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!
Osbourne rejects calls to lower HTB limits
Comments
-
No imbalance would be sorted. You'd just ensure that BTL would be for even richer investors who'd get even richer because presumably you'd get rid of HTB too and create a demand for those rentals.
Sure. But those BTL investors won't buy up as many houses as are bought up now (reason below). Leaving houses that would have otherwise been bought by BTL investors on interest only loans to be bought by families.
The reason they wouldn't buy up all the houses being bought now is simply that they are not doing so now. So why would they just because lower end investors found it harder to buy a remortgage BTL product? For the richer investors, nothing has changed.
It seems with every thought put forward, you simply find a way to suggest it will end up with more expensive houses. It can't be so that every single reduction in demand ends with more expensive houses.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Sure. But those BTL investors won't buy up as many houses as are bought up now (reason below). Leaving houses that would have otherwise been bought by BTL investors on interest only loans to be bought by families.
The reason they wouldn't buy up all the houses being bought now is simply that they are not doing so now. So why would they just because lower end investors found it harder to buy a remortgage BTL product? For the richer investors, nothing has changed.
It seems with every thought put forward, you simply find a way to suggest it will end up with more expensive houses. It can't be so that every single reduction in demand ends with more expensive houses.
Where a group of buyers are prevented from buying you might see a fall in prices but your idea will ensure that they'll be snapped up by the rich with little competition from FTB's. There's still a shortage of housing and people compete for it using money so that shortage will have to be paid for via increased rents.
So you might see a temporary dip in prices (and that's where it starts and finishes for you) but you'll soon be moaning about the rich getting richer.
It's not as if this is a fantastical scenario - we've seen it happen before our eyes in the last few years.
You're trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong solution.0 -
Where a group of buyers are prevented from buying you might see a fall in prices but your idea will ensure that they'll be snapped up by the rich with little competition from FTB's. There's still a shortage of housing and people compete for it using money so that shortage will have to be paid for via increased rents.
So you might see a temporary dip in prices (and that's where it starts and finishes for you) but you'll soon be moaning about the rich getting richer.
It's not as if this is a fantastical scenario - we've seen it happen before our eyes in the last few years.
You're trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong solution.
I guess we could go around in circles here.
I just don't see how you assume that one set of investors will eat up all the slack if you remove those who require interest only loans to make their business work.
It didn't happen in 2007-12, so I don't know why it would happen now.
You say I am trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong solution, but this is simply your opinion. And it's the same with anything put forward which risks house prices falling....you simply say its the wrong solution.
Theres a danger of seeing what you find unpalitable solutions as the "wrong" solution. Your posts above go completely against what you have previously stated to me about supply and demand. It also leaves the question hanging as to why rich investors haven't already bought up all the property, if "thats what they would do" if you remove the ability of others to buy....as the ability of others to buy was rmeoved for quite some time.
Why didn't Irish rich investors all rush in and buy up property, instead leaving ghost estates if your theory is correct?0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I just don't see how you assume that one set of investors will eat up all the slack if you remove those who require interest only loans to make their business work.
It didn't happen in 2007-12, so I don't know why it would happen now.
They'll be attracted by the higher rental yields as they were 2007 - 2012.Graham_Devon wrote: »You say I am trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong solution, but this is simply your opinion. And it's the same with anything put forward which risks house prices falling....you simply say its the wrong solution.
The problem is that you just want to suppress prices rather than looking at the wider problem which is a shortage of housing. You might be able to do the former but not much use if you don't have the deposit. You can try taxing BTL, stopping IO for BTL, getting rid of HTB but the price to be paid for a housing shortage will just have to be paid for somewhere else.
I'm not worried about house prices falling. Up, down or sideways works just fine for me.Graham_Devon wrote: »Theres a danger of seeing what you find unpalitable solutions as the "wrong" solution. Your posts above go completely against what you have previously stated to me about supply and demand. It also leaves the question hanging as to why rich investors haven't already bought up all the property, if "thats what they would do" if you remove the ability of others to buy....as the ability of others to buy was rmeoved for quite some time.
If there's a shortage of supply then, unless there's a special lottery, we have to compete based on price so higher prices and higher rents. Not sure why the fact that 100% of houses aren't investor owned negates this.Graham_Devon wrote: »Why didn't Irish rich investors all rush in and buy up property, instead leaving ghost estates if your theory is correct?
A huge oversupply - no point being a landlord if there aren't people to live in your house. On top of that they had huge economic problems so no point being a landlord if people can't afford the rent.
Very different here where there's a shortage of housing, an improving economy and a planning system that ensures a slow supply response.0 -
The problem is that you just want to suppress prices rather than looking at the wider problem which is a shortage of housing.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I'm absolutely positive you are very much aware.
I have long stated that a mass house building programme would be very much welcomed. I've suggested it would create work, create homes and we could borrow to invest or use some of the money put into the other schemes and put it into building. You know this, so I'm staggered that you then turn around and suggest I don't want to look at it.
However, on this thread were talking about the HTB programme. That does not mean I don't want to look at the wider shortage of housing, as I've said so much about this over the years, and we've had so many arguments over it (with you disagreeing with council type housing mass plans) I find it staggering that you can now suggest I want to ignore it.
What we've got it what we have got. Building houses, no matter how welcome that would be is proving extremely difficult. There are other things we can do with what we have now, which is what I was discussing, as that's what the thread is about.
It does not mean I'm focused on just one area, as you well know, so don't know why you go down this route as it just forces argument as you know full well it's a misrepresentation to start with.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »This is a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I'm absolutely positive you are very much aware.
We'll have to agree to disagree - I reckon the first and only thing you think about when faced with a piece of news is the possible effect on house prices.
Don't know why you're offended. You've implied the same about me...Graham_Devon wrote: »And it's the same with anything put forward which risks house prices falling....you simply say its the wrong solution.0 -
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
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards