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!
Uk 1960'S Vs 2000'S
Comments
-
I still don't understand why the average occupany rate MUST fall, especially as the only piece of evidence for this seems to be that it has fallen every decade of the last century so therefore it must continue to do so.
If I can make an analogy - the food industry has increased the average number of calories produced per person each year for a long long time. So should this trend continue? Must be a good thing, right?All I seem to hear is blah blah blah!0 -
I still don't understand why the average occupany rate MUST fall, especially as the only piece of evidence for this seems to be that it has fallen every decade of the last century so therefore it must continue to do so.....
It appears that whilst the average occupancy rate did fall during the 20th C, the rate of decline levelled off towards of the century, and has been relatively stable at around 2.4 people over the past decade.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_259965.pdf0 -
Yes it must. By 2100 we'll have 10 houses per person!I still don't understand why the average occupany rate MUST fall, especially as the only piece of evidence for this seems to be that it has fallen every decade of the last century so therefore it must continue to do so.
Yes, buy shares in food manufacturers, the trends show that food prices can only go up! Population increase, global warming affecting agricultural land, more calories needed per person just because we are "richer", clearly food prices can only go up!If I can make an analogy - the food industry has increased the average number of calories produced per person each year for a long long time. So should this trend continue? Must be a good thing, right?
:rotfl:0 -
There can be no other solution. Carry on ramping...
Surely some other solutions is to build more homes, ease planning regulation (although I have found it easy if you plan it properly) and open up greenbelt land.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Shhhh!!! You're off message. House prices must rise.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Surely some other solutions is to build more homes, ease planning regulation (although I have found it easy if you plan it properly) and open up greenbelt land.0 -
The reason we build too few properties in the combination of the planning laws and the mortgage restrictions and not any innate inability to build.
Whether the majority of people buy or rent is their own business and I have no particular view as to what people should do.
There will always be a need for rental property even if people have sufficient means to buy.
The reason I don't favour the state owning property is because of the adverse social consequences and the inflexibility of the arrangement.
There is no reason for 'ever' increasing HB than can't be addressed.
Regardless of the much vaunted mortgage rationing there will be people that do not meet the model, unless you think subprime would be away to go and there will always be a finite resource if money is lent and circulated prudently.
Still no detail on why it is better for the government to rent the stock it needs but it isn't recommended for individuals to rent.
The inflexibility of the social stock and social issues is not surprising as the stock has been constricted."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 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Regardless of the much vaunted mortgage rationing there will be people that do not meet the model, unless you think subprime would be away to go and there will always be a finite resource if money is lent and circulated prudently.
Still no detail on why it is better for the government to rent the stock it needs but it isn't recommended for individuals to rent.
The inflexibility of the social stock and social issues is not surprising as the stock has been constricted.
You haven't read my post properly.
I see no reason why people shouldn't rent so no question for me to answer and no need for subprime (whatever that means ).0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Still no detail on why it is better for the government to rent the stock it needs but it isn't recommended for individuals to rent.
It's been answered lots of times. The government is there to govern not to provide taxpayer subsidsed builds to rent at subsidised rates and then give them away on a political whim. They become a political plaything from planning to disposal.
The government doesn't 'need' a stock of houses - deciding that they need to pay the rents of certain groups is a choice. There are very few vulnerable people in the UK that really do need the state to sort out their housing.0 -
It's been answered lots of times. The government is there to govern not to provide taxpayer subsidsed builds to rent at subsidised rates and then give them away on a political whim. They become a political plaything from planning to disposal.
The government doesn't 'need' a stock of houses - deciding that they need to pay the rents of certain groups is a choice. There are very few vulnerable people in the UK that really do need the state to sort out their housing.
It hasn't been answered lots of times.
There are millions of people that need subsidisng to live in this fair country. Not sure where you get very few from. Demand continues to grow as does the bill.
It is a political decision as to what we are prepare to pay which is increasing year on year.
The question is which is most efficient use of taxpayer money. Renting properties for this purpose or buying and supplying them.
There is no reason why the houses need to be given away, apart from fruitcake vote chasers doing so for their own indulgence. There is no reason why rents need to be subsidised for those that can afford to pay.
Time after time posters advise that it is better to purchase rather than rent this is no different. Is it cheaper to rent continually or buy?
You continually confuse subsidy with cost containment for your own purpose.
The government could admit defeat, say that it will no longer subsidise any housing, including holding low interest rates, QE, and HTB and allow the free market to do its worst. It could then endeavour to just govern. It would certainly be interesting."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 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »It hasn't been answered lots of times.
There are millions of people that need subsidisng to live in this fair country. Not sure where you get very few from. Demand continues to grow as does the bill.
It is a political decision as to what we are prepare to pay which is increasing year on year.
The question is which is most efficient use of taxpayer money. Renting properties for this purpose or buying and supplying them.
There is no reason why the houses need to be given away, apart from fruitcake vote chasers doing so for their own indulgence. There is no reason why rents need to be subsidised for those that can afford to pay.
Time after time posters advise that it is better to purchase rather than rent this is no different. Is it cheaper to rent continually or buy?
You continually confuse subsidy with cost containment for your own purpose.
The government could admit defeat, say that it will no longer subsidise any housing, including holding low interest rates, QE, and HTB and allow the free market to do its worst. It could then endeavour to just govern. It would certainly be interesting.
The most important question is to find the correct questions to ask before trying to answer them.
Why is HB so high?
why is it increasing?
what are the real needs (not necessarily wants) of people who can't provide for themselves?
what are the social consequences of the various 'solutions'?
what are the (often unintended) consequences overall?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