Housing Minister's incoherent policy

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I shall keep my mouth shut about people being exploited then.

Massive profits for the main men and a few crumbs for everybody else:T

No, of course not. You've just gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. We should have a capitalist system where people are treated fairly and rewarded justly for the work that they do, generally based on supply and demand of workers in that area. We don't have to have communisum or a completely exploititive slave-labour market, there is a grey area in between.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Yes i do think everybody who wants to buy a house should be able to buy a house.

Why wouldnt i think that ?

I guess we're in to a philosophical arena here. I agree that a utopia would be a nice thing, I guess. But in the real world it doesn't work. So I don't think we can live in a world where everyone who wants to buy a house can buy a house. So I guess the reason you may not think that is because you understand that it's impossible? Human nature will dictate that in a free market some people will develop the skills and talent, or simply have good fortune, which means that they have the financial clout to outbid others for things.

I own the house I live in as I can afford to do so. I don't own a Ferarri as I can't afford to do so. But that isn't anyone elses problem other than my own, as there is presumably enough people who can afford a Ferrari to keep their business going.

Jimmy_31

Cleaver wrote: »

No, of course not. You've just gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. We should have a capitalist system where people are treated fairly and rewarded justly for the work that they do, generally based on supply and demand of workers in that area. We don't have to have communisum or a completely exploititive slave-labour market, there is a grey area in between.



I guess we're in to a philosophical arena here. I agree that a utopia would be a nice thing, I guess. But in the real world it doesn't work. So I don't think we can live in a world where everyone who wants to buy a house can buy a house. So I guess the reason you may not think that is because you understand that it's impossible? Human nature will dictate that in a free market some people will develop the skills and talent, or simply have good fortune, which means that they have the financial clout to outbid others for things.

I own the house I live in as I can afford to do so. I don't own a Ferarri as I can't afford to do so. But that isn't anyone elses problem other than my own, as there is presumably enough people who can afford a Ferrari to keep their business going.

The corruption that infests this country has stopped people buying houses.

People dont want to live in a ferrari, they just want to go to work and earn a wage that will put a roof over their heads.

Plenty of people can build and own their own homes if the government released the derelict land for free to the general public. I think this is a better option than somebody having to slave away at 2 jobs that pay a 5hitty wage thats just enough to cover the rent of a little flat.

Buy_It_Now

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

having to slave away at 2 jobs that pay a 5hitty wage thats just enough to cover the rent of a little flat.

Last time, you said you lived in the box room at your mothers house

Jimmy_31

Buy_It_Now wrote: »

Last time, you said you lived in the box room at your mothers house

I sleep in the bedroom next to the box room or in digs.

This is how i am able to save up to buy a house:D

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

The corruption that infests this country has stopped people buying houses.

How do you mean? I think high house prices and the lack of mortgages / high deposit requirements as a result of a global financial crisis is stopping people buying houses at the moment.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

People dont want to live in a ferrari, they just want to go to work and earn a wage that will put a roof over their heads.

Apologies, I was using the Ferrari analogy as an example, I wasn't saying that people want to live in a Ferrari. The point I was making was the fact that I can't afford a Ferrari doesn't mean that something needs changing to ensure that I can buy a Ferrari, as the Ferrari market will operate without me. You could argue the same point for the housing market: the fact that minimum wage workers on a building site cannot afford to buy a house may not be good for them, but if the housing market can operate without them due to the fact that there are people who earn more then it just is what it is.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Plenty of people can build and own their own homes if the government released the derelict land for free to the general public.

What government derelict land?

Anyway, let's say that the government does own plots of derelict land. Presumably, if you built houses on this land they would be worth something. So why would the government give away the land for free rather than selling it? Also, if twenty people wanted one piece of free land, how would you decide who could have it? I suppose you could open up the bidding at an auction from £1 and see how high it goe... Oh. Hang on.

Jimmy_31

Cleaver wrote: »

How do you mean? I think high house prices and the lack of mortgages / high deposit requirements as a result of a global financial crisis is stopping people buying houses at the moment.



Apologies, I was using the Ferrari analogy as an example, I wasn't saying that people want to live in a Ferrari. The point I was making was the fact that I can't afford a Ferrari doesn't mean that something needs changing to ensure that I can buy a Ferrari, as the Ferrari market will operate without me. You could argue the same point for the housing market: the fact that minimum wage workers on a building site cannot afford to buy a house may not be good for them, but if the housing market can operate without them due to the fact that there are people who earn more then it just is what it is.



What government derelict land?

Anyway, let's say that the government does own plots of derelict land. Presumably, if you built houses on this land they would be worth something. So why would the government give away the land for free rather than selling it? Also, if twenty people wanted one piece of free land, how would you decide who could have it? I suppose you could open up the bidding at an auction from £1 and see how high it goe... Oh. Hang on.

We are worlds apart on how we see things.

The house price boom was caused by banks giving people whatever amount of money they wanted.

The boom continued because of all the schemes that were put in place to allow people to buy something they could not afford.

You are comparing not being able to buy a ferrari to not being able to put a roof over your head.

You have the "thats just the way it is" kind of thinking and i dont.

Why can somebody not go and build a house on a plot of derelict land, yes i know about rules and regulations but people have to live somewhere so i feel everybody should be entitled to a plot of land to build on.

We are after all just sat on a rock hurtling through space.

If only i had been born earlier, i could have claimed some land for myself eh.

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

We are worlds apart on how we see things.

I'd agree with that.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

The house price boom was caused by banks giving people whatever amount of money they wanted.

The boom continued because of all the schemes that were put in place to allow people to buy something they could not afford.

I think these were all factors in the house price boom, yes. But lending to the majority of people over the last ten years was sensible, in terms of loan amount and multiples. It was rare for banks to give 'whatever amount of money' people wanted, and that's fact, not my opinion.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

You are comparing not being able to buy a ferrari to not being able to put a roof over your head.

<sigh>

I'm not Jimmy. Forget Ferraris if it helps, and imagine any market you like. Fish, lemons, gold, shares, houses or anything that is bought and sold. For those markets to operate you need buyers and sellers. So if we take the first time buyer market you need people who want and can buy homes. If everyone earning above £20,000 wants, and has the access to funds to buy, a FTBer house then people on minimum wage aren't required for that market to operate. Do you see what I mean? If people on £20,000 cannot afford, or do not want to buy, FTBer houses then those houses will fall in value until people on minimum wage can afford them.

You can say the same about Ferraris, lemons, fish or anything else. If buyers stop buying at the current market price then the price will fall until it reaches a point where people will buy. This may or may not reach the point where the lowest earners will be buyers.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Why can somebody not go and build a house on a plot of derelict land, yes i know about rules and regulations but people have to live somewhere so i feel everybody should be entitled to a plot of land to build on.

Right. I don't really know how to respond to this. Unless we all go and move to an empty island and cut it up equally this isn't going to happen is it? And it would never work unless you lived under a fully communist ideology. And would you really want that?

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If only i had been born earlier, i could have claimed some land for myself eh.

You could have done, yes. But you can't now as land is bought and sold.

Jimmy_31

Cleaver wrote: »

I'd agree with that.



I think these were all factors in the house price boom, yes. But lending to the majority of people over the last ten years was sensible, in terms of loan amount and multiples. It was rare for banks to give 'whatever amount of money' people wanted, and that's fact, not my opinion.



<sigh>

I'm not Jimmy. Forget Ferraris if it helps, and imagine any market you like. Fish, lemons, gold, shares, houses or anything that is bought and sold. For those markets to operate you need buyers and sellers. So if we take the first time buyer market you need people who want and can buy homes. If everyone earning above £20,000 wants, and has the access to funds to buy, a FTBer house then people on minimum wage aren't required for that market to operate. Do you see what I mean? If people on £20,000 cannot afford, or do not want to buy, FTBer houses then those houses will fall in value until people on minimum wage can afford them.

You can say the same about Ferraris, lemons, fish or anything else. If buyers stop buying at the current market price then the price will fall until it reaches a point where people will buy. This may or may not reach the point where the lowest earners will be buyers.



Right. I don't really know how to respond to this. Unless we all go and move to an empty island and cut it up equally this isn't going to happen is it? And it would never work unless you lived under a fully communist ideology. And would you really want that?



You could have done, yes. But you can't now as land is bought and sold.

Definitely worlds apart.

During the boom i had countless letters from the banks telling me i could have x amount of pounds to buy a house, either they couldnt add up or they didnt care how much they lent to people.

I cant have a plot of land because somebody somewhere came up with a law that says land must be bought from somebody else, go further down that line and it all started with people claiming land.

What i would like is to see this country ran by somebody who gives a 5hit about it and is not just looking after their own interests.

hallmark

ILW wrote: »

Why would a government want to reduce house prices. At current prices they are selling all that they build.

I've thought for several years that the question all PMs & chancellors (if not MPs) should be forced to go on record with an answer to is "what would be the best thing that could happen to house prices in the UK?"

Since IMO it is patently obvious that the best thing would be for them to return to something approaching sanity, however every shred of policy since 2000 if not before has been set to ensure this does not happen, and I am 100% convinced that no polititican of any hue would give an honest answer to this question.

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Definitely worlds apart.

During the boom i had countless letters from the banks telling me i could have x amount of pounds to buy a house, either they couldnt add up or they didnt care how much they lent to people.

I haven't denied that people weren't lent money who shouldn't have been or that people didn't borrow more than the should have done. It's clear that that happened and it's clear that that was one of many factors that drove up house prices.

But it remains a fact that most banks did care how much they lent to people. This is evident by the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who took a mortgage over the past ten years can afford to repay. And I know interest rates are low, but not everyone is on a fantastic tracker rate. I've been on four different mortgage products since 2003 and they've all been around 4%.

I don't think we're that far apart in terms of thinking really. With all due respect I just don't think you understand how a market works.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I cant have a plot of land because somebody somewhere came up with a law that says land must be bought from somebody else, go further down that line and it all started with people claiming land.

Correct.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

What i would like is to see this country ran by somebody who gives a 5hit about it and is not just looking after their own interests.

So would I. But that is never, ever going to happen. So you simply have to get on with making the most life to the best of your abilities rather than dreaming of utopia.