house for £325k within an hour of London.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Which is a different situation, and unfortunately one I have witnessed first hand. Something I feel strongly about, surely if you have paid all you're life into the tax pot you're care should be provided.

 

Agreed.

[Smirking_Saint]

Houses are bigger and cheaper with more land in the US though, due to the amount of space they have to build them, and the frankly **** poor build quality.

 

And the number of americans

[View From The Top]

100% agree, it is the deposits that are the issue, not the price of housing, which is why the above savings ISA'a will help people like yourself.

 

The price of housing isn't an issue? Are you drunk?

 

Friend of mine recently sold his tiny 2 bed flat in Twickenham for well north of £250,000. How is that not overpriced? He's moved up here and brought himself a fantastic family home in a great location & have cash to spare.

 

My 1st flat was 2 bedroom, and I guess that applies to many of us but as a 1st time buyer requiring a 20% deposit you'd have to say over £50,000 and that is assuming that prices don't rise! Joe Average is never going to be in position to pay rent and save £50k.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Here's a few now:

 

30 minutes

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/#/for-sale/details/36222390?search_identifier=6a1ab748de3b7a7845bc280456a4ed90

 

45 minutes

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/#/new-homes/details/34584245?search_identifier=2a8c7c7d70c39f8022055b5bddad3f9f

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The price of housing isn't an issue? Are you drunk?

 

Friend of mine recently sold his tiny 2 bed flat in Twickenham for well north of £250,000. How is that not overpriced? He's moved up here and brought himself a fantastic family home in a great location & have cash to spare.

 

My 1st flat was 2 bedroom, and I guess that applies to many of us but as a 1st time buyer requiring a 20% deposit you'd have to say over £50,000 and that is assuming that prices don't rise! Joe Average is never going to be in position to pay rent and save £50k.

 

Bloody hell, £250k for a 2 bed flat in Twickenham. Should be nearer £400k.

 

I've not said it's not overpriced, I'm saying it's not why people aren't getting onto the ladder.

 

And you don't need a 20% deposit, behave. 10% will do it.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

The price of housing isn't an issue? Are you drunk?

 

Friend of mine recently sold his tiny 2 bed flat in Twickenham for well north of £250,000. How is that not overpriced? He's moved up here and brought himself a fantastic family home in a great location & have cash to spare.

 

My 1st flat was 2 bedroom, and I guess that applies to many of us but as a 1st time buyer requiring a 20% deposit you'd have to say over £50,000 and that is assuming that prices don't rise! Joe Average is never going to be in position to pay rent and save £50k.

 

Colleague at work has just bought her first place down the road from where I am renting. 2 bed flat in Leyton (granted it's a decent location, but far from the most desired) for a touch over £300k.

 

Even living with the gf, and us both having decent jobs with reasonable incomes paying rent and trying to save that kind of deposit will take forever. As I said, between us we could afford a mortgage. But rent is so high that it seems a long way off before we can even think about it.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Bloody hell, £250k for a 2 bed flat in Twickenham. Should be nearer £400k.

 

I've not said it's not overpriced, I'm saying it's not why people aren't getting onto the ladder.

 

And you don't need a 20% deposit, behave. 10% will do it.

 

Getting 25K deposit together still isn't easy!

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Getting 25K deposit together still isn't easy!

 

Oh yeah, agreed, but half that above! A few work bonuses, putting away £300 a month between you and you'd be there in 3 or 4 years. That's how we did it, but it's not quick and its not easy.

[View From The Top]

Bloody hell, £250k for a 2 bed flat in Twickenham. Should be nearer £400k.

 

I've not said it's not overpriced, I'm saying it's not why people aren't getting onto the ladder.

 

And you don't need a 20% deposit, behave. 10% will do it.

 

Just going on the house he bought for cash up here regarding price. 10% deposit on £400,000 is £40,000. Not many ordinary Joes can save that nor earn enough to get a mortgage of £360,000.

[Smirking_Saint]

Oh yeah, agreed, but half that above! A few work bonuses, putting away £300 a month between you and you'd be there in 3 or 4 years. That's how we did it, but it's not quick and its not easy.

 

I think too many people today want things too quickly and too easily. Has buying a house ever been easy ? I think too many people got too comfortable under the boom and unfortunately are now finding life difficult in the bust.

