What price is worth paying for cheaper housing.....

Spartacus_Mills

stueyhants wrote: »

I kind of agree with Hamish's post above about the likely direction of the housing market long term. Where I differ is I'm not looking forward to it, whereas Hamish sounds as if he will be filling his boots with btl and exploiting the situtation. Just one question for you, if growing numbers of people don't have a 'stake' in soceity how do you think that is going to affect things like anti-social behaviour, crime and joblessness. You may grow richer in said scenario but I don't think your going to like soceity.

Surely it depends on how steep the upward trajectory is. If the long term trend upwards just keeps pace with wages then it is not going to be problematic. It only becomes a problem if it is like the last boom when you get vast armies of people priced out of the property market. The rate of appreciation from 2000 to 2007 could not continue. You cannot have pricing doubling every 7 years. If that was the case a £200K property now would be worth £1.6 Million in 21 years time. That is unlikely to happen unless we have massive inflation.

BTL is a risk, it is not easy money. If Hamish does "fill his boots" I am sure he is intelligent enough to know that he has alot of costs to pay and will have periods where he has no tenancy but he will have to pay the mortgage off as well as having the risk of an awkward tenant who does not pay and/or damages the property. It is not an easy path to riches. Like all things it has to be worked at. The problem with BTL in the last boom was many people saw it as an easy ride and got their fingers burned, deservedly so in some cases.

Graham_Devon

Hang on a minute.

More people sharing houses because of population growth.

Have I got this right? I..e lots of young and not so young adults flat / house sharing?

BUT, Hamish talks about population growth. Surely these people will be far less inclined to have babies when they are living with a flatmate.

Hamish?

chucky

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Surely it depends on how steep the upward trajectory is. If the long term trend upwards just keeps pace with wages then it is not going to be problematic. It only becomes a problem if it is like the last boom when you get vast armies of people priced out of the property market. The rate of appreciation from 2000 to 2007 could not continue. You cannot have pricing doubling every 7 years. If that was the case a £200K property now would be worth £1.6 Million in 21 years time. That is unlikely to happen unless we have massive inflation.

Hamish should mention that his steep trajectory is dependent on salaries, available of credit, demographics etc... it could happen and is likely to happen but i wouldn't say it would be a steep trajectory

Shakethedisease

A housing shortage does not mean homelessness. Just like the fact that YOU can't afford a house, doesn't mean prices have to fall.

I do own a house, bought recently in fact. So do my parents, so do my in-laws. Didn't buy because be were desperate to get on the 'ladder'. No, more the fact that renting as a family and the uncertainty it brings re changing schools, constantly being uprooted and landords raising the rent whenever it suits..is no way to bring up 4 kids in a stable environment. I've no idea how others cope with the 6-12 month ast hanging over their heads with kids to bring up as well. 2 years of it was enough for me. Moving from place to place is bloody expensive and disruptive.

Anyway, just thought I'd clear that up. I've bought.

Just what kind of a housing shortage are you on about then ? A house-buyers shortage ? or a rental shortage ? I wish you'd clarify.

You keep going on and on and on about this 'shortage' and 'population growth'.. 'millions of people'...'supply and demand'..

Yet when I point out that millions on people in this country going without decent ( note the word 'decent').. housing, be it rented or priced out.. will be a certain 'crusade' for future governments and a big vote winner, and that they will find the money from somewhere..IMHO, housing, a basic human need.. WILL be 'too big to fail' if it comes down to the wire. You're suddenly saying that there will be housing for all ?

So, let me get this straight. There will be a huge housing shortage due to population growth, hence prices will go up through supply and demand.. ...but no-one will actually find themselves homeless ? Despite the huge population growth, stratospheric house prices, not a lot of jobs around, no council/social housing and less and less private landlords willing to take on those on benefits ?

I beg to differ luv.

* bowing out of this one, waste of time when someone is only interested in financial stats and can't see the wood for the £££' signs*

before_hollywood

stueyhants wrote: »

Stop being NIMBYs and allow greater house building

what makes me laugh is the irony of the situation..........

as we have it now, the nimbys are the richest ones, the ones that are in places where there is open land and if the planning applications get objected to then there are fewer affordable places for their children and they either have to pay through equity release/remortgage to give those same children a foot on the ladder, either that or empty their savings.

then again there are people like me, i'm a private owner on a council estate, there is a field accross the road, the only thing that makes me think thats staying is that everything around it has been there since the 50s, but the council can turn round and say they are building on it and end of.

Wheezy_2

nevermind...

Yakubu22

anyone else bored of Hamish's VI filth?

joolsybools

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

With population growing at 400,000 a year, the only way to avoid massive HPI is to build a few million more houses in the relatively near future.

And the only way to avoid housebuilding on a massive scale is to avoid population growth.

But population growth is only partially from immigration, and the other part from increased life expectancy and birthrate.

So to avoid it, you need to force people to die sooner, and breed less.

Not to mention, without population growth, taxes would need to double to fund the pensions liability.

So I guess you could have cheaper houses, if you were willing to ban immigration, euthanise the old, sterilise the young, and pay twice the taxes you do now.

Which all seems a bit self defeating, really..... Not to mention more expensive than just paying the going rate for a house to begin with.

Hi Hamish,

I'm interested in where you got the figure of population growth at 400k per year. Latest DWP stats on NI no registrations show 479k registrations in the first 3/4s of last year (no stats available for last qu yet). Assuming that not every new person registers for an NI no as they are not of working age (or not going to work or not going to work legally) you can probably double this figure?

Yes I know some people are going but it can't be that many is it?

See summary table here http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/nino_allocation.asp

Procrastinator333

It isn't even anythign like 400k:


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0210.pdf

twadge_face

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote:

We WILL move to more of a rented society, but it'll be private landlords, concentrating ever more wealth in the hands of a "homeowning class".

...

We will not let people starve, or freeze to death on the streets. But we will not be handing out nice shiny new government houses either.

Who the Hell are "we"?

This reads like the manifesto from 1984.

You work for the MI5 Propaganda Unit and I claim my £5.