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
-
It wouldn't but it would reduce the housing benefit bill in the long term.
Wouldn't just reducing housing benefit have exactly the same effect with much less hassle?
Housing benefit is entirely arbitrary in allocation designed to provide people with houses that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford but the state has decided they should have.
It would seem entirely normal a few years ago for people to share houses to reduce housing costs. Who's to say HB is at the correct level - it might just be exacerbating the current shortage of housing.0 -
Wouldn't just reducing housing benefit have exactly the same effect with much less hassle?
Housing benefit is entirely arbitrary in allocation designed to provide people with houses that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford but the state has decided they should have.
It would seem entirely normal a few years ago for people to share houses to reduce housing costs. Who's to say HB is at the correct level - it might just be exacerbating the current shortage of housing.
Because we don't want the people of this country to live like cattle
The solution to a shortage of homes is to build more, not to play accounting tricks or to force multiple families to share a house.0 -
double post0
-
It wouldn't but it would reduce the housing benefit bill in the long term.
How
Private rented homes are lived in more densely than council homes
Say the government baught 3 million privately rented homes and called them council homes instead. First some 8 million people would be vacated from the PR and the government would then have 3 million homes but could only put 7 million people into them
you have just put 1 million under bridges and on park benches
The private rental sector is growing exactly because there are too few homes0 -
The private rental sector is growing exactly because there are too few homes
Isn't this just shuffling people amongst the same homes.
BTL didn't reduce the housing capacity of the UK, it just meant more people rented and fewer bought.
Right to buy led to fewer renters and more owners.
Neither thing changed the total capacity of the UK's housing stock.0 -
Because we don't want the people of this country to live like cattle
I don't either - is HB so perfectly balanced that reductions would lead to people living like cattle?The solution to a shortage of homes is to build more, not to play accounting tricks or to force multiple families to share a house.
It's not an accounting trick to suggest that increasing housing efficiency could also play a part.0 -
How
Private rented homes are lived in more densely than council homes
Say the government baught 3 million privately rented homes and called them council homes instead. First some 8 million people would be vacated from the PR and the government would then have 3 million homes but could only put 7 million people into them
you have just put 1 million under bridges and on park benches
The private rental sector is growing exactly because there are too few homes
Because people claiming LHA are allocated property on the size of family if those properties or similar size properties were bought by government there would be no difference in occupancy levels.0 -
Isn't this just shuffling people amongst the same homes.
BTL didn't reduce the housing capacity of the UK, it just meant more people rented and fewer bought.
Right to buy led to fewer renters and more owners.
Neither thing changed the total capacity of the UK's housing stock.
Surely BTL increased the available housing capacity. Normally, people dont rent houses far bigger than they need. They are also happier to share houses when renting, its rather more tricky when buying.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......
What is done is done. Extra capacity is required buying existing homes without replacing them would do little to help. Government buying new houses, creating additional capacity and supplying them for social needs wouldn't be a bad idea."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 -
Isn't this just shuffling people amongst the same homes.
BTL didn't reduce the housing capacity of the UK, it just meant more people rented and fewer bought.
Right to buy led to fewer renters and more owners.
Neither thing changed the total capacity of the UK's housing stock.
not true
people in privately rented homes live more dense than any other group
what that means is as the population increases faster than the increase in housing the private rental sector has to grow to avoid homelessness.
For example assume a country has
10 million OO homes at an occupancy of 2.0 persons,
10 million council homes at an occupancy of 2.0 and
10 million private homes at an occupancy of 2.4
This example country thus has 64 million people living in 30 million homes.
Say the population increases by 5 million over the decade and no additional homes are built what would happen??? Would 5 million people live under bridges? No everyone will just have to live more densely.
The council stock would stay about the same, the OO stock would stay about the same as they have locked in prices.
Quite clearly the 10 million private rented homes would have to house these 5 million additional people. So the ocupancy rate would go from 2.4 to 2.9
With these 5 million additional people sharing the rented sector prices will increase because people don't want to live at 2.9 to a house they want to live at 2.0
The result will be rent price inflation and house price inflation. An important part of this is that the OO pool will shrink and the PR pool increase to allow the PR to live a tiny bit less dense and reduce some of the pressure.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards