House price rises 'must stop'

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

.....Mr Cable warned that a rising house market was not enough to restore the economy to health. “If we are going to get a recovery it has to come through exports and British industry, not property inflation,” he said

He's only an old duffer, allegedly, what does it matter?

He is indeed rather senile, and should be quietly pensioned off.

A housing recovery, and any other initiatives aimed at exports and British industry are not mutually exlusive. So why doesn't he just concentrate on what will help industry as well as house buyers?

CKhalvashi wrote: »

The building industry would benefit more from an additional 2000 properties a week being built and prices dropping. Everyone would benefit from prices in most areas that are in line with what people actually earn......

I really thought that the last 5 years or so have proven the point in trumps that at prices any lower than current, the building industry wouldn't even build 200 new houses a month, let alone 2,000 a week!

I simply don't understand why people keep expecting lower house prices to solve current problems. There are costs to building a house. Unless the taxpayer subsidises every single one of them, how can they be substantially cheaper? The only way I can think of is by throwing away some of the insulation regulations, other building regulations, and perhaps changing expectations that houses come with plain plastered walls and kitchens, bathrooms and the like must be added by the buyer.

It could be done if we go back to building in the same way as some of them on the council estate I grew up in. They were pre-fabricated things. Some in a sort of corrugated galvanised iron, and some in overlapping concrete panels. BUt all of this would not lower the prices of good traditional built houses.

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

.

The argument that government can provide housing 'cheaper' than the private sector via HB, depends upon the fallacy that the public sector housing assets have no value : i.e. a property 25 years old that has had it's building cost covered is somehow worth zero.

It really really doesn't. When a property has had it's building cost covered, it costs the state nothing (beyond essential structural maintenance of course), and provides an ongoing benefit by fulfilling the function it was designed to do. It's value at that point is neither here nor there. In that sense it is no different to a school, hospital, or any other publicly owned building that is fulfilling a vital function

CLAPTON wrote: »

And no, I don't see it is the state's job to see people are adequately housed although I do think we need to support the poorest.

And that's where we irrevocably disagree of course. In the last resort, it is imho the job of the state to ensure that everyone has access to decent housing, just as it is the job of the state to ensure that people have access to an education, healthcare etc. There are countries where these things are not seen as a government responsibility, but personally I'm very glad I don't live in one.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

the state

Is almost always the least efficient and costliest way of doing anything.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

It really really doesn't. When a property has had it's building cost covered, it costs the state nothing (beyond essential structural maintenance of course), and provides an ongoing benefit by fulfilling the function it was designed to do. It's value at that point is neither here nor there. In that sense it is no different to a school, hospital, or any other publicly owned building that is fulfilling a vital function



And that's where we irrevocably disagree of course. In the last resort, it is imho the job of the state to ensure that everyone has access to decent housing, just as it is the job of the state to ensure that people have access to an education, healthcare etc. There are countries where these things are not seen as a government responsibility, but personally I'm very glad I don't live in one.

The job of the state is to provide a safety net for people who can't provide for themselves.
Sadly we have moved away from this principle so that everyone, irrespective of any willingness to work, has a 'decent' standard of living.
In providing 'decent' standard of living in terms of material possessions (housing, food, clothes, education, flat screen TVs etc) we have actively encouraged family breakdown, drug taking, millions of fatherless children, a whole class of the young who never wish to work etc)
All things can't be measured by material possessions we need to return to moral values and encourage and reward responsible behaviour.



By ignoring the asset value of state property, you ignore the opportunities of making better use of the money: money tied up on an unnecessary property portfolio could be used to improve the health service or education or important infrastructure, improving the property stock in other ways etc.

An interesting thought is the government could buy up the total housing stock of the UK; after 20 years or so the value would be zero so the whole of the country could live rent free (except for maintenance of course).
Wonderful idea ?

globalds

CLAPTON wrote: »

The job of the state is to provide a safety net for people who can't provide for themselves.
Sadly we have moved away from this principle so that everyone, irrespective of any willingness to work, has a 'decent' standard of living.
In providing 'decent' standard of living in terms of material possessions (housing, food, clothes, education, flat screen TVs etc) we have actively encouraged family breakdown, drug taking, millions of fatherless children, a whole class of the young who never wish to work etc)
All things can't be measured by material possessions we need to return to moral values and encourage and reward responsible behaviour.



By ignoring the asset value of state property, you ignore the opportunities of making better use of the money: money tied up on an unnecessary property portfolio could be used to improve the health service or education or important infrastructure, improving the property stock in other ways etc.

An interesting thought is the government could buy up the total housing stock of the UK; after 20 years or so the value would be zero so the whole of the country could live rent free (except for maintenance of course).
Wonderful idea ?

