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

wageslave

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

What about just banning chavs form breeding? Come on, we all know they don't positively contribute to society and their offspring aren't likely to either...

Why just chavs?

There are whole swathes of the population we could sterilise. Public servants, bankers, TV presenters.......

After all, we all know they don't positively contribute much either therefore their offspring will obviously be equally useless.

Don't limit yourself sweetie. You're on a roll

sjaypink

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK.

Works for me, if you think that is preferable.

Not about what you prefer though HM - it about what the masses can afford... if you don't think that wages will rise in line with HPI, then either; financing house buying has to change. Think we've had a practice run of that with self cert, sub-prime... :cool: , but there may be other options eg. much longer mortgage terms (40 + yrs :eek:), or variations on shared ownership / equity ?

...Or... we change the way we use the housing we already have.

Maybe not 15 to a house , but most parents after children have grown up are left with a decent sized family home which will then just become home to 1 or 2 for perhaps 20-30 years. ....whilst their children, with the same jobs as their parents, bring up their own kids in small flats or overpriced rentals :cool:

I already know 2 families who chose to pool resources with parents in order to buy a family home to accomodate 3 generations. It seems to work well for childcare and also less worry for the older generation who may be finding tending to a garden, maintaining a house etc more difficult as they get older

I'm not sure which way it will go as we are generally an unsociable country/ culture, compared to many others, but I know which way I think is more sensible if housing stock is to become a real issue

dgl1001

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.

not sure what the solution is but you forget decreasing house size. Its currently about 2.4 persons per household and is expected to decrease to 2.2 persons per household over the next 15 to 20 years. its down to a number of factors including less children, higher divorce rates, more people remaining single for longer etc etc. you may not think its significant but during the stakeholder events for the east midland regional plan consultation, we were informed that we would have to build 10% of the existing housing stock to accomodate just this single driver of growth. or put another way, a town of 30,000 homes would have to have an additional 3000 new homes, just for this single element, not including the other factors Hamish told us about

System

Yeah licence to breed please, also people with 428 kids claiming benefits should be shot in the reproductive organs.

Procrastinator333

The Tories who are widely accepted as favourites for the next election, have stated a policy of limiting net migration to 50,000. So there won't b a 400,000 increase.

Yes the population is ageing, but also having less kids, will have a look tomorrow, but without migration, I believe the population is in decline.

I guess as population is the only driver of house prices, we should therefore expect falls after may 6th?

ukcarper

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

The Tories who are widely accepted as favourites for the next election, have stated a policy of limiting net migration to 50,000. So there won't b a 400,000 increase.

Yes the population is ageing, but also having less kids, will have a look tomorrow, but without migration, I believe the population is in decline.

I guess as population is the only driver of house prices, we should therefore expect falls after may 6th?

how are they going to do that

Blacksheep1979

wageslave wrote: »

Why just chavs?

There are whole swathes of the population we could sterilise. Public servants, bankers, TV presenters.......

After all, we all know they don't positively contribute much either therefore their offspring will obviously be equally useless.

Don't limit yourself sweetie. You're on a roll

I think we've had another one just identify themselves here...

treliac

dgl1001 wrote: »

not sure what the solution is but you forget decreasing house size. Its currently about 2.4 persons per household and is expected to decrease to 2.2 persons per household over the next 15 to 20 years. its down to a number of factors including less children, higher divorce rates, more people remaining single for longer etc etc.

......... we were informed that we would have to build 10% of the existing housing stock to accomodate just this single driver of growth. or put another way, a town of 30,000 homes would have to have an additional 3000 new homes, just for this single element, not including the other factors Hamish told us about

Lends support to the proposal to 'reward' married couples then. I expect Hamish is in favour.

treliac

sjaypink wrote: »

there may be other options eg. much longer mortgage terms (40 + yrs :eek:),

Surely, if it's stretched out too far, it becomes much the same as renting.

There doesn't seem much point in struggling to pay a mortgage for years and years and years, only to have the govt pinch it all back for care home fees or having achieved home ownership at long last...... to have to hand it all over in the form of an inheritance gift.

LizzieS_2

sjaypink wrote: »

, but there may be other options eg. much longer mortgage terms (40 + yrs :eek:),

I thought that one had already happened previously.

Way forward is combining as much as we can:

1. Council housing to be temporary to actual needs
2. More houses built
3. Income being sufficient to afford houses, be from direct income (earnings) or top-ups from the Government (tax credits)
4. Less income tax/NI for below median income