I seem to recall the DM running feature articles encouraging people to buy comparatively cheaper properties in France and elsewhere on the continent for investment.
It's bit of an exaggeration to say that the Chinese are the 'real reason' for the housing bubble... Once again the Mail blames foreigners for this country's ills.
I believe the average age now of first time buyers is mid 30s - given the cost of deposits. Is that young enough for you?:D
My parents were in their mid-thirties when they could afford their own, non-shared house. That was nearly fifty years ago.
I was nearly 30 when I bought my first property, a tiny studio (and it was 3/4 years later that I got my first house). And that was some decades ago too.
At the time I bought, prices were lower, but interest rates were high. Now, prices are much higher, but interest rates are low. So actual mortgages are affordable at the minute, if you can get one with the tighter rules.
And when exactly was it that youngsters could afford to buy a home?
I was in my early 30s when I and OH bought our first home, both in fairly good paying jobs, and even then (back in the early 90s) still needed some help from my parents for the small deposit. (Its bigger now).
I dont know anyone who has bought a home on their own, and certainly not as a "youngster". Unless they group up with a few others and do a super joint mortgage.
Now, prices are much higher, but interest rates are low.
There is a major downside to that mind. If you buy at a lower price at higher interest rates, salary growth is typically higher and rates will typically fall. i.e. the mortgage will become a lot more affordable after just a few years, and overall payments over the 25 year term will be quite low.
With high prices and ultra low rates, salary growth is poor and overall payments relative to your earnings over those 25 years will be massive i.e. the mortgage payments will remain sizeable burden for much, much longer, and the scope for up-sizing is greatly diminished.
High rates, low prices is actually far more desirable than low rates, high prices.
There is a major downside to that mind. If you buy at a lower price at higher interest rates, salary growth is typically higher and rates will typically fall. i.e. the mortgage will become a lot more affordable after just a few years, and overall payments over the 25 year term will be quite low.
With high prices and ultra low rates, salary growth is poor and overall payments relative to your earnings over those 25 years will be massive i.e. the mortgage payments will remain sizeable burden for much, much longer, and the scope for up-sizing is greatly diminished.
The only reason mortgage payments remain "sizeable" is because people are more concerned with swanning off on expensive holidays or buying new cars instead of taking advantage of mega low interest rates and whacking off huge chunks of their mortgage by making over payments!
As for 'up-sizing', that begs the same question. The problem is people expect too much and they want it now. People won't 'make do' any more. Priorities are all wrong.
I read somewhere that a popular idea in China is that property is always a safe investment, so they're more willing to buy property than Westerners generally are.
Where I live houses are cheap, but most people have credit issues, so houses take a long time to sell. It's also a rural area, so there isn't a lot of demand.
Detroit has so many abandoned houses that they are literally auctioning off two a day. Buyers have to be local (I think) and prove that they can pay for it. The buyers have (I think) 30-90 days to start renovations and a certain amount of time to move in. The exact times are based on the size of the house. http://www.buildingdetroit.org/Home Many of the houses are beautiful, but most are in bad neighborhoods and possibly have been stripped for copper. So it's a gamble.
The attitude that 'it's only £30 a month' on an iPhone is exactly what is preventing people being more financially solvent. Take that attitude with the mobile phone contract, perhaps pay out a little more in car payments for a nicer flashier car, pay for high speed broadband, 'only' £20 for a meal out once a week, it all adds up.
I think people feel more entitled to a more comfortable lifestyle these days, than a few decades ago. We all want the nice shiny things, but they seem to have become a priority rather than a luxury. People used to really scrimp and save for things - I know how my grandparents lived would strike most people as horrific these days but it was okay because it was how everyone lived.
Yes, I absolutely agree. Yesterday's luxuries become today's essentials. I can't remember how often I went out when I was saving for a deposit, but I doubt whether I ate out as often as once a month - very modestly - and I never went to a club in my life. Almost none of my friends had cars, none of us had a tv because the licence was so expensive, our holidays were invariably camping.
How do you propose that legislation is introduced to tell people how to spend their money? We'd normally see such rhetoric against benefit claimants, now we're seeing it against people on modest wages and the young. Awful.
Anyone may spend their money as they choose; but you are surely not suggesting that someone who prefers to spend rather than save is then entitled to complain that they have no deposit.
And I have no idea what this era was when it was so easy for 'youngsters' to buy a home. Mortgages were scarce when I was a young adult and interest rates were high. It was not until 1971 (when I was still a child) that as many people owned their homes as rented, and right up to 1981 the rate of home ownership was lower than it is today. It has declined slightly over the last 10 years, but is still miles ahead of the rate of home ownership when I was a young adult.
The real changes have been the shift from social renting to private renting - obviously because there is so little social housing left - and the far greater acceptance by almost everyone of debt. I don't think credit cards were offered to young people when I was young - certainly I didn't know anyone who had one - and 'store cards' were in the future. Part of the reason young people have trouble raising a deposit is that it is contrary to the entire culture they have grown up with, in which you get a product first then start paying it off. The long, slow process of putting money away until you had enough for something seems foreign to a lot of people, and I include in that people I am fond of.
Any such compulsory saving mechanism for a deposit on a home will face stiff resistance from buy-to-let investors who'll feel the Government is taking money from landlords in favour of home ownership, and buy-to-let investors are one group the politicians like to cosy up to for votes.
I see no evidence of this. The last few years seem to have been a record of the government putting one obstacle after another in the path of landlords. And 'compulsory saving for a deposit' would not make any difference except to a very limited part of the btl market; a lot of tenants are retired, unemployed, disabled, have a poor credit rating or are too transient to buy a property.
The situation in London is simply beyond belief. That it has got so out of hand is a damning indictment of our politicians.
London has gone a bit astray, yes. This has happened before though; it seems that in time there is a levelling process when buying in London becomes relatively too unattractive to be sustainable. When I bought my house in London my best friend bought a (much better) one in Stockport for exactly the same price; mine was soon worth more than hers; hers is now worth well over double what mine is. It's just the difference between a short-term boom and a long-term tendency.
I read somewhere that a popular idea in China is that property is always a safe investment, so they're more willing to buy property than Westerners generally are.
Where I live houses are cheap, but most people have credit issues, so houses take a long time to sell. It's also a rural area, so there isn't a lot of demand.
Detroit has so many abandoned houses that they are literally auctioning off two a day. Buyers have to be local (I think) and prove that they can pay for it. The buyers have (I think) 30-90 days to start renovations and a certain amount of time to move in. The exact times are based on the size of the house. http://www.buildingdetroit.org/HomeMany of the houses are beautiful, but most are in bad neighborhoods and possibly have been stripped for copper. So it's a gamble.
BIB is an understatement judging from those photographs! Those properties are Mansions!! :o
To give you some idea look at these properties in the UK;
Newly built versions of these houses are still built along the same 'chicken coop' design too such as these horrible little huts here.....and the photograph actually shows three houses!
A lot of Chinese students in my town are very rich and many of them will buy a house outright instead of renting. One student just over the road from me bought a 5 bed 500k house, just to live in when studying here.
I don't know how common it is, but I've seen this before too. One of the houses on my block is owned by a Chinese industrialist and occupied by his two children attending the local university. It's a $900k 4 bedroom house for 2 students. I hadn't thought it was even legal for a Chinese family to have siblings, but apparently there are lots of exceptions.
Even though it's only them living there, they have like 5 cars, Mercedes, Porsches, and equivalent. I believe one for the sister, two for the brother, and two for the parents (when they're visiting from China). The father had to get a second car for golfing, because the first didn't fit his clubs in the trunk very easily.
How do you propose that legislation is introduced to tell people how to spend their money? We'd normally see such rhetoric against benefit claimants, now we're seeing it against people on modest wages and the young. Awful.
How anyone spends their money, by whichever legal means they get it, is up to them and only them to spend. The only way you'll force people to save money is to do like they have done with workplace pensions and introduce legislation, but that would go completely against the free market capitalist ideology that the Government and all main parties represent.
Any such compulsory saving mechanism for a deposit on a home will face stiff resistance from buy-to-let investors who'll feel the Government is taking money from landlords in favour of home ownership, and buy-to-let investors are one group the politicians like to cosy up to for votes.
And if you did put a Three SIM into an old/cheap 2G only phone, you're breaking Three's Terms and Conditions and will be warned to stick your SIM into a 3G phone before having it dis-activated if you refuse to comply.
Where did I say there needed to be legislation about people saving money? The point I was making is that people complain about not having money to put away for a deposit but some of them spend what amounts to quite a bit over the years on frivolous luxuries. Of course they are completely entitled to do so. For all I care, they can take each month's wages out in cash and wipe their arses with £50 notes, but don't complain about having no savings when they don't make a real effort to create savings.
It's not just the young - I work with a 40-odd year old woman who is constantly in debt and crying about her credit card bills and how she is having to use one card to pay off the other, but every Saturday she's shopping in town with her kids, eating lunch in one of the restaurants. The family eat out twice a week and she never walks anywhere, her husband drives her to and from every place she goes. I have little sympathy for her.
I take your point about the 2G/3G SIM with Three, but there are other options with other companies for cheap 2G PAYG deals which are a lot cheaper than £30 a month. It's just one example of the saving that people can make if they need to- along with reducing nights out, walking short journeys instead of driving, only buying essential food items etc.
I was in my early 30s when I and OH bought our first home, both in fairly good paying jobs, and even then (back in the early 90s) still needed some help from my parents for the small deposit. (Its bigger now).
I dont know anyone who has bought a home on their own, and certainly not as a "youngster". Unless they group up with a few others and do a super joint mortgage.
Todays prices are ridiculous.
My parents bought in their early 20s, with a mortgage. They bought a small flat, then upgraded to a small house when I was on the way, moving up to a larger house when I was a bit older. My grandparents did the same, both sides and all of my aunties and uncles. None of them had help from their parents, they just all worked straight out of school and saved for the deposit. None of them were rich, males in my family were factory workers, blacksmiths, carpenters, the females were mainly secretaries and shop workers. This was 1970s and earlier. It used to be achievable on modest wages.
I agree that today's prices are ridiculous, a number of factors are to blame, including British buy to letters, banks, politicians etc. It's a difficult situation to resolve without putting current homeowners with mortgages into negative equity of course.
Yes, I absolutely agree. Yesterday's luxuries become today's essentials. I can't remember how often I went out when I was saving for a deposit, but I doubt whether I ate out as often as once a month - very modestly - and I never went to a club in my life. Almost none of my friends had cars, none of us had a tv because the licence was so expensive, our holidays were invariably camping.
Anyone may spend their money as they choose; but you are surely not suggesting that someone who prefers to spend rather than save is then entitled to complain that they have no deposit.
And I have no idea what this era was when it was so easy for 'youngsters' to buy a home. Mortgages were scarce when I was a young adult and interest rates were high. It was not until 1971 (when I was still a child) that as many people owned their homes as rented, and right up to 1981 the rate of home ownership was lower than it is today. It has declined slightly over the last 10 years, but is still miles ahead of the rate of home ownership when I was a young adult.
The real changes have been the shift from social renting to private renting - obviously because there is so little social housing left - and the far greater acceptance by almost everyone of debt. I don't think credit cards were offered to young people when I was young - certainly I didn't know anyone who had one - and 'store cards' were in the future. Part of the reason young people have trouble raising a deposit is that it is contrary to the entire culture they have grown up with, in which you get a product first then start paying it off. The long, slow process of putting money away until you had enough for something seems foreign to a lot of people, and I include in that people I am fond of.
Good post.
On my first mortgage i was paying almost 30% interest.
Most of the time we were skint despite working. We only had a television because a chap at work gave me one (an old valve set ) but we couldn't afford a licence, got caught, so that didn't last long!
To make a phone call we walked to the nearest phone box about half a mile away.
Though there were a couple of Supermarkets, we couldn't afford to buy food in bulk so had to buy from day to day at a 'corner shop'. Besides, we didn't have a Fridge or Freezer!
We had two old chairs to sit on and a wood table to eat meals at. The house had no central heating but even if it had, we couldn't have afforded to run it. We made do with a single bar electric fire. A couple of friends (both working) were so poor that one winter because they couldn't afford any coal for the open fire, they pulled up an old carpet and burnt that on the fire....just to have a little bit of heat!
Instead of looking at property prices here, why don't you buy property in an East European country?
This property here in Bulgaria completely renovated throughout and ready to move into, 4 beds, luxury bathroom and shower, huge dining room, large kitchen, Galleried landing, woodburner stoves, large double Garage plus workshop, Vineyard plus huge amount of ground with ample space to sink a sizeable swimming pool. Owned by a British couple who left UK six years ago and never returned.
Detached 3 bedroomed house in Southern Sweden. Large lounge with parquet flooring,large dining kitchen,Sun room and full basement. Two wood burners. Large mature gardens Large balcony overlooking garden Close to forests, lakes and beautiful nature - £25,000
I don't know how common it is, but I've seen this before too. One of the houses on my block is owned by a Chinese industrialist and occupied by his two children attending the local university. It's a $900k 4 bedroom house for 2 students. I hadn't thought it was even legal for a Chinese family to have siblings, but apparently there are lots of exceptions.
Even though it's only them living there, they have like 5 cars, Mercedes, Porsches, and equivalent. I believe one for the sister, two for the brother, and two for the parents (when they're visiting from China). The father had to get a second car for golfing, because the first didn't fit his clubs in the trunk very easily.
If that was in the UK they'd be marked out as drug dealers or Triads! :D
Detached 3 bedroomed house in Southern Sweden. Large lounge with parquet flooring,large dining kitchen,Sun room and full basement. Two wood burners. Large mature gardens Large balcony overlooking garden Close to forests, lakes and beautiful nature - £25,000
Food for thought for the posters bemoaning the property prices here isn't it?
That said the cost of living in Sweden will be way higher than that in Bulgaria. Folk just need to broaden their horizons a little. They moan about 'johnny foreigner' coming here and buying up UK property, but don't even give a thought to the fact that they could easily do the same themselves.
Young people buying an investment property in Sweden/Bulgaria etc. is progress from buying a secure home in the country you were born in and/or near where you work beneficial how exactly? I sense some trolling on this thread.
Would you be content to lose your job, and accept being told you should broaden your horizons and move to Poland where there's jobs a plenty? That by wanting to remain in the UK, you're basically just a lazy tw*t. Like f*ck would you.
Instead of looking at property prices here, why don't you buy property in an East European country?
This property here in Bulgaria completely renovated throughout and ready to move into, 4 beds, luxury bathroom and shower, huge dining room, large kitchen, Galleried landing, woodburner stoves, large double Garage plus workshop, Vineyard plus huge amount of ground with ample space to sink a sizeable swimming pool. Owned by a British couple who left UK six years ago and never returned.
On the market last year for just £43k.
So why not ask the same question of the foreign buyers who are buying here?
Utterly crazy.
Foreign buyers invest in property here because they believe their investment will be safe and that they will get a good return on it.
Now who the hell provides that sort of society other than the people who create it?
In other words, our success ends up penalising the very people who create it.
We (or our children) should buy properties which aren't so attractive for a variety of reasons overseas, whilst foreign investors take their pick over here?
So why not ask the same question of the foreign buyers who are buying here?
Utterly crazy.
Foreign buyers invest in property here because they believe their investment will be safe and that they will get a good return on it.
Now who the hell provides that sort of society other than the people who create it?
In other words, our success ends up penalising the very people who create it.
We (or our children) should buy properties which aren't so attractive for a variety of reasons overseas, whilst foreign investors take their pick over here?
I think this thread has brought out a certain breed of morons to be honest. Probably best to ignore.
I think this thread has brought out a certain breed of morons to be honest. Probably best to ignore.
Nobody's trolling. I know someone who moved to Sweden for a better life and my god, they got one. A lovely house in the country, with almost an acre of land, looking out over a lake and woodland. It cost less than £20,000.
I seem to recall the DM running feature articles encouraging people to buy comparatively cheaper properties in France and elsewhere on the continent for investment.
It's bit of an exaggeration to say that the Chinese are the 'real reason' for the housing bubble... Once again the Mail blames foreigners for this country's ills.
It's not just the Chinese buying up London of course, there's the middle east oil beneficiaries, the Russian oligarchs etc. And the French have really piled in of late.
But unurprisingly the take over is spreading much further afield.
Young people buying an investment property in Sweden/Bulgaria etc. is progress from buying a secure home in the country you were born in and/or near where you work beneficial how exactly? I sense some trolling on this thread.
Would you be content to lose your job, and accept being told you should broaden your horizons and move to Poland where there's jobs a plenty? That by wanting to remain in the UK, you're basically just a lazy tw*t. Like f*ck would you.
If you believe expressing an opinion or view is 'trolling'....then you are guilty of doing exactly the same.
Why would you 'lose a job'? Or did you really mean give up a job here and move? That's quite different to 'losing' a job!
However some people have achieved that quite successfully. Yes in some cases it means learning a language.....something which is anathema to most British, yet ironically we expect 'johnny foreigner' who makes the move here to speak English! Naturally the majority do with many being multi-lingual.
Anyone wishing to remain living and working in the UK i have no problem with at all......but then you cannot really complain that property is beyond reach when a number of issues have already been pointed out, such as learning to 'make do', not having such high expectations, making mortgage over payments when interest rates are low rather than whacking up finance for a new car.....not to mention there are alternatives available.
Privately owned property doesn't come as a God given right with all the trappings dropped in.
So why not ask the same question of the foreign buyers who are buying here?
Utterly crazy. Foreign buyers invest in property here because they believe their investment will be safe and that they will get a good return on it.
Now who the hell provides that sort of society other than the people who create it?
In other words, our success ends up penalising the very people who create it.
We (or our children) should buy properties which aren't so attractive for a variety of reasons overseas, whilst foreign investors take their pick over here?
If we are to take your view (bib), then it would appear the foreign people are creating this 'safe' investment society wouldn't it.....as that's pretty much what you wrote in the second para.
Taking your last sentence, then if you really do believe that, what's holding you back from looking elsewhere at other alternatives?
IMO the only 'penalising' as such is coming from people with far too high expectations because they cannot 'have it all' as they seem to believe they should.
and all the gypsies you can shake a stick at come for free
You'd be very happy in Bulgaria.....as long as you work.
Regards the few Roma in Bulgaria, they hold very simple but straightforward views. Those that work....they have no problem with. Those that won't work....they want 'em out.
A little bit like we are here with the 'work shy' and benefit scroungers. ;-)
Except the Bulgarian locals are way more vociferous.
If we are to take your view (bib), then it would appear the foreign people are creating this 'safe' investment society wouldn't it.....as that's pretty much what you wrote in the second para.
Taking your last sentence, then if you really do believe that, what's holding you back from looking elsewhere at other alternatives?
IMO the only 'penalising' as such is coming from people with far too high expectations because they cannot 'have it all' as they seem to believe they should.
They don't create it at all, they feed off of it.
What's creates a successful society is the people who live in it, participate in it, pay their taxes, obey the rule of law, build on the success of their ancestors, preserve and protect the good things, have a social conscience, reject widespread corruption and don't have a revolution every five minutes.
I'd love this government to tell Chinese investors to f" off, not because they are foreign but because of the horrors many of the rich inflict on their fellow Chinese to make themselves money.
Or are we too ignore the slavery and kidnapping of the mentally disabled to work building the new cities of China, the gangs of ultra poor that are shipped into work with virtually no hope of escape and the list goes on and on.
Comments
It's bit of an exaggeration to say that the Chinese are the 'real reason' for the housing bubble... Once again the Mail blames foreigners for this country's ills.
My parents were in their mid-thirties when they could afford their own, non-shared house. That was nearly fifty years ago.
I was nearly 30 when I bought my first property, a tiny studio (and it was 3/4 years later that I got my first house). And that was some decades ago too.
At the time I bought, prices were lower, but interest rates were high. Now, prices are much higher, but interest rates are low. So actual mortgages are affordable at the minute, if you can get one with the tighter rules.
I was in my early 30s when I and OH bought our first home, both in fairly good paying jobs, and even then (back in the early 90s) still needed some help from my parents for the small deposit. (Its bigger now).
I dont know anyone who has bought a home on their own, and certainly not as a "youngster". Unless they group up with a few others and do a super joint mortgage.
Todays prices are ridiculous.
There is a major downside to that mind. If you buy at a lower price at higher interest rates, salary growth is typically higher and rates will typically fall. i.e. the mortgage will become a lot more affordable after just a few years, and overall payments over the 25 year term will be quite low.
With high prices and ultra low rates, salary growth is poor and overall payments relative to your earnings over those 25 years will be massive i.e. the mortgage payments will remain sizeable burden for much, much longer, and the scope for up-sizing is greatly diminished.
High rates, low prices is actually far more desirable than low rates, high prices.
As for 'up-sizing', that begs the same question. The problem is people expect too much and they want it now. People won't 'make do' any more. Priorities are all wrong.
Dream on.......thats never going to happen!
Where I live houses are cheap, but most people have credit issues, so houses take a long time to sell. It's also a rural area, so there isn't a lot of demand.
Detroit has so many abandoned houses that they are literally auctioning off two a day. Buyers have to be local (I think) and prove that they can pay for it. The buyers have (I think) 30-90 days to start renovations and a certain amount of time to move in. The exact times are based on the size of the house. http://www.buildingdetroit.org/Home Many of the houses are beautiful, but most are in bad neighborhoods and possibly have been stripped for copper. So it's a gamble.
Anyone may spend their money as they choose; but you are surely not suggesting that someone who prefers to spend rather than save is then entitled to complain that they have no deposit.
And I have no idea what this era was when it was so easy for 'youngsters' to buy a home. Mortgages were scarce when I was a young adult and interest rates were high. It was not until 1971 (when I was still a child) that as many people owned their homes as rented, and right up to 1981 the rate of home ownership was lower than it is today. It has declined slightly over the last 10 years, but is still miles ahead of the rate of home ownership when I was a young adult.
The real changes have been the shift from social renting to private renting - obviously because there is so little social housing left - and the far greater acceptance by almost everyone of debt. I don't think credit cards were offered to young people when I was young - certainly I didn't know anyone who had one - and 'store cards' were in the future. Part of the reason young people have trouble raising a deposit is that it is contrary to the entire culture they have grown up with, in which you get a product first then start paying it off. The long, slow process of putting money away until you had enough for something seems foreign to a lot of people, and I include in that people I am fond of. I see no evidence of this.
London has gone a bit astray, yes. This has happened before though; it seems that in time there is a levelling process when buying in London becomes relatively too unattractive to be sustainable. When I bought my house in London my best friend bought a (much better) one in Stockport for exactly the same price; mine was soon worth more than hers; hers is now worth well over double what mine is. It's just the difference between a short-term boom and a long-term tendency.
To give you some idea look at these properties in the UK;
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43570039.html
That's not one house either.....that's two!!
Newly built versions of these houses are still built along the same 'chicken coop' design too such as these horrible little huts here.....and the photograph actually shows three houses!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42959851.html
I don't know how common it is, but I've seen this before too. One of the houses on my block is owned by a Chinese industrialist and occupied by his two children attending the local university. It's a $900k 4 bedroom house for 2 students. I hadn't thought it was even legal for a Chinese family to have siblings, but apparently there are lots of exceptions.
Even though it's only them living there, they have like 5 cars, Mercedes, Porsches, and equivalent. I believe one for the sister, two for the brother, and two for the parents (when they're visiting from China). The father had to get a second car for golfing, because the first didn't fit his clubs in the trunk very easily.
Where did I say there needed to be legislation about people saving money? The point I was making is that people complain about not having money to put away for a deposit but some of them spend what amounts to quite a bit over the years on frivolous luxuries. Of course they are completely entitled to do so. For all I care, they can take each month's wages out in cash and wipe their arses with £50 notes, but don't complain about having no savings when they don't make a real effort to create savings.
It's not just the young - I work with a 40-odd year old woman who is constantly in debt and crying about her credit card bills and how she is having to use one card to pay off the other, but every Saturday she's shopping in town with her kids, eating lunch in one of the restaurants. The family eat out twice a week and she never walks anywhere, her husband drives her to and from every place she goes. I have little sympathy for her.
I take your point about the 2G/3G SIM with Three, but there are other options with other companies for cheap 2G PAYG deals which are a lot cheaper than £30 a month. It's just one example of the saving that people can make if they need to- along with reducing nights out, walking short journeys instead of driving, only buying essential food items etc.
My parents bought in their early 20s, with a mortgage. They bought a small flat, then upgraded to a small house when I was on the way, moving up to a larger house when I was a bit older. My grandparents did the same, both sides and all of my aunties and uncles. None of them had help from their parents, they just all worked straight out of school and saved for the deposit. None of them were rich, males in my family were factory workers, blacksmiths, carpenters, the females were mainly secretaries and shop workers. This was 1970s and earlier. It used to be achievable on modest wages.
I agree that today's prices are ridiculous, a number of factors are to blame, including British buy to letters, banks, politicians etc. It's a difficult situation to resolve without putting current homeowners with mortgages into negative equity of course.
