British house prices are 31% too high

NBOATER

South east rents and house rices are ridiculous, even tho the has been an explosion in flat building in Feltham town centre the rental prices are stupid.

£1000 pm for a 2 bed flat?

dktreesea

NBOATER wrote: »

South east rents and house rices are ridiculous, even tho the has been an explosion in flat building in Feltham town centre the rental prices are stupid.

£1000 pm for a 2 bed flat?

Normally I would say if you can't afford Feltham, why not move further west, e.g. Slough, and commute instead. But Slough is almost as expensive as Feltham.

grizzly1911

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In reality however, we peaked at 68% of owner occupancy (which is now falling), essentially and simplistically meaning that only the top 68% wealth of society can afford the supply of properties available.

It doesn't actually mean that, just that only 68% felt the need to make whatever sacrifices necessary to own property. there may be lots of people that could afford to buy choose not to for a variety of reasons.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer - so after all your huffing and puffing, you basically agree that no other index does what you have done in order to increase the strength of your rose tints.

No - Missed Point Graham,

I'm happy with an standard long term comparitor to be used, I just find the methodology of comparing prices with rents flawed as previously stated do to constantly shifting balance of each markets supply / demand.

Incidently, did you realise that the Mortgage Repayments as a percentage of income is currently at 27.8% as opposed to the 30 year average of 36.2% according to Halifax.
http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/excel/2013/250413Affordability.xls

Indeed, you need to go back to the 90's for it to have been more affordable.

P.S. I've had my eyes laser-ed so no need for my rose tinted sunglasses.
I'll need to buy some more

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Does amuse me that the BTL's on here often state the same thing "oooo, you want everyone ot have access to a roof" as if it's some kind of bad thing.

It's not a "bad thing", just not "realistic"

There's no point in whinging, moaning, providing constructive criticism unless it is something that can be adjusted to affect that real situation.

I've mentioned you should be lobbying for more properties, I've not seen you canvassing for it though.

It seems in your world, you just want to wave the magic wand, sprinkle some fairy dust and the world would be put to right.

Feel free to join the real world when you want.

IveSeenTheLight

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It doesn't actually mean that, just that only 68% felt the need to make whatever sacrifices necessary to own property. there may be lots of people that could afford to buy choose not to for a variety of reasons.

Accepted.
I did say simplistically in my post and I accept there will be variation to that percentage.

The point is that as it stands there will be a percentage which is priced out of the available supply.

If you want property to be affordable for all as Graham does, then there needs to be a surplus of supply to meet everyone's needs, including those who could then afford their seaside / countryside retreats / city pads etc

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you want property to be affordable for all as Graham does, then there needs to be a surplus of supply to meet everyone's needs, including those who could then afford their seaside / countryside retreats / city pads etc

That's not really what I have said though is it.

Come on now, be fair, you are better than this and don't usually make stuff up to suit your argument.

I've long stood on this forum for more council housing. This can't be ignored, as this is the housing that would provide a roof for those families who cannot afford to buy in to the private market. I've never once said everyone should be able to buy and you have simply made that up.

What I am against is the private landlord buying up properties and then the government giving out housing benefits which has helped create a spiral of price increases. Be far better to provide proper council housing instead of handing out benefits for landlords to profiteer from. IMO anyway.

This in turn would reduce the price of houses to buy (increase in supply and decrease in competition from landlords).

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's not really what I have said though is it.

Is it not?
I thought you wanted the affordability to be measured for all.
If that is the measure then surely you want property to be affordable for all.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've long stood on this forum for more council housing. This can't be ignored, as this is the housing that would provide a roof for those families who cannot afford to buy in to the private market. I've never once said everyone should be able to buy and you have simply made that up.

Interesting.
What is the cost for this council housing and how are the government going to provide it.

P.S. pretty sure if I searched for it, I'd find posts stating you wanted property to be affordable for everyone.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

T
What I am against is the private landlord buying up properties and then the government giving out housing benefits which has helped create a spiral of price increases. Be far better to provide proper council housing instead of handing out benefits for landlords to profiteer from. IMO anyway.

Groundhog day again.

I recall it being articulated that BTL has only partially filled the gap created by the RTB sell off of social housing.

I recall it also being shown that BTL contributed to only a 7% increase in price.

You seem to be dismissing quite a lot of other factors in house price escalation such as dual income households, access to credit, increased divorce rate etc to name a few.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This in turn would reduce the price of houses to buy (increase in supply and decrease in competition from landlords).

Shortsightedness Graham.
The rental market is smaller than historically recorded.

What your suggesting is that the options of this should have been reduced even further to the benefit of those who could not afford property.

How does this decrease competition from landlords? It reduces rental supply, thus would drive up available rents.

In essence you want fewer rental properties, driving up rents.
More supply or owner occupier properties reducing the price, thus narrowing the "31%" gap between the price and rents disparity.

Consider though that the rental market is a fraction of the owner occupier market and would need much more rental properties as a percentage to be released to impact the owner occupancy market to any effect.

ITS BEEN SAID TIME AND AGAIN.
Even Generali said it this morning.
The problem with British house prices is that there are not enough supply.

Generali wrote: »

Where he is right is that more houses should be built.

At best it's debatable whether the Government has managed to prop up house prices with their policies as such over the past 4 years. The problem with British house prices is simple: not enough houses.

System

Of course housing, especially house ownership, cannot be affordable to all because we place an artificial cut-off point at the bottom end. If you look at a third world housing market there is no lower cut-off. Anyone can afford a tin and cardboard shack squatting on unused land. But in Britain there are rules and minimum standards. That's our choice, probably a good one. But it necessarilly means that housing cannot be afforded by all.

British governments since the war have pursued the policy of subsidising housing demand at the same time as placing physical restraints on the supply. The inevitable, and therefore presumably deliberate, result is to drive up prices.
Again, it's a choice. Everyone can have a house if we don't care about the quality and don't care about the countryside.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is it not?
I thought you wanted the affordability to be measured for all.
If that is the measure then surely you want property to be affordable for all.

Errr no.

Quite simply, measuring ANY items affordability based on only those who can afford it is an absolutely obsurd way to go about things.

Your assumption that should I want to look at affordability across everyone in the UK, I therefore expect it to be affordable for all is idiotic at best.