>> It's good that younger people can't easily buy property.
No, it's not, and it's not even to the owner-occupier's benefit that the market inflates so much.
>> Dwellings should be purchased only by those who are very likely to be able to afford this
Young people can afford this, who the hell do you think is paying the buy-to-let mortgage crowd's mortgage? The fecking fairies?
>> That's why stable job with good career prospects, married with children, being able to afford substantial deposit, being older, are good heuristics for who should by property.
They're good heuristics for who should already have property, and already have a substantial sum paid down. Something unachievable if people cannot get started in their 20s.
>> Giving a mortgage to everyone encourages financial rectlessness, which lead to the financial crisis of 2007–2008.
I'm not advocating giving a mortgage to everyone, I'm advocating giving out fewer mortgages to those who wish to buy more homes - they're effectively leveraging cheap mortgages to get someone else to buy them a huge asset, and at the same time making that asset further out of reach for the person who is really paying for it.
Typically a collection of ever changing tenants, few of whom are in the position to manage, or even interested in managing a long-term investment like a dwelling.
should already have property
Why? What's wrong with renting? As I said in a previous post, Chancellor Merkel in Germany rents.
I'm advocating giving out fewer mortgages
I'm advocating building enough dwellings, not doctoring with symptoms like restriction on mortgages, rent control, draconian building codes, zoning laws and the like. I find it supremely baffling that the obvious solution seems to be deeply unpopular.
>> Typically a collection of ever changing tenants, few of whom are in the position to manage, or even interested in managing a long-term investment like a dwelling
This is less frequently the case in the UK, as the inflated market keeps people renting for longer.
>> Why? What's wrong with renting?
A lot, if that's not where you want to be, and have seen the market mutate in the space of a few years from somewhere that was inclusive for most people earning a decent wage, to something reserved for few, or those who already have property.
>> I'm advocating building enough dwellings,
Good luck with that. Restriction of mortgage is not "doctoring the symptoms" when easing up on certain mortgage categories has been a major cause.
I haven't mentioned those other methods, I have no opinion on them.
This has nothing to do with renting vs owning, or even with second mortgages, but is primarily because supply of dwellings did not keep up with demand. The UK, especially the greater London area, has seen a lot of immigration, and on top of that there is the ongoing reduction in family size. So more and more dwellings are needed, but supply has not kept up.
Restriction of mortgage is not
"doctoring the symptoms"
Yes it is, because it neither reduces demand for, nor increases supply of dwellings.
So what? People who don't want to move a lot find they must keep paying someone else's mortgage as they can't get their own.
>> Yes it is, because it neither reduces demand for, nor increases supply of dwellings.
If buying up housing is made, by whatever means, financially less attractive to those who already own homes then of course this tackles demand for purchases and allows more people who are forced into renting the ability to buy their own home.
As I said, it's important that not everybody who might be able to afford monthly rates gets a mortgage, for otherwise you'd get too many defaults, leading to financial instability. And very few tenants rent for the whole duration (typically 25-30 years) of a mortgage.
Finally nobody needs to own their dwelling -- renting is fine. I rented most of my life, and so did German chancellor Merkel.
someone else's mortgage
As I've pointed in previous posts, that's fine, for they provide a valuable service, that can be summarised as a "risk transfer". That needs compensation.
Finally you seem to think that there is a difference between a first and second mortgage: the first being given by magic first-mortgage-fairies out of the goodness of the lender's heart and the second out of sheer greed to oppress people like you. Well, I recommend a quick calculation how much you overpay on the property if you get a first mortgage, vis-a-vis a cash purchase.
forced into renting the ability
For some bizarre reason you (like many others I have discussed this subject with) are unwilling to admit that the price of dwellings whether paid by rent or mortgage repayment, is primarily (indeed almost exclusively) determined by supply/demand; the solution to high prices is to build more. It's almost like there is some deep-seated investment in the status-quo that is needed to stabilise your world-view. I recommend to let go of your deep seated resentment and instead learn about the social function of credit.
No, it's not, and it's not even to the owner-occupier's benefit that the market inflates so much.
>> Dwellings should be purchased only by those who are very likely to be able to afford this
Young people can afford this, who the hell do you think is paying the buy-to-let mortgage crowd's mortgage? The fecking fairies?
>> That's why stable job with good career prospects, married with children, being able to afford substantial deposit, being older, are good heuristics for who should by property.
They're good heuristics for who should already have property, and already have a substantial sum paid down. Something unachievable if people cannot get started in their 20s.
>> Giving a mortgage to everyone encourages financial rectlessness, which lead to the financial crisis of 2007–2008.
I'm not advocating giving a mortgage to everyone, I'm advocating giving out fewer mortgages to those who wish to buy more homes - they're effectively leveraging cheap mortgages to get someone else to buy them a huge asset, and at the same time making that asset further out of reach for the person who is really paying for it.