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 Real Reason House Prices Are Rising - Why Help To Buy Is A Good Idea
Comments
-
I don't understand this. House prices by definiton are the price at which houses are bought and sold. If they are not 'affordable' then by definition buyers can not buy them so the transactions can not hppen...but they are happening.
Someone please explain.
Those that can will doesn't mean they are affordable to the majority."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
mystic_trev wrote: »
Pity she didn't have her eyes open when she wrote the article!;)
Nice jumper though
Worth letting off for a bad article?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I don't understand this. House prices by definiton are the price at which houses are bought and sold. If they are not 'affordable' then by definition buyers can not buy them so the transactions can not hppen...but they are happening.
Someone please explain.
He probably means affordable for first time buyers on a typical wage, rather than the professional financiers and property investors who drive up the price of property in the SE.0 -
Clifford_Pope wrote: »I don't get that. Surely the way to encourage something is to lower the tax, not raise it?
Or do you mean there should be a high tax on building land that is NOT built on?
I mean a land tax that is levied on the value of the land; so land zoned for housing development whether built on or not would have a higher value that say farm land.
The tax that is levied on build houses would be paid by the owner just like Council tax.
The tax wouldn't be on the building process (unlike infrastructure levies and 'affordable' housing levies) but on the land whether built on or not.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Worth letting off for a bad article?
Yer - I quite like her now.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »No it wouldn't.
If you sell your rentals, you have to sell them TO someone. in your scenario you assume rental demand by those unable to buy houses would stay the same....and you create a load of new people out of thin air buying houses to live in.
Your making assumptions Graham.
Lets assume a different scenario: -
Would be FTBer, living at home with parents, saving a deposit, see my flat that I put on the market and make an offer which is accepted.
My previous tenants are not in a position to buy / don't want to buy and are still looking for rental accommodation.
See how the available demand could adjust. There is a rental market for a reason, because people either can't afford to or do not want to buy.
The rental market is probably about 1/10th the owner occupier market. the impact of moving a rental property to an owner occupier property has a greater effect on the remaining rental market as opposed to the owner occupancy market.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Your making assumptions Graham.
Lets assume a different scenario: -
Would be FTBer, living at home with parents, saving a deposit, see my flat that I put on the market and make an offer which is accepted.
My previous tenants are not in a position to buy / don't want to buy and are still looking for rental accommodation.
See how the available demand could adjust. There is a rental market for a reason, because people either can't afford to or do not want to buy.
The rental market is probably about 1/10th the owner occupier market. the impact of moving a rental property to an owner occupier property has a greater effect on the remaining rental market as opposed to the owner occupancy market.
Rigghhhht.
So you are going to sell your rental house to this demand created by people sitting at home.
These people sitting at home can't afford to rent their own place, but they CAN afford to buy this glut of rental homes suddenly for sale.
Meanwhile, renters cannot afford to buy these places, so the demand for rent will stay the same, therefore rents will go up.
But the whole point of you selling is that rent's would fall (hence why you said investors would sell up).
Righty-o.
I admire how no matter what happens, prices and rents simply cannot fall....supply and demand is out of the window. But when it comes to suggesting why prices may rise, it's all "ooooo, supply and demand".0 -
One observation I can make from personal experience of friends and family etc is that people tend to buy a 'better' property than they rented.
So some-one flat sharing with friends would buy as a minimum one bed or two bed place or even a 3 bed house (all depends upon where you live and personal circumstances).
So it may be that if rental properties became fewer then ocupacy of the now owner occupier house would probably be less than formerly.0 -
*grammarGraham_Devon wrote: »I know it's far from me to say this, but it's a very poorly written article.
Now as I say, far from me to correct someones grammer, but seriously, this article is very poorly written. 0 -
I mean a land tax that is levied on the value of the land; so land zoned for housing development whether built on or not would have a higher value that say farm land.
The tax that is levied on build houses would be paid by the owner just like Council tax.
The tax wouldn't be on the building process (unlike infrastructure levies and 'affordable' housing levies) but on the land whether built on or not.
Any tax levied on the development approved land would get rolled up into the eventual cost of the built property one way or another. A developer would simply pass it on.
The only benefit it would have is to hopefully stop people sitting on land banks."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards