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
-
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.
Make your mind up. People either need the subsidy or it's a political decision. It's the latter BTW - without HB some people wouldn't be able to live in houses as nice as they are currently. They'd have to downgrade, increase housing density, etc.grizzly1911 wrote: »ItThe question is which is most efficient use of taxpayer money. Renting properties for this purpose or buying and supplying them.
It's not a question for me. We, as taxpayers, should own and supply houses to the vulnerable in society. The rest should provide their own housing and be subsidised only to cover short term problems like unemployment etc.grizzly1911 wrote: »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.
Correct. No reason at all yet it's happened in the past and is happening now.grizzly1911 wrote: »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?
IMO it's cheaper to buy but I don't think the taxpayer should really be doing either so it's moot.
[QUOTE=grizzly1911;64668564The_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.[/QUOTE]
The role of government is to help the free market do its best but broadly I'd be supportive of a smaller state. You need to remember that low interest rates and QE aren't there to subsidise the housing market though.
Squeezing HB would force people to provide their own housing. I think this would actually lead to more houses being built as they increased income. If I turn up at a building site to buy a house it gets some attention. If I turn up and ask for a free house they seem less interested.0 -
Make your mind up. People either need the subsidy or it's a political decision. It's the latter BTW - without HB some people wouldn't be able to live in houses as nice as they are currently. They'd have to downgrade, increase housing density, etc.
People need a subsidy. It is a political decision how much is provided or not.
It's not a question for me. We, as taxpayers, should own and supply houses to the vulnerable in society. The rest should provide their own housing and be subsidised only to cover short term problems like unemployment etc.
We don't own enough. We certainly don't own enough of the right type as the benefit tax has hilighted.
IMO it's cheaper to buy but I don't think the taxpayer should really be doing either so it's moot.
As you point out it is cheaper to buy but governments seem happy to squander increasing amounts of our money to rent. In an ideal world we wouldn't have disadvantaged people needing support. We do not live in an ideal world.
The role of government is to help the free market do its best but broadly I'd be supportive of a smaller state. You need to remember that low interest rates and QE aren't there to subsidise the housing market though.
They are not there solely to subsidise the housing market, you are right The proportion that is there is more to prop it up and the economy that is dependent on the high house prices allowing lenders time to unwind positions.
I am not sure why loans to purchase residential property have to be pegged to a base rate and not some other mortgage rate.
Squeezing HB would force people to provide their own housing. I think this would actually lead to more houses being built as they increased income. If I turn up at a building site to buy a house it gets some attention. If I turn up and ask for a free house they seem less interested.
As who increased income? The builders?"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 -
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 ).
Perhaps you should make them more clear.
There is no reason people shouldn't rent. for what ever reason they choose. For long term use it isn't efficient for them to rent but that is their choice.
The question I posed is why it is better for the government to rent the stock it needs but it isn't recommended for individuals to rent?
If it is more efficient for an individual then why not the state?
Subprime:eek:"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 -
[FONT="]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?
It is a combination of demographic changes and wealth
Demographics means that there are more and more single person households. About 8 million of them in the UK and growing. These are widows, people who never marry, people who have no other family to share with plus many more reasons. Also as families have fewer kids we need more housing per capita. In the past it could have been mum and dad plus 9 kids meaning 11 persons to that one home was fine. Now it may mean mum and dad and 1 kid meaning 3 persons to that one home or per capita needs have gone up nearly 4x
Then there is wealth. That means we don’t want to live 2 families to a house. That means we don’t want to take on 2 lodgers, that means you don’t want multi-generational living.
So does this mean the number needs to always fall. NO there will be a point where need not fall anymore because there is a limit to demographics. You can go from having 9 kids to having 1 kid but you cannot go to minus kids. You can go from living three generations to a home to one generation but you cannot go to negative generations.
What this means in practise is that the fall in occupancy rate slows with time but falls nonetheless. Typically we have seen that the occupancy rate tends to fall towards just below 1.9[/FONT]0 -
Yes it must. By 2100 we'll have 10 houses per person!
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!
:rotfl:
a fool who thinks himself not a fool, now that is the :rotfl:
Occupancy rate has always fallen in the UK and elsewhere for that matter, that has happened not because occupancy rates have always fallen but because of demographic changes.
We need more homes per capita to cater for smaller families and people who have no families. We need more homes per capita as we as a society don’t like or want multi generational living. We don’t want two families sharing one house. We don’t want to rent out spare rooms to strangers. We need more homes as ageing means we spend more time of our lives as two persons per home (couple of pensioners) or 1 person per home (widow) than we do as a family with kids.
That does not mean the occupancy rate will fall to 0.1 (ie 10 homes per person). What it means is that the occupancy rate will fall from todays figures and will continue to fall until demographic changes that put pressure on housing needs per capita slow and then stop.
To try to put a figure on it, the occupancy rate will fall towards 1.5 - 2.0 for a nation. Some nations where multi-generational living is the norm eg india the figure may be much higher eg 3-4
What is certain is that the occupancy rate in the UK is too high (France, Ireland, Spain, Germany, are all lower) which is why we have so many more 20-35 years olds living with mum and dad. It is why we have so many more HMOs. It is why so many more people let a room to a lodger.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.
The social housing issue is funney
you ask the same idots who say "the government should never have sold off council homes" the simple question.....should the government buy private homes and call them council homes? Guess what...they cry no that isnt a good idea
So the government selling homes is a bad idea, but the government buying homes is also a bad idea......0 -
The social housing issue is funney
you ask the same idots who say "the government should never have sold off council homes" the simple question.....should the government buy private homes and call them council homes? Guess what...they cry no that isnt a good idea
So the government selling homes is a bad idea, but the government buying homes is also a bad idea......
Might be a good Idea if they could buy them at the discount they sold them for.0 -
Might be a good Idea if they could buy them at the discount they sold them for.
So the problem isnt that they sold some council homes, the problem is that they gave long term tenants a discount?
take away the discount I got no problems with that
What is not so nice though, is that in some places not far off 50% of the housing stock is council. Eg Hackney is over 45% council homes. It just creates sink estate after sink estate.
Just sell them off to the highest bidder as and when they become available to reduce the local stock to no more than 20% (still higher than the national average)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