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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Build more houses
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »The benefits bill cannot support it Hamish.
It really is as simple as that. I cannot move any further with this. That really is the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If the money is not there to pay for increasing rents (in terms of the increases you talk about, which are pretty high) they cannot rise. I'm sorry, but that's simply the way it is.
I'm going to simplify this down to levels even Mr Muddle can understand.
Person A has an income of £10. Person A has a rent budget of £3.
Person A can't find a house for £3...... All the houses are now £5... But the only reason rents rose is because there were insufficient houses to rent. Supply and demand...
So fortunately for person A, there is now a person B in exactly the same situation.
Person A and Person B join forces, and they now have a combined income of £20, and a rent budget of £6. They rent a house for £5, and have a bit of spare money left over.
When we don't build enough houses to keep up with population growth, the above is not a theory Graham, it's a mathematical certainty.
When you don't build enough houses for the growing population, then more people MUST live in each house. There is no other choice.
Whether or not you like such a situation, or whether or not you want it, is utterly irrelevant....“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 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Whether or not you like such a situation, or whether or not you want it, is utterly irrelevant....
As is your entire post.
I say again. The benefits bill cannot support is Hamish, something you have just completely ignored. Unless you are stating that single mothers will start having to live with other single mothers, and disabled people will have to start living with other disabled people.
I could ask if this is what you want, but I'm not going to, as obviously it's not something you would wish to see. I'm not going to try and state something untrue about your charachter.
I will say for the last time. Regardless of all your theories and what you type.....the benefits bill cannot support rent increases above general inflation.
I don't think there is any way around this one for you.
Dumb it down as much as you like. You completely ignored my point.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »As is your entire post.
I say again. The benefits bill cannot support is Hamish, something you have just completely ignored. Unless you are stating that single mothers will start having to live with other single mothers, and disabled people will have to start living with other disabled people.
I could ask if this is what you want, but I'm not going to, as obviously it's not something you would wish to see. I'm not going to try and state something untrue about your charachter.
I will say for the last time. Regardless of all your theories and what you type.....the benefits bill cannot support rent increases above general inflation.
I don't think there is any way around this one for you.
Dumb it down as much as you like. You completely ignored my point.
Graham, I ignored it because it's the weakest point you've ever raised.
Benefits claimants are not the majority. And even with benefits claimants, there are plenty that will have to live with others. Not all are in a position where they can't.
In case you hadn't noticed, the housing market IS NOT geared to the lowest common denominator. Never has been, never will be.
When you increase population by 100 people and only build enough houses for 50 of them, the rest have to club together and share.
It's absolutely that simple.
And unless you think (and can explain why) the remaining 50 will receive half the income (be it from work or benefits) as the 50 that got a house, then my point stands.
Two people on benefits have a higher income than one person on benefits. Two people in work have a higher income than one person in work.
Affordability for housing is based on household income Graham... Not single income. If you can't afford it on your own, you'll have to share.
There is no other choice.“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 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Graham, I ignored it because it's the weakest point you've ever raised.
Benefits claimants are not the majority. And even with benefits claimants, there are plenty that will have to live with others. Not all are in a position where they can't.
LOL. Weakest point I have ever made? Blimey Hamish. Seriously, I am lost for words.
Keep ignoring it. Suggest that people on benefits should live together.
But PURLEASE, don't pretend to care about FTB's, people on lower incomes, or anyone struggling from now on. It's quite clear you couldn't give a **ck. It's quite clear you'd prefer to see the demise of a nations living standards, in your quest for HPI. It's quite clear your greed for HPI is seriously clouding your views on reality, and what people can afford.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I don't think thats what I have said....nor hinted at.
What I am saying, is there is cat in hells chance at the moment of 1 million houses being built anywhere.
Your question was, I thought, why people are saying that we need to build more houses.
The answer is because in some parts of the country we need more houses (both rental and owner occupied) and that if they were built the price would fall so making them more affordable for people.
The primary problem is that the planning laws unnecessarily restrict the availability of land this making it very expensive.
Now if the planning rules were changed then it would be cheaper to buy land and so allow more houses to be built.
The available mortgage finance would stretch to more properties and people would need smaller deposits so creating more effective demand.
Builders would respond to more effective demand by building more properties.
Ok, this may not produce sufficient properties overnight but building more properties is the only solution to the housing problems.
So the simple mantra of reforming the planning rules and so building more homes will continue for many many years to come.0 -
in the not too distant future (2016) building more houses will not reduce house prices (no matter how many are built - though the amount built will fall of a cliff) - this is simply because of the costs of building new houses from 2016 onwards0
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »LOL. Weakest point I have ever made? Blimey Hamish. Seriously, I am lost for words.
Keep ignoring it. Suggest that people on benefits should live together.
But PURLEASE, don't pretend to care about FTB's, people on lower incomes, or anyone struggling from now on. It's quite clear you couldn't give a **ck. It's quite clear you'd prefer to see the demise of a nations living standards, in your quest for HPI. It's quite clear your greed for HPI is seriously clouding your views on reality, and what people can afford.
Lovely rant Graham. :T
One of your best efforts yet.
Just one quick (abeit I'm sure very inconvenient) question though....
Where do you expect them to live?“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 -
Your question was, I thought, why people are saying that we need to build more houses..
I don't think he actually had a question.
He just tried to muddle the issues, as usual.
Only his thread hasn't worked out quite how he hoped....
And seeing as how we're at the top of a new page, I'll ask again.
Graham.... Where do you expect them to live?
If you don't expect us to build enough houses for the increasing population, and you don't expect more people to live in each house, then where will they live?
Is the magic house fairy going to come along and sprinkle some magic fairy dust or something?“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 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Graham.... Where do you expect them to live?
If you don't expect us to build enough houses for the increasing population, and you don't expect more people to live in each house, then where will they live?
Is the magic house fairy going to come along and sprinkle some magic fairy dust or something?
I expect people to live the same as they do now. Extended time at the parents houses. That's exactly what is happening right now. So don't see why that would change all of a sudden.
That doesn't mean house prices increase.
Another example is someone at work. Roughly 40 I guess, and shes just moved back in with her mum, with her child and partner. They are extending the house and combining income.
It's something I'd consider with my parents, given the right house as it free's up cash from all angles.
Got to be your worst nightmare?
Hows that for a direct answer?Only his thread hasn't worked out quite how he hoped....
It has. You have admitted that your "build more houses" soundbite IS just that. A mere soundbite.0 -
Hi Graham, nice evasion, but we'll have to ask the question again I'm afraid.
When we have a shortfall of around 100,000 houses a year, where do you expect them to live?
And before you say "with their parents", does that apply to families and immigrants too?“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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards