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
Housing allocation
Comments
-
I don't understand HOW these statistics can be true, unless until a few years ago we had hundreds of thousands (more) houses standing empty.
Well a few years ago we did have more empty houses than we do today. But that's not the only factor.
It's slightly complicated as the number of empty houses changes daily and reporting on the number of empty houses is quite poor by comparison to other housing market statistics, but there are a couple of ways we can measure this.
"Empty" houses can broadly speaking be divided into two categories.
1. Long term empty houses. These are what most people think of as genuinely empty houses. They are not temporarily empty for refurbishment or probate or between lets, etc.
2. Short term empty houses. These are typically houses empty for less than a year for normal activities such as between lets, etc.
There has been a fall in both types of empty houses.
It has been widely reported for the last few years that there were a million empty houses in the UK. As it turns out this was never the case. The head of the empty homes agency eventually clarified that only around half of that number, so around 500,000, were actually long term empty houses, the rest were just short term empty for probate, between lets, refurbishment, etc.
In more recent times, the DCLG 2011 housing market survey has identified that the number of long term empty houses is now just 300,000. So the number of long term empty houses does appear to be falling.
In addition to that an increase in occupancy of short term empty houses, ie, those between lets, can be measure by the average landlord void period. Obviously, when more people are renting houses then the void period will reduce, and it's currently down to near an all time low.
Other factors are of course an increase in multiple households sharing a single house, which can be seen in increasing housing overcrowding statistics, (around 1.7 million people now live in housing defined as "overcrowded") and an increase in the numbers of homeless people presenting for emergency council accommodation, which rose markedly last year.“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 -
In a couple of weeks I will be living alone (again) because at last, my 31 year old daughter, her 38 year old husband and their baby will have bought their first house.There is little evidence of an actual housing shortage as if there was there would be loads of people living on the street.
If there was more housing then the rents would be lower and they would have been able to stay in rented accommodation and save the extortionate deposit they need rather than move in with me. Homelessness is not the only manifestation of a housing shortage.Or is it based on the assumption that households like mine of 4 single adults would want to be 4 seperate hosueholds if we could? Because I've no desire not to live in a houseshare, and I imagine most people my age feel that same
Don't know how old you are but will you want to share with 3 others forever? even when you have a partner and kid?Graham_Devon wrote: »More based on the assumption that there will be more elderly people living singularly in larger homes.
Too right! but in my case I will be downsizing in case they come back - and I'm not elderly yet
Murphy was an optimist!!!0 -
If there was more housing then the rents would be lower and they would have been able to stay in rented accommodation and save the extortionate deposit they need rather than move in with me. Homelessness is not the only manifestation of a housing shortage
Absolutely spot on.
Hence the reason for this thread.
If prices fell by 50% for example, and all the people currently priced out could buy, then how do the housing bears suggest housing be allocated? There would obviously be more people looking for their own house than there were houses available for them.
So how do we allocate them? Lottery? Waiting lists? What?
I notice that this is now the third thread on the topic where a lot of posters who advocate lower prices are completely unable to answer that very simple question.
.“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: »Absolutely spot on.
Hence the reason for this thread.
If prices fell by 50% for example, and all the people currently priced out could buy, then how do the housing bears suggest housing be allocated? There would obviously be more people looking for their own house than there were houses available for them.
So how do we allocate them? Lottery? Waiting lists? What?
I notice that this is now the third thread on the topic where a lot of posters who advocate lower prices are completely unable to answer that very simple question.
.
If house prices fell by 50% it would be due to people's lack of ability to get credit in conjunction with a fair amount of defaults and a lack of desire to buy.
It happen in the early 90's when my parents bought the flat next to there house for 50% of the previous selling price.
The problem with the 50% falls argument is many won't have a job to get credit and also fear will be there meaning they will probably be too scared to buy:)0 -
If house prices fell by 50% it would be due to people's lack of ability to get credit in conjunction with a fair amount of defaults and a lack of desire to buy.
It happen in the early 90's when my parents bought the flat next to there house for 50% of the previous selling price.
The problem with the 50% falls argument is many won't have a job to get credit and also fear will be there meaning they will probably be too scared to buy:)
So you can't answer the question then.
Once again, if not through price, how do we allocate houses?“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: »So you can't answer the question then.
Once again, if not through price, how do we allocate houses?
That wasn't the question. Question was if house prices fall dramatically how would you allocate. There would be no need to as most would not be able to afford them.
House prices are based on the credit people are able to get so there will never be a need for a lottery.:)0 -
That wasn't the question. Question was if house prices fall dramatically how would you allocate. There would be no need to as most would not be able to afford them.
House prices are based on the credit people are able to get so there will never be a need for a lottery.:)
No, the original question is clear.
Houses are currently allocated through price.
If not through price, then how do you propose they be allocated?“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: »No, the original question is clear.
Houses are currently allocated through price.
If not through price, then how do you propose they be allocated?
oh reading the other threads I now realise this is a fairy story which is never going to happen. Well if the government was to fix house prices there would be no interest in buy to let etc and you would firstly say people could only buy one house. You would then allocate on a needs basis IE elderly, families etc. You would make sure that there were no over supply of rooms ie if there was a 10 bedroom house this could only be bought by someone with 9 kids or as some people like to live generations living under 1 roof. Single people would live in studios etc.
As there is no actual shortgage of housing in this country only a shortage of affordable housing it would not be a problem. The government would run social housing for those who still could not buy and they could build as the population grew.
Of course I'm not sure of all the these people who do not want houses allocated by price. I think the issue more is that people want a free marker with no government intervention and it being made clear to banks that the buck stops with them if their lending policies fail going forward.0 -
there is no actual shortgage of housing in this country only a shortage of affordable housing
No, that's not right.
The only reason there's a shortage of affordable housing is because there is an actual shortage of housing.
In that sense, the market is working as it is supposed to, prices have risen until enough people are forced to share that almost everyone has shelter.
It is true to say there is no shortage of bedrooms in this country... But that doesn't help people who want to buy cheaper housing. (Although it's helpful for people who don't mind sharing a house)“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: »How do those posters who wish to see lower prices propose housing is allocated if not through price?
Lottery draws? Waiting lists?
And if not then what?
I wish to see lower prices, but realise that as things stand there isn't much chance that prices will go much lower. With this in mind, I would like to see properties being allocated to those that can truly afford them. This can be achieved by responsible lending. OK, transactions are low at the moment due to deposit requirements. Those that can, or will be able to truly afford property will be saving for a deposit right now. Those that can't, won't be able to buy. I don't want to see the banks relaxing lending criteria too much, as it can put themselves, as well as their customers (and the taxpayer) at risk.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
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards