If milk had risen in line with house prices...

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

You said 'never'.

'Never' is a very big word and I certainly don't have the crystal ball (or balls) to use it.

ok pigs might fly tell me when you think it is likely to happen

ukcarper

silvercar wrote: »

I doubt every renter wants to live on a council estate!

Surely a good supply of rental properties should keep rents low, enabling those that want to save a deposit to do so.

I was bought up on a council estate and would happily live on one if they were like they were then not so sure about now though

carolt

Exactly. If more 'ordinary' people lived on council estates, then that image of council estates would vanish - as ukcarper says, lots of ordinary people used to live on them.

The modern day ghettoes that we have don't need to be the future of council housing.

And I didn't state every renter wanted a council houses - but millions certainly do.

I would prefer a secure council house at a fraction of my current rental to a private rental, definitely. But as we both work, and aren't actually on the street, we don't qualify.

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

Exactly. If more 'ordinary' people lived on council estates, then that image of council estates would vanish - as ukcarper says, lots of ordinary people used to live on them.

The modern day ghettoes that we have don't need to be the future of council housing.

And I didn't state every renter wanted a council houses - but millions certainly do.

I would prefer a secure council house at a fraction of my current rental to a private rental, definitely. But as we both work, and aren't actually on the street, we don't qualify.

It wasn’t easy to get a council house before right to buy and you wouldn’t have qualified then. As an aside I know of at least one council that sold houses to people who weren’t tenants.

gmang

I'm really annoyed that the government, and most of the public, seem to find it totally acceptable to have separate "price inflation" and "house inflation". Only the former is even attempted to be controlled by varying interest rates while the latter is left to spiral out of control.

If price inflation was at 30% per year then there would be riots, but instead (as it was housing inflation) Brown rattled on about the longest period of economic boom in history! Bread doubling in price in 3 years = bad, houses doubling in price in 3 years = good???

Why can't people see the obvious fallacy of house price inflation being larger than price/wage inflation? Surely sooner or later average houses will be worth 10 times, 20 times even 30 times the average wage. People talk about crashes coming, but I'm not sure what will happen. It seems to me that we need to start to think differently about house prices.

The solution is rather simple:

1. Remove the ability of landlords to claim mortgage interest tax relief from their rental income. If FTBs can't get tax relief on their mortgage any more then why should BTL landlords? This will make the BTL market much less appealing financially and people might actually start buying houses to live in.

2. Force mortgage lenders to lend a maximum of a hard multiple of salary - 3 times a single income or 2.5 times a joint income. This will remove the ability of people to run up crazy credit to buy overpriced houses.

carolt

Exactly.

Well said.

ukcarper

gmang wrote: »

I
2. Force mortgage lenders to lend a maximum of a hard multiple of salary - 3 times a single income or 2.5 times a joint income. This will remove the ability of people to run up crazy credit to buy overpriced houses.

That was happening in the early seventies and hpi easily out striped both wage and normal inflation

Also no buy to let landlords

CLAPTON

gmang wrote: »

I'm really annoyed that the government, and most of the public, seem to find it totally acceptable to have separate "price inflation" and "house inflation". Only the former is even attempted to be controlled by varying interest rates while the latter is left to spiral out of control.

If price inflation was at 30% per year then there would be riots, but instead (as it was housing inflation) Brown rattled on about the longest period of economic boom in history! Bread doubling in price in 3 years = bad, houses doubling in price in 3 years = good???

Why can't people see the obvious fallacy of house price inflation being larger than price/wage inflation? Surely sooner or later average houses will be worth 10 times, 20 times even 30 times the average wage. People talk about crashes coming, but I'm not sure what will happen. It seems to me that we need to start to think differently about house prices.

The solution is rather simple:

1. Remove the ability of landlords to claim mortgage interest tax relief from their rental income. If FTBs can't get tax relief on their mortgage any more then why should BTL landlords? This will make the BTL market much less appealing financially and people might actually start buying houses to live in.

2. Force mortgage lenders to lend a maximum of a hard multiple of salary - 3 times a single income or 2.5 times a joint income. This will remove the ability of people to run up crazy credit to buy overpriced houses.

stange really

all businesses in the UK can offset their costs against their income before paying tax on their profits

-so it's ok for local authorities (funded by taxpayers) to offset interest payments against income and of course pay their managers large salaries with gold plated pension funds

-so it's ok for housing trusts (largely funded by taxpayers) to offset their interest payments against income and pay their CEO , directors , managers very large salaries with excellent pension schemes too.

-so it's ok for commercial letting companies to offset their intereest costs against incomes and of course pay their directors large salaries and of course pay their share holders dividends

-however it's an absolute appalling crime for an individaul to buy one or two properties and offset interest payments agains income ...


makes perfect sense
struggling to see who is the loser here

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Exactly. If more 'ordinary' people lived on council estates, then that image of council estates would vanish - as ukcarper says, lots of ordinary people used to live on them.

Anyone who currently lives in a council house is still an ordinary persons as far as I know.

You only got Council housing in the 70's 80's if you were unemployed or in desperate need or could not afford to support your family.

As far as I know that as never changed, but also the people have never been anything other than "ordinary" people.

carolt

If the same opportunity is given to those buying to live in a property, no crime.

Otherwise, clearly a very un-level playing field.

Surely the person buying 1 house is as much an 'investor' as those buying loads.

Bring back MIRAS and I'll agree with you.