On my first mortgage i was paying almost 30% interest.
Most of the time we were skint despite working. We only had a television because a chap at work gave me one (an old valve set
To make a phone call we walked to the nearest phone box about half a mile away.
Though there were a couple of Supermarkets, we couldn't afford to buy food in bulk so had to buy from day to day at a 'corner shop'. Besides, we didn't have a Fridge or Freezer!
We had two old chairs to sit on and a wood table to eat meals at. The house had no central heating but even if it had, we couldn't have afforded to run it. We made do with a single bar electric fire. A couple of friends (both working) were so poor that one winter because they couldn't afford any coal for the open fire, they pulled up an old carpet and burnt that on the fire....just to have a little bit of heat!
No need to go to Bulgaria. Try Sweden http://search.globalpropertyguide.com/property/details/11572836/
Detached 3 bedroomed house in Southern Sweden. Large lounge with parquet flooring,large dining kitchen,Sun room and full basement. Two wood burners. Large mature gardens Large balcony overlooking garden Close to forests, lakes and beautiful nature - £25,000
That said the cost of living in Sweden will be way higher than that in Bulgaria. Folk just need to broaden their horizons a little. They moan about 'johnny foreigner' coming here and buying up UK property, but don't even give a thought to the fact that they could easily do the same themselves.
But then they'd have nothing to moan about! ;-)
Would you be content to lose your job, and accept being told you should broaden your horizons and move to Poland where there's jobs a plenty? That by wanting to remain in the UK, you're basically just a lazy tw*t. Like f*ck would you.
So why not ask the same question of the foreign buyers who are buying here?
Utterly crazy.
Foreign buyers invest in property here because they believe their investment will be safe and that they will get a good return on it.
Now who the hell provides that sort of society other than the people who create it?
In other words, our success ends up penalising the very people who create it.
We (or our children) should buy properties which aren't so attractive for a variety of reasons overseas, whilst foreign investors take their pick over here?
I think this thread has brought out a certain breed of morons to be honest. Probably best to ignore.
Nobody's trolling. I know someone who moved to Sweden for a better life and my god, they got one. A lovely house in the country, with almost an acre of land, looking out over a lake and woodland. It cost less than £20,000.
It's not just the Chinese buying up London of course, there's the middle east oil beneficiaries, the Russian oligarchs etc. And the French have really piled in of late.
But unurprisingly the take over is spreading much further afield.
Why would you 'lose a job'?
However some people have achieved that quite successfully. Yes in some cases it means learning a language.....something which is anathema to most British, yet ironically we expect 'johnny foreigner' who makes the move here to speak English! Naturally the majority do with many being multi-lingual.
Anyone wishing to remain living and working in the UK i have no problem with at all......but then you cannot really complain that property is beyond reach when a number of issues have already been pointed out, such as learning to 'make do', not having such high expectations, making mortgage over payments when interest rates are low rather than whacking up finance for a new car.....not to mention there are alternatives available.
Privately owned property doesn't come as a God given right with all the trappings dropped in.
and all the gypsies you can shake a stick at come for free
Taking your last sentence, then if you really do believe that, what's holding you back from looking elsewhere at other alternatives?
IMO the only 'penalising' as such is coming from people with far too high expectations because they cannot 'have it all' as they seem to believe they should.
Rental was quite common. I left home at 16 and married at 19 and rented until we could afford to buy.
Regards the few Roma in Bulgaria, they hold very simple but straightforward views. Those that work....they have no problem with. Those that won't work....they want 'em out.
A little bit like we are here with the 'work shy' and benefit scroungers. ;-)
Except the Bulgarian locals are way more vociferous.
They don't create it at all, they feed off of it.
What's creates a successful society is the people who live in it, participate in it, pay their taxes, obey the rule of law, build on the success of their ancestors, preserve and protect the good things, have a social conscience, reject widespread corruption and don't have a revolution every five minutes.
I'd love this government to tell Chinese investors to f" off, not because they are foreign but because of the horrors many of the rich inflict on their fellow Chinese to make themselves money.
Or are we too ignore the slavery and kidnapping of the mentally disabled to work building the new cities of China, the gangs of ultra poor that are shipped into work with virtually no hope of escape and the list goes on and on.