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

Shakethedisease

Logan's Run ???

Procrastinator333

ukcarper wrote: »

how are they going to do that

I'm not sure they know yet, but some points / quota system I would guess.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I'm not sure they know yet, but some points / quota system I would guess.

It's meaningless spin. They know full well they cannot control immigration from within the EU. It would be illegal to do so.

As for non EU states, they could, to some extent, but despite all the anti-immigration rhetoric to pacify the party base, they also know full well they need millions more people to fund the pensions deficit.

SHow me how to fund the pensions shortfall without drastically raising taxes or allowing in more people, and I'll believe they may be serious about immigration.

Until then.....

Procrastinator333

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

SHow me how to fund the pensions shortfall without drastically raising taxes or allowing in more people, and I'll believe they may be serious about immigration.

Until then.....

Raise the retirement age to 70/75. It will happen in the end and in truth it is stupid it has not happened already.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Raising it to 75 would be a significant help,, but even that would not fix the problem.

Not going to happen in the next 10 years though.

The population gain up until 2020, or another 4 to 5 million, is locked in. If we find another solution to pensions between now and then, I may revise my opinion about the further 5 million by 2030.

Either way, the housing shortage is significant, and beyond the ability of government to fix without extremely radical changes to planning laws, and funding of housing. Neither of which looks likely under the tories.

The tories have proposed changes to planning that would reduce housebuilding, and cuts in funding.

DaddyBear

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.

And how many of those 400,000 will be able to afford to get onto the housing ladder?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DaddyBear wrote: »

And how many of those 400,000 will be able to afford to get onto the housing ladder?

It translates to 250,000 additional households a year.

We only build 80,000 houses, and some of those already end up as rented or H/A.

Even if all 80,000 ended up for sale, which they don't, it would only require the top earning one third of households to afford it. The reality is it may be more like the top earning 20% that need to afford it, by the time you remove rentals and H/A's.

BTW, the average income of the top earning 20% of households is £70K.

So you can figure out the likely trajectory of prices from there.

3.5 times 70K is £245K..... Add a decade of wage inflation but keep the same multiple, and a 300K average price looks likely in the not too distant future.

And as for existing stock, what is it you bears are so fond of saying? Oh yes, "prices are set at the margins"......:rotfl:

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

BTW, the average income of the top earning 20% of households is £70K.

So you can figure out the likely trajectory of prices from there.

3.5 times 70K is £245K..... Add a decade of wage inflation but keep the same multiple, and a 300K average price looks likely in the not too distant future.

And as for existing stock, what is it you bears are so fond of saying? Oh yes, "prices are set at the margins"......:rotfl:

Surely this translates into spiralling increases in desirable property not average property.

Average household income maybe £70k, but whats the figure once the top 3% -5% is excluded? A fair number of people earn 6 figure salaries.

ukcarper

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I'm not sure they know yet, but some points / quota system I would guess.

That is the problem with the tories and what will they do about people from within the EU

DaddyBear

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It translates to 250,000 additional households a year.

We only build 80,000 houses, and some of those already end up as rented or H/A.

Even if all 80,000 ended up for sale, which they don't, it would only require the top earning one third of households to afford it. The reality is it may be more like the top earning 20% that need to afford it, by the time you remove rentals and H/A's.

BTW, the average income of the top earning 20% of households is £70K.

So you can figure out the likely trajectory of prices from there.

3.5 times 70K is £245K..... Add a decade of wage inflation but keep the same multiple, and a 300K average price looks likely in the not too distant future.

And as for existing stock, what is it you bears are so fond of saying? Oh yes, "prices are set at the margins"......:rotfl:

As you pointed out, the 'new' households being created will not have the same demographics as the current population. Many are immigrants, and the birth rate amongst low earners is higher than amongst middle and high earners.
I was trying to point out that of these new households very few will earn sufficient to participate in the private housing ladder. What's the average income of immigrant families???