But the state doesn't ignore the asset value .The state sees the value of the asset as more than just the sales value ..

This is like looking at a cow as just the value of the meat ..and ignoring the milk yield every day or the fact that the cow pulls your plough.
The social housing stock of this country is not just a source of revenue to pay for mistakes of bad government policy or an opportunity for unscrupulous people to take something as there's that is for the good of all and provides a return that will have to be covered with taxes elsewhere.

What is a real concern of mine is that some of the new build apartments going up especially in London will eventually end up becoming part of social housing and the nature of this building is that it may become increasing costly to maintain in the future ..It will become a liability to the taxpayer as it is not of the quality of current social housing.

JencParker

Jason74 wrote: »

In one sense yes. Reduce the price of any good (particularly something as vital as housing), and more people will want it.The propensity of the market to supply it will also be reduced if there is less profit to be made.

The flip side of this, will be a lot of properties currently in the private rented sector being returned to the owner-occupied sector as landlords sell up due to the model no longer being economic (and if this doesn't happen, supply does not reduce so the whole argument becomes moot). The trend of properties being taken out of the owner occupied sector and into private rented sector will also go into reverse. Both of these things are in themselves desirable imho from a "social justice" perspective (although I recognise that this is a matter of opinion), but you are right in that they don't solve the fundamental problem.

Which is why, ultimately the solution has to be more building, particularly of social rented housing. The only times in the post war period where house building has kept pace with demand, has been when there has been an element of public funding to produce it. Such funding directly pays for itself in the long term, as the rent received on the property eventually covers the cost of building and maintaining it (not to mention that a portion of the money comes back to the govt. in tax receipts anyway).

You can then peg rents to affordability, meaning that people can afford a decent home. Prioritising access to these new homes to people with a certain history of NI contributions will also make work pay far more for many people than it does at present.

That kind of process will never happen of course, as we have a view around housing in the UK that "the market" is a sacred cow that cannot be touched. However, the fact is that the market is not working for a large number of people in the UK at present, and that number is steadily growing. When it is possible to alleviate the housing crisis by in effect by passing the market, it is bordering on criminal imho that we are choosing not to do so.

I think you'll find there are few members on this board who are interested in social justice, just in lining their own pockets so I doubt you will get much support.

CLAPTON

if you truely believe that

could be used to improve the health service or education or important infrastructure, improving the property stock in other ways etc.

is equivalent to

globalds wrote: »

just a source of revenue to pay for mistakes of bad government policy or an opportunity for unscrupulous people to take something as there's that is for the good of all and provides a return that will have to be covered with taxes elsewhere.

then we are truely on different wavelengths

however the following is another good reason why the state shouldnot own property

globalds wrote: »

What is a real concern of mine is that some of the new build apartments going up especially in London will eventually end up becoming part of social housing and the nature of this building is that it may become increasing costly to maintain in the future ..It will become a liability to the taxpayer as it is not of the quality of current social housing.

globalds

CLAPTON wrote: »

then we are truly on different wavelengths

We most definitely are.
But that should not be used as a reason not to take part in discussion in a reasonable manner.

I honestly believe the majority of large scale council housing estates have devalued this often very pretty land of ours
I don't see the skills of central government to be that great and my experience of the stuff slung up willy nilly all over this Isle with little regard to local materials ,construction techniques or within keeping of local styles is proof to me that social housing should not mean central planning in a soviet manner.

But that does not mean I do not recognise that thoughtful planning of large communities with opportunities for work ,leisure ,education and access to services requires much more than a BTL army of landlords can achieve and a belief they cared about any of these issues.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Is almost always the least efficient and costliest way of doing anything.

Of course when the state is supporting the housing market that is OK.

CLAPTON

globalds wrote: »

We most definitely are.
But that should not be used as a reason not to take part in discussion in a reasonable manner.

I honestly believe the majority of large scale council housing estates have devalued this often very pretty land of ours
I don't see the skills of central government to be that great and my experience of the stuff slung up willy nilly all over this Isle with little regard to local materials ,construction techniques or within keeping of local styles is proof to me that social housing should not mean central planning in a soviet manner.

But that does not mean I do not recognise that thoughtful planning of large communities with opportunities for work ,leisure ,education and access to services requires much more than a BTL army of landlords can achieve and a belief they cared about any of these issues.

yes indeed, if the state planned better then total state control over all aspects of our lives would be utopia.
so the state having failed numerous times already we need more detailed better plans; and when they fail the answer will be more detailed better plans and when they fail.....................


on the whole rental businesses do not plan local environments or even individual properties but merely buy them on the open market.


so if we have a failure of our cities then it's a failure of the majority and little to do with rental businesses.