We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Second Home Ownership reaches Record Level
Comments
-
Seems a little sad when a minority are buying up what is a scarce resource.
Which is exactly what you'd expect when you reduce the ability of the majority to purchase that resource by restricting mortgage finance.
Property consolidates in a smaller (and increasingly wealthier) section of the population.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
I am. You only need one home to live in. In a country with a gross housing shortage there need to be penalties for those owning more than one home, either in the form of higher stamp duty, an annual tax or both.
The village I last rented in, there was a huge demand for reasonably priced houses and in our street alone there were three second homes, one of which was occupied for about 4 weekends a year. These people need to be penalised.
I thought there would be one or two.
Why control the ownership of housing? It's not like there aren't houses to rent. As I said, most people have access to a house of some description even if they don't own it. Surely that is the main concern.
Clearly it is "selfish" of those who own more than one property. They use their presumably superior financial position to outbid those who want to own but aren't as well off.
So is it just people who own more than one house who are selfish?Doctor_Gloom wrote: »Yes, well said. A super tax of say 60% would soon sort the greedy baskets out.
Nice. Thanks Doctor Gloom - kind of leads me onto my point....
Perhaps all the backers of such a market would also back the enforcement of food rationing. We ALL undoubtedly outbid and impoverish weaker and poorer people/nations with our consumption of food.
No doubt all these holier-than-thou types will now claim they never throw away food and they only buy what they need? They carefully consider how buying a product from a crop in short supply that year will impact people thousands of miles away?
But we don't really. Not in any meaningful way. None of us.
Oh, and of course these people don't get the opportunity to "rent" some food. They go without.0 -
I am. You only need one home to live in. In a country with a gross housing shortage there need to be penalties for those owning more than one home, either in the form of higher stamp duty, an annual tax or both.
The village I last rented in, there was a huge demand for reasonably priced houses and in our street alone there were three second homes, one of which was occupied for about 4 weekends a year. These people need to be penalised.
The simpler solution would be to allow builders to build houses where people want to live or go on holiday like they do in other countries.0 -
I am. You only need one home to live in. In a country with a gross housing shortage there need to be penalties for those owning more than one home, either in the form of higher stamp duty, an annual tax or both.
The village I last rented in, there was a huge demand for reasonably priced houses and in our street alone there were three second homes, one of which was occupied for about 4 weekends a year. These people need to be penalised.
Your post reeks of pure jealously.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Which is exactly what you'd expect when you reduce the ability of the majority to purchase that resource by restricting mortgage finance.
Property consolidates in a smaller (and increasingly wealthier) section of the population.
OK Hamish, but during the days of "easy" credit, didn`t second home ownership rapidly increase ? And in times of very low interest rates for normal savings accounts, does it not tempt wealthier savers into putting their cash into property ?
Restricted mortgage finance should, in theory, limit the number of owner-occupier and BTL mortgages. I`m thinking that it isn`t strictly down to mortgage "rationing" that causes an increase in the BTL/Owner-Occupier ratio, low returns for savers plays a large part.
I`m loathed to say this, but I`m gonna (if nothing else, I`m honest), it has crossed my mind to invest my savings in a second property.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
Why not just concrete over the whole country?
That would take a huge amount of concrete.
A better idea might be to encourage lower or no growth in the size of the population.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards