oh dear (tm): Generation rent: the housing ladder starts to collapse for the under-40

[AtW]

Generation rent: the housing ladder starts to collapse for the under-40s

House price rises of 5% a year and a shortage of affordable homes are set to swell the ranks of “generation rent” over the next decade, so that by 2025 more than half of those under 40 will be living in properties owned by private landlords.

A report from economists at accountancy firm PwC suggests the number of new homebuyers is set to fall over the next 10 years, as the high cost of raising a deposit locks large segments of society out of the housing market.

Levels of homeownership have gone into reverse after years of increases that were stoked by Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy policy and the deregulation of the mortgage-lending business,.

The PwC report suggests this trend will continue. By 2025, a quarter of all households will privately rent, they predict, with the biggest increase among those aged between 20 and 39, where “ a clear majority” will be private tenants within 10 years.

Source: Generation rent: the housing ladder starts to collapse for the under-40s | Money | The Guardian

AtW's comment - nearly 40 and still renting!!!


P.S. This thread marks the Official return of the famous on CUK "oh dear(tm)" brand...

[PurpleGorilla]

oh dear (tm): Generation rent: the housing ladder starts to collapse for the ...

Renting is far more common in continental Europe, so as we move to this model, there are some important things we need.

A) we need better rent controls,

B) tenant rights need to be improved (no kids, no pets = no life)

C) longer assured tenancy must be on offer.


I would argue that a lack of the above is a significant driver to buy somewhere instead, so you can have a bit more scrutiny.

But, if none of this come to be, then it really is a tulip situation for the young. Proper exploitation.

I would love to see a big fat tax on landlords, partly to make it less lucrative. But then in today's system, rents would just be raised to compensate.

[expat]

Renting is far more common in continental Europe, so as we move to this model, there are some important things we need.

A) we need better rent controls,

B) tenant rights need to be improved (no kids, no pets = no life)

C) longer assured tenancy must be on offer.


I would argue that a lack of the above is a significant driver to buy somewhere instead, so you can have a bit more scrutiny.

But, if none of this come to be, then it really is a tulip situation for the young. Proper exploitation.

I would love to see a big fat tax on landlords, partly to make it less lucrative. But then in today's system, rents would just be raised to compensate.

I would just like to note that I agree with you completely on this one!
Rented accommodation is the landlord's asset, but the tenant's home. Current legislation respects only one of those.

[MicrosoftBob]

I had to start from scratch again post divorce and got round to buying a house last year, it's a lot easier if you're a contractor just stump up the deposit from your reserves and savings and it's easy

I can see why other people struggle though, after paying rent, travel, council tax, and every stealth tax known to man, there is little left on the average wage to save for a deposit

[barrydidit]

Current legislation respects only one of those.

Horsetulip. Have you ever tried to evict a non paying tenant? It's a ******* nightmare and the dice are totally loaded against the landlord.

I'd be a favour of longer tenancies, but only for non-scrote tenants. You only get to find out what they're like once they're living in your house so I wouldn't ever sign anyone up for >6 months initially. If all is well after that then there's nothing wrong with 12 months at a time. I don't see how more than that would be a particular help to either party.

[PurpleGorilla]

oh dear (tm): Generation rent: the housing ladder starts to collapse for the ...

I'd be a favour of longer tenancies, but only for non-scrote tenants. You only get to find out what they're like once they're living in your house so I wouldn't ever sign anyone up for >6 months initially. If all is well after that then there's nothing wrong with 12 months at a time. I don't see how more than that would be a particular help to either party.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why renters hate renting!

Your house but their home Barry. I hope you never have to experience falling on hard times!

[tractor]

Horsetulip. Have you ever tried to evict a non paying tenant? It's a ******* nightmare and the dice are totally loaded against the landlord.

I'd be a favour of longer tenancies, but only for non-scrote tenants. You only get to find out what they're like once they're living in your house so I wouldn't ever sign anyone up for >6 months initially. If all is well after that then there's nothing wrong with 12 months at a time. I don't see how more than that would be a particular help to either party.

People in fear of their kids being homeless on a whim would be able to enlighten you on that one.

[original PM]

Well if you cannot afford to buy a house maybe you should keep your pants on and not breed.

I see a lot of kids living with mum n dad but driving a golf gti.

Maybe the problem is kids do not see saving money to get a deposit for a house as important as having the latest image toys.

[PurpleGorilla]

oh dear (tm): Generation rent: the housing ladder starts to collapse for the ...

I see a lot of kids living with mum n dad but driving a golf gti.

Maybe the problem is kids do not see saving money to get a deposit for a house as important as having the latest image toys.

Yeah the young are feckless, so let's exploit them lol.

Ps: You can pick up a golf gti for a few hundred quid. http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classifi...?atmobcid=soc4

[tractor]

....

Well if you cannot afford to buy a house maybe you should keep your pants on and not breed.

I see a lot of kids living with mum n dad but driving a golf gti.

Maybe the problem is kids do not see saving money to get a deposit for a house as important as having the latest image toys.

Simplistic bollocks!

Did you not read the post above where people through circumstances have to start over?
'Kids' of 30, still living with their parents who have been saving for a deposit when the goalposts change and move further away weekly?
Financial institutions refusing to lend in order to prop up their balance sheets after the crash they caused.

There is an undeniable shortage of homes, let alone affordable homes throughout the country, while hundreds of thousands of them sit empty, appreciating for their owners.

I don't argue that some sectors should control their 'breeding' but so should controls be in place for rents and the profits the industry makes from property.

What kind of ridiculous situation is it that forces people to buy a house FOR a landlord who owns multiple dwellings but prevents the renter from buying their own?