BBC: Housing Shortages

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You missed out "assume" in the third sentence.

All the houses wouldn't sell immediately, as even if they were affordable, not everyone could buy.

*sigh*

It doesn't change the scenario, you pedant.

The number of people living in overcrowded housing remains constant, no matter what the price, because almost all houses for sale already have people living in them.

Lower prices do not solve overcrowding.

Only more houses can do that, which will then result in lower prices.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

*sigh*

It doesn't change the scenario, you pedant.

The number of people living in overcrowded housing remains constant, no matter what the price, because almost all houses for sale already have people living in them.

Lower prices do not solve overcrowding.

Only more houses can do that, which will then result in lower prices.

More houses....

Or, lower priced houses, with less of the large family houses being taken up with 2 people knocking around in them just because they can on the back of massive profits from HPI.

Or less holiday homes. Slap a punitive tax on holiday homes and you'd soon see more than 650k houses up for sale.

We do have a problem down here though with larger family homes. Retired couples have come from london and bought 5 bed homes, with just the two of them rattling around in them. Pushes up the prices for these homes, and they are under used.

Like I say, it's not ALL about the physical amount of houses. Not that you would be able to get your head around that one.

Thank you for the compliment by the way. Nice to know when one has challenged your argument so you have to respond with put me downs

Edit: The under used housing also goes for council housing. Another thing in which people hoarde what they got, but don't need.

sjaypink

Whilst discussing such issues a clear definition of overcrowded would be good also?

Personally don't think 7 in a 3 bed is necessarily overcrowded (might be loud & a bit cluttered, but nobody would be sufferring)...

...There is a housing distribution issue, not a housing shortage

Emy1501

So properties are not being being because nobody can afford them or wants them. Thats no surprise. I suspect as in the piece most living in overcrowded properties are unemployed and therefore would not be able to afford a property anyway.

As said before if there was a real demand for property people would buy them. How interesting that that 40% of all newbuilds are affordable homes and I wonder how much of the 60% bought by the private sector are bought with one of the vaorious schemes.

Number of properties in my search list has gone up 20% since the start of the year. I still dont buy the housing shortage.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Like I say, it's not ALL about the physical amount of houses. Not that you would be able to get your head around that one.

Oh, I can get my head around it just fine.

I am well aware that there are enough bedrooms for everyone in the UK to have one each.

But I'm also aware that forced redistribution of housing is not going to happen in a democracy. No matter how much some may wish for it to be so.

As I keep reminding people, the only housing that impacts the supply and demand argument with prices is the housing actually available for sale.......

Thank you for the compliment by the way. Nice to know when one has challenged your argument so you have to respond with put me downs
.

Nothing insulting about it.

Describing one who is being pedantic as a pedant is merely a statement of fact.;)

macaque_2

Hamish

When I saw the headline, I thought: "Hello, what's the spin and who's behind it?" It took 2 minutes 47 seconds to find out. Lo and behold on comes John Stewart of the Home Builder's Federation whinging that the wicked lenders have stopped underwriting loans at irrational prices. It's simple Mr Stewart; when your builders start asking sensible prices, lenders will make sensible mortgage offers. As for the empty building sites, the local authorities should just slap compulsory purchase orders on them.

On the subject of the fellow with 7 children, he should control himself. Why should the tax payer fund his selfish excesses. Stories like this have around for as long as council housing has been available.

As for the housing shortage, it doesn't exist. We just have a very distorted housing market where deserted holiday homes and empty investment property coexists alongside genuine housing need. It is truly shocking that Labour of all parties should have exploited property churning to such a degree for political gain. Gordon Brown really is a dysfunctional little troll.

More information about the great housing myth can be found on the link below.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2246505&highlight=

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh, I can get my head around it just fine.

I am well aware that there are enough bedrooms for everyone in the UK to have one each.

But I'm also aware that forced redistribution of housing is not going to happen in a democracy. No matter how much some may wish for it to be so.

As I keep reminding people, the only housing that impacts the supply and demand argument with prices is the housing actually available for sale.......



Nothing insulting about it.

Describing one who is being pedantic as a pedant is merely a statement of fact.;)

Did I say anything about forced redistribution?

There are a variety of other ways to make 1-2 people buying large housing less attractive. Not something I personally would want to see, as I like the idea of freedom of choice.

I don't think we can measure housing wealth on success though, not entirely, as differing generations have differing success due to when they were born in terms of HPI. So don't think we would be punishing success here.

Just as they do with cars, just as they do with council tax and single occupancy, council tax could rise or fall dependant on the amount of people vs the amount of bedrooms....the opposite of poll tax as it were.

Theres just one example in which rattling around in a big family home could be discouraged.

I notice you ignored the council homes part.

More importantly, I notice you completely ignored the holiday homes part. And there was me with all my arguments ready. The good thing is, it looks like I already won the holiday homes argument

However, there were 350,000 holiday homes in the UK in 2006.

Surely, as you advocate this supply and demand stuff so rigourously, you can see this is a massive problem in itself....and in all honesty, could see that actually, to alliviate some of the problem, a simple tax status on these homes could help our shortage problem.

I know, I know, you don't want to know, would bring house prices down, yadda yadda.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Did I say anything about forced redistribution?

There are a variety of other ways to make 1-2 people buying large housing less attractive. Not something I personally would want to see, as I like the idea of freedom of choice.

I don't think we can measure housing wealth on success though, not entirely, as differing generations have differing success due to when they were born in terms of HPI. So don't think we would be punishing success here.

Just as they do with cars, just as they do with council tax and single occupancy, council tax could rise or fall dependant on the amount of people vs the amount of bedrooms....the opposite of poll tax as it were.

Theres just one example in which rattling around in a big family home could be discouraged.

I notice you ignored the council homes part.

More importantly, I notice you completely ignored the holiday homes part. And there was me with all my arguments ready. The good thing is, it looks like I already won the holiday homes argument

However, there were 350,000 holiday homes in the UK in 2006.

Surely, as you advocate this supply and demand stuff so rigourously, you can see this is a massive problem in itself....and in all honesty, could see that actually, to alliviate some of the problem, a simple tax status on these homes could help our shortage problem.

I know, I know, you don't want to know, would bring house prices down, yadda yadda.

Occupancy tax maybe? In relation to size of property.

Based on permanent or temporary occupation.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Occupancy tax maybe? In relation to size of property.

Based on permanent or temporary occupation.

Something like that. Like I say, I wouldn't really want to see it myself as I'd find it hard to agree with, unless of course, the shortage problem really is as big of a problem as Hamish makes out (which I don't believe it is).

On a personal level, before that happened, I would like to see council homes looked at, and the ridiculous situation whereby a couple, or a single person is in a 3 bed council home. I know it will upset some council occupiers, as arguments such as "but it's their home" and "it could upset them having to move" are often banded around. Trouble is, the taxpayer is paying private rents for larger houses to house the people they could house if they re-housed the people who don't need the family homes.

However, I'm sure it upsets families who cannot get a council home just as much, and I think council homes should be used for the purpose they should provide.

But before any of that, I would like to see second holiday homes seriously taxed. Serious waste of resources, in which most of them are used as investment vehicles anyway.

I suppose second homes could be looked at also...not BTL, but a home in the city and a home 100 miles outside of the city.

So my order of priority to sort out a potential, or real shortage problem would be:

- Tax holiday homes to the hilt. There is absolutely NO "need" for them. Nice, yes, need no.
- Look at council arrangements and change it quick. I know we can do nothing about those already in these homes, but we can for the future...and stop RTB today.
- Look at second "convinience" homes.
- Look at an owner occupancy / bedroom taxation, the same as single council tax reduction, just the other way.

Needs no building of new homes. Needs no green land used up. Needs no extra pollution and resources used.

But will go some way to sorting out a shortage problem.....of which, the only solution some seem to have is "build more, more MORE".

What really is the point in building more when they will be bought by the same people who have 2 or 3 as investments now?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

- Tax holiday homes to the hilt. There is absolutely NO "need" for them. Nice, yes, need no.
- Look at council arrangements and change it quick. I know we can do nothing about those already in these homes, but we can for the future...and stop RTB today.
- Look at second "convinience" homes.
- Look at an owner occupancy / bedroom taxation, the same as single council tax reduction, just the other way.

Needs no building of new homes. Needs no green land used up. Needs no extra pollution and resources used.

But will go some way to sorting out a shortage problem.....of which, the only solution some seem to have is "build more, more MORE".
?

It would all help.

And if you enacted them all, it might buy us four or maybe five years.

But at a tremendous cost to personal freedom and choice.