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!
BOE: "Not our job to regulate house prices"
Comments
-
Councils wouldn't build houses directly - they put the building out to tender.
There is no free lunch. Maybe builders margins could be squeezed but once the public sector gets involved efficiency will drop to compensate.
Question in how far it needs to fall to outstrip the myriad layers of profits that need to be generated for all entities in the private build and purchase through to BTL.
At the end of the day an asset would be created just with different owners.
It is regularly espoused here that renting is not good if you can afford to buy. The government will always have a need to provide housing, which is currently growing and can afford to buy but opts to rent housing? Why is good for the individual but bad the centre?"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 -
Council housing in the 60s was better than the slums and the overcrowding caused by the massive bombing damage.
It was not better that decent provision of housing of owner occupier or decent rented property.
The objections to council housing are broadly about
- subsidising property rather than people
- discouraging mobility for the tenants
- tenancies for life irrespective of changes in income and of housing need
- unreasonable costly housing standards
- disassociating cost and housing choice.
there is also issues of creating ghettos etc
Post war council property was as good if not better than private property built at the same time.
The estates were not ghettos at the time.
I agree that the rent paid should be related to what the tenant can afford.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Question in how far it needs to fall to outstrip the myriad layers of profits that need to be generated for all entities in the private build and purchase through to BTL.
At the end of the day an asset would be created just with different owners.
It is regularly espoused here that renting is not good if you can afford to buy. The government will always have a need to provide housing, which is currently growing and can afford to buy but opts to rent housing? Why is good for the individual but bad the centre?
Are the 'myriad' layers of profit less if the end customer is the government rather than a private buyer or are you suggesting using directly employed labour?
Those myriad layers also of course allow for competitive tendering which can force down costs.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Question in how far it needs to fall to outstrip the myriad layers of profits that need to be generated for all entities in the private build and purchase through to BTL.
All those myriad layers would still be there whether a new house was being built for rent by a BTL or council.
The public sector aren't going to be any more efficient in delivering rented houses. HB might fall because councils rent at below market rents - the cost to the taxpayer is the same - it just appears somewhere else.0 -
All those myriad layers would still be there whether a new house was being built for rent by a BTL or council.
The public sector aren't going to be any more efficient in delivering rented houses. HB might fall because councils rent at below market rents - the cost to the taxpayer is the same - it just appears somewhere else.
Do BTLs not provide a profit if they do that is an extra cost.0 -
Do BTLs not provide a profit if they do that is an extra cost.
In a competitive market place the prices are lower than they would be in a monopoly so the over product is cheaper than if their was no competition; so profit is not an 'extra cost' but like labour simply a cost of doing business.0 -
In a competitive market place the prices are lower than they would be in a monopoly so the over product is cheaper than if their was no competition; so profit is not an 'extra cost' but like labour simply a cost of doing business.
No one is arguing for a monopoly of supply what is needed is mixed housing stock.0 -
Do BTLs not provide a profit if they do that is an extra cost.
Plus
Higher cost of lending
Lending fees
Sales fees
Individual legal fees
Valuation fees
Tenant vetting costs
All of which will be passed on to the BTletter for onward recovery."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 -
Do BTLs not provide a profit if they do that is an extra cost.
If council houses are rented at below market rent then that's a cost too. The ethical diversity person at the council is a cost too, so is the public sector pension scheme, so are the additional sick days that the public sector take. I can't see a credible argument for saying that politicians can create rented accommodation more efficiently than the private sector.
However, we're looking through the wrong end of the telescope - there are a number of ways in which housing supply COULD be increased but the fact is that supply has lagged demand for at least two decades.
We should be looking at the reasons for this. Arguing about who pays for the houses (that aren't being built) misses the point.0 -
Are the 'myriad' layers of profit less if the end customer is the government rather than a private buyer or are you suggesting using directly employed labour?
Those myriad layers also of course allow for competitive tendering which can force down costs.
Are the government precludied from adopting competitive tendering? Surely in a free market it would be good to engage with more than one supplier to ensure they are competing."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
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards