BOE: "Not our job to regulate house prices"

theEnd

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Probably because they want you to buy silver.:money:

It's probably to overstate GDP, which would usually cause the opposite.

theEnd

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Rents are at a new record high, and have risen by more than both wage inflation and CPI since 2009.

House prices are not yet at new record highs in most areas, but are rising fast.

ONS says 3.1% since the start of 2009.

RPI - 13.5%
CPI - 11.0%

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

theEnd wrote: »

ONS says 3.1% since the start of 2009.

So?

ONS includes the existing rents of all tenants, even leases agreed a decade ago, not just those rents coming up for renewal or new rents.

From the ONS website....

IPHRP measures the rental prices paid for all the private rented dwelling stock for both existing agreed rents and new rents. IPHRP is not designed as an index that measures the average price of new rental agreements.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_311546.pdf

Which would be like valuing houses by taking an average of all last sales prices, even those paid years or decades ago.

Rent in my town is up 11% in the last 12 months.

The average rent of all tenants in my town is obviously not, as there will still be tenants with previous tenancies running.

But I'd have to pay 11% more to rent a house today than I would a year ago.

Which counts as rising rents to me.:)

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

. Why should the taxpayer build thousands of houses, rent them out at a lower than market rent, and then sell them off cheap when politics takes over?

To provide a much needed supply.

Save billions in HB.

Keep them rather than sell them off or at least do it at market value and replace it.

Conrad

shortchanged wrote: »

So why aren't we doing anything about it?

If there is a shortage and we know there is a demand, unless house building is being rationed to maintain high prices, what other reason is there?

You could build 5 million new homes, would solve nothing really, just attract even more demand much of it from migrants here for a piece of the action claiming they are in need of asylum for being gay or whatever other ruse is flavour of the month (I'm a strong defender of gay rights though).

If you build more houses you need more roads, where does it all end? Pretty crowded down here already, too many Humans, too many animal road kills, too much destruction, too much pressure on land, water and resources, enough is enough.

ILW

grizzly1911 wrote: »

To provide a much needed supply.

Save billions in HB.

Keep them rather than sell them off or at least do it at market value and replace it.

Would work if tied to strict tenancy agreements such as:
Keeping the place decent.
No antisocial behaviour.
No owning of other property
No letting out
etc.
Bit like the original council and social housing.
Not available to new immigrants.

Conrad

grizzly1911 wrote: »

To provide a much needed supply.

Save billions in HB.

Keep them rather than sell them off or at least do it at market value and replace it.

Kelam then gets on Facebook and shows off his new shiny home to the folk back home who then have even more desire to get here.

Did you hear Radio 5 the other night in Calaise? Immigrant after immigrant wanting to get away from France and into Britain. They kept saying they know they can 'get a house' because their friends and relatives did just that. I see it daily with the letting agency here. Do not fall for the quaint niave Owen Jones line you cannot get housing / benefits - there are many ways around the porous system.

Without an almost zero tolerant border service, no amount of building will solve the issue.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

To provide a much needed supply.

Save billions in HB.

Keep them rather than sell them off or at least do it at market value and replace it.

It would be nice in theory but even those of us without a cynical bone in our bodies would find it difficult to believe that a housing building scheme directly controlled by politicians could be anything other than a disaster.

We can't even say that at least the houses would be built - in a generation they'll be referred to as Cameron's Kites because the roofs keep blowing off and be held in the same affection as a Glasgow tower block.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

To provide a much needed supply.

Save billions in HB.

Keep them rather than sell them off or at least do it at market value and replace it.

lets say a house costs about 200,000 to build
so £1 billion would build 5,000 house

lets say HB per typical property is about 12,000 per year (I've no real idea maybe some-one else knows a better figure)
so saving in HB would be £6 million per year


so £1 billion spend would save £6 million per year so would break even in 166 years

be a lot cheaper for the government to get rid of the infrastructure charges and 'affordable' housing levies and reduce the planning restrictions so it makes it possible for the private sector to build more properties at no cost to the taxpayer

shortchanged_2

Any reason why the government couldn't build thousands of houses and sell them at cost or for just a tiny little profit?

Is that going to cost the taxpayer?

Seeing as the government is happy to interfere in the mortgage market by guaranteeing loans via HTB.