 

Buying my first house wasnt an easy decision for me, the place was small with no central heating, needed fully redecorating and was in a poor area. Me and my now wife had to spend time together living with my own and her parents, trying to save, we had to take on extra work etc but we got there. There were times we thought of renting, but as I said its just dead money, thats not an option for me unless I have to.

 

VFTT said the other day people know the price of everything but the value of nothing. And I completely agree with those sentiments.

Edited 18 March, 2015 by Smirking_Saint
Knackered iphone keyboard and writing whilst distracted ;)

[Batman]

Just in the south west. Countless new build estates have huge adverts up saying 5% max deposit required on all their properties.

 

Redrow, linden homes etc

 

Is that the general case else where?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just going on the house he bought for cash up here regarding price. 10% deposit on £400,000 is £40,000. Not many ordinary Joes can save that nor earn enough to get a mortgage of £360,000.

 

No, but not many ordinary joes should be able to buy a first house in Twickenham, it's a very nice place. They could get a 2 bed flat for that a couple of miles away, in Stanwell, Feltham, Ashford etc.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I think too many people today want things too quickly and too easily. Has buying a house ever been easy ? I think too many people got too comfortable under the boom and unfortunately are now finding life difficult in the bust.

 

Buying my first house wasnt an easy decision for me, the plave was small with no central heating, needed dully redecorating and was in a poor area. Me and my now wife had to spend time together living my my own and her parents, trying to save, we had to take on extra work etc but we got their. There were times we thought of renting, but as I said its just dead money, thats not an option for me unless I have to.

 

VFTT said the other day people know the price of everything but the value of nothing. And I completely agree with those sentiments.

 

Your background sounds exactly the same as mine and the missus.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just in the south west. Countless new build estates have huge adverts up saying 5% max deposit required on all their properties.

 

Redrow, linden homes etc

 

Is that the general case else where?

 

When buying new, yes.

[pap]

What are you saying ? That we should completely change the world we live in ? Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly these are capitalist times, you take both the positives and negatives of that in the same way as if it were socialist.

 

More houses just means more buy to let mortgagers anyway. More should be done to get first time buyers on the market.

 

Yes, I do think we should completely change the world we live in. I'd go further. It's almost nonsense to believe that we can't.

 

I'm only an amateur student of history, but I'm confident enough to characterise this entire period we've been living through as something of a blip; we happen to have an unfortunate blind spot by virtue of being in it. Concepts that we treat as immutable, such as the global financial system, are going to be looked on as laughable by future generations. I wonder how our "mission" of "make, make, make, sell, sell, sell" will look to our resource-strapped descendants. I'm betting on "f**king madness".

 

The other thing that you learn is that most empires are ultimately brought down from within. External forces may deliver the final blow, but it's the internal struggle of rich and poor that does much of the damage. It's certainly what brought the Roman Republic to a close, and I'd argue that we're getting near to that point ourselves. Saw a stat that at some point this year, the richest 1% will own more than everyone else combined. No idea whether that's true or not, but the present direction of travel is not sustainable.

 

Everything will change at some point. Always does. The only question is whether we've got the wit to recognise the problems and remedy things ourselves, or we wait until the inevitable moment, maybe hundreds of years down the line, where it all kicks off and changes in a chaotic and uncoordinated fashion.

Edited 18 March, 2015 by pap

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yes, I do think we should completely change the world we live in. I'd go further. It's almost nonsense to believe that we can't.

 

I'm only an amateur student of history, but I'm confident enough to characterise this entire period we've been living through as something of a blip; we happen to have an unfortunate blind spot by virtue of being in it. Concepts that we treat as immutable, such as the global financial system, are going to be looked on as laughable by future generations. I wonder how our "mission" of "make, make, make, sell, sell, sell" will look to our resource-strapped descendants. I'm betting on "f**king madness".

 

The other thing that you learn is that most empires are ultimately brought down from within. External forces may deliver the final blow, but it's the internal struggle of rich and poor that does much of the damage. It's certainly what brought the Roman Republic to a close, and I'd argue that we're getting near to that point ourselves. Saw a stat that at some point this year, the richest 1% will own more than everyone else combined. No idea whether that's true or not, but the present direction of travel is not sustainable.

 

Everything will change at some point. Always does. The only question is whether we've got the wit to recognise the problems and remedy things ourselves, or we wait until the inevitable moment, maybe hundreds of years down the line, where it all kicks off and changes in a chaotic and uncoordinated fashion.

 

Deep, man.

[trousers]

Saw a stat that at some point this year, the richest 1% will own more than everyone else combined. No idea whether that's true or not

 

http://time.com/money/3675142/oxfam-richest-1-wealth-flawed/

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/beware-oxfams-dodgy-statistics-on-wealth-inequality/

 

Oxfam’s claim that the richest 1 per cent own 48 per cent of the world’s wealth (and will soon own more than half) rests on Credit Suisse data. This data is on net wealth, which throws up all sorts of weird findings when you try to add it up across large populations. That’s because net wealth is calculated by adding up the value of assets and taking off debts.

 

To see this, look at the figure below from the Credit Suisse report. If we were to split up the data into deciles, this methodology would suggest China has no people in the bottom 10 per cent – the world’s poorest – with most Chinese in the top 50 per cent. North America on the other hand supposedly has around 8 per cent of the world’s poorest population – because significant numbers of people in the States are loaded up with debts of various kind, making their net wealth negative!

 

 

It doesn’t take an advanced mathematician to work out that adding up lots of negatives at the bottom to an overall wealth share figure for the bottom 99 per cent will of course make the figure much smaller than a gross wealth figure.

 

Oxfam has then taken this bogus figure, looked at recent trends (which show the share of the top 1 per cent rising) and simply extrapolated into the future to get their headline (which seems a huge assumption given the potential QE unwinding).

 

Aggregating net wealth figures is largely meaningless and not the way most people think about poverty, or indeed the ‘rich’. That Oxfam has been able to claim front pages with a nonsensical ‘report’ throws up all sorts of worrying questions about journalistic standards.

 

But the more perturbing fact is that Oxfam’s latest meme will now be repeated ad nauseam by those who won’t examine the basis of the claim.

 

Edited 18 March, 2015 by trousers

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Back to the budget, looks pretty good at first glance.

[pap]

I didn't put any stock in that stat, trousers.

 

However, the direction of travel is unsustainable and I'd argue we saw elements of that in the recent riots. People who don't give a f**k because they're never going to have a stake.

[solentstars]

budget was a non event

[Batman]

budget was a non event

 

which means it was pretty good. If it was remotely poor, you would have been all over it no doubt. Because a Tory delivered it

[pap]

How is your personal recovery going?

 

http://www.whatrecovery.co.uk/

 

[pap]

which means it was pretty good. If it was remotely poor, you would have been all over it no doubt. Because a Tory delivered it

 

solentstars voted Tory in the last election.

 

[Batman]

solentstars voted Tory in the last election.

 

 

get out!!!

 

[pap]

get out!!!

 

 

I've got a super-power.

 

It's called reading people's posts. Makes me less of a moron.

[Batman]

I've got a super-power.

 

It's called reading people's posts. Makes me less of a moron.

 

In your own mind

[pap]

In your own mind

 

'It's all in your head,' and I said, 'So's everything'

But he didn't get it I thought he was a man

But he was just a little boy

 

How'd you like them (Fiona) Apples?

[LGTL]

The glee with which he went on about how wonderful the economy is will still grate with the majority of the nation I imagine. He's living in a bubble.

[solentstars]

which means it was pretty good. If it was remotely poor, you would have been all over it no doubt. Because a Tory delivered it

why do you think that seeing i voted tory at the last election or did you find the budget so exciting wet your knickers over it..lol

[solentstars]

solentstars voted Tory in the last election.

 

yes you think batman would have a open mind not all torys are me,me,me selfish money grabbing b..,,,,,ds:D

[lloydie]

We're ****ing over more than half the population now. People havent earned the increase on the value of houses - its just good fortune of being born earlier. No one loses by building more houses.

 

If I was PM I'd build loads of 4 and 5 bed 200sqm detached houses, pushing down prices at the top and creating not only a cascade reduction in price, but allowing everybody to move up the chain into something better. The quality of most British housing is **** poor despite being so expensive.

 

Its such a no brainer policy it hurts its never going to happen.

[TheCholulaKid]

Its such a no brainer policy it hurts its never going to happen.

 

Nimbyism at work.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

yes you think batman would have a open mind not all torys are me,me,me selfish money grabbing b..,,,,,ds:D

 

Careful mate, don't want us Tory's getting a reputation....

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Its such a no brainer policy it hurts its never going to happen.

 

How many would you build, where would you build them, how much is it going to cost and how are you going to fund it?

 

Personally I think the only feasible way of increasing the number of homes at a low cost is to convert old disused office blocks into townhouses and flats. It's happened where I live with 3 blocks in the last year, and there is an abundance of these around, especially in the areas surrounding London.

[The Cat]

How many would you build, where would you build them, how much is it going to cost and how are you going to fund it?

 

Personally I think the only feasible way of increasing the number of homes at a low cost is to convert old disused office blocks into townhouses and flats. It's happened where I live with 3 blocks in the last year, and there is an abundance of these around, especially in the areas surrounding London.

 

According to this article there's 700000 empty homes in the UK. It's as good a place to start as any.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twice

[Unbelievable Jeff]

According to this article there's 700000 empty homes in the UK. It's as good a place to start as any.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twice

 

Sounds it to me, so it's a case of renovating empty homes and making them available for sale.

 

Considering its such an obvious, no brainer thing to do, I notice this thread is very quiet on workable solutions...

[TheCholulaKid]

Sounds it to me, so it's a case of renovating empty homes and making them available for sale.

 

Considering its such an obvious, no brainer thing to do, I notice this thread is very quiet on workable solutions...

 

Quite frankly, it's not my job. If I got paid 67K a year plus expenses I reckon I could have a pretty good stab at a workable solution....unless, of course, I didn't give a **** and was only interested in preserving the status quo.

[hypochondriac]

Quite frankly, it's not my job. If I got paid 67K a year plus expenses I reckon I could have a pretty good stab at a workable solution....unless, of course, I didn't give a **** and was only interested in preserving the status quo.

 

Hmm that sounds like a bit of a cop out to me...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Quite frankly, it's not my job. If I got paid 67K a year plus expenses I reckon I could have a pretty good stab at a workable solution....unless, of course, I didn't give a **** and was only interested in preserving the status quo.

 

People seem fixated on 67k per year, it's really not that much, but fine, if you can't even come up with any ideas or simple maths on it that's fine.

[Torres]

Just before it's lost in the noise, may I tip my hat to Trousers and his epic zing?

 

But the more perturbing fact is that Oxfam’s latest meme will now be repeated ad nauseam by those who won’t examine the basis of the claim.

 

[pap]

Just before it's lost in the noise, may I tip my hat to Trousers and his epic zing?

 

 

 

 

It's right up there with "I love Thatcher, the paedo's princess".

 

Hats off, trousers*.

 

* and considerably more, if one of Thatcher's old mates is about.

[Torres]

It's alright pap, you're allowed be made to look silly every now and again

[pap]

It's alright pap, you're allowed be made to look silly every now and again

 

Is that what you reckon has happened?

 

I agree with your general statement, but humility isn't something I lack. If I'd put myself 100% behind that Oxfam stat, you and trousers may have a point. Instead, I wrote a series of posts in which that stat was mentioned, qualified with the statement that I didn't know how true it was.

[sadoldgit]

Just in the south west. Countless new build estates have huge adverts up saying 5% max deposit required on all their properties.

 

Redrow, linden homes etc

 

Is that the general case else where?

 

Yep, lots of new builds going up in Ashford, Kent with low deposits.

[sadoldgit]

People seem fixated on 67k per year, it's really not that much, but fine, if you can't even come up with any ideas or simple maths on it that's fine.

 

 

Perhaps you are on a decent salary UJ but to a lot of us £67K is a great deal of money. I was on £40k with company car, paid petrol etc 15 years ago. I am now on £25k with no benefits. I can tell you that £67k seems like a lot to me now. If I had stayed in the other job I would probably think it average.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Perhaps you are on a decent salary UJ but to a lot of us £67K is a great deal of money. I was on £40k with company car, paid petrol etc 15 years ago. I am now on £25k with no benefits. I can tell you that £67k seems like a lot to me now. If I had stayed in the other job I would probably think it average.

 

I'm only on £10k per annum, being self employed. But I think it also depends on where you live.

[Torres]

I'm only on £10k per annum, being self employed. But I think it also depends on where you live.

 

Oh aye, Jeff. That's all your income is it? Defo no cheeky dividends being paid?