Government should help those without bank of mum and dad

chucky

Generali wrote: »

Yes but everything I have ever seen tells me that these sorts of interventions into the market simply don't work.

Much better to make it easier to build houses. There are loads of unemployed builders, apparently, that would love to be out there building. More houses = lower prices (long term) + more employment. Every one's a winner.

You're are right but I think to get something like HTB off the ground they need to get buy in from not just the builders but also from the banks and probably a few others. As we know banks aren't going to want property values to drop.

If HTB has any positive effect it will be on the supply side but as you say I can't see it crashing/lowering prices as you need more supply initially before increasing the demand through the mortgage market.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

how did the RTB change the number of properties availbale: renter simply became owners : more owners less renter

I've used real examples to show this before.

* My G-I-L had a council house (she rented)

* The council would not adapt the house to suit here elderly needs, so we (as a family) supported her to buy her house and modernise to help her (one renter down, now an owner occupier)

* A few years later, she needed to go into care, so the house was sold on to another owner occupier. (Owner Occupier)

* The thing is, the next generation has one less council house to choose from. Historically, when the G-I-L went into care, the house was then recycled for the next council house tenant (there are plenty on the waiting lists)

So short term, yes, one renter down, one extra owner occupier = no imbalance.
Extrapolate longer term and there is a lack of supply for the next generation and growing population.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've used real examples to show this before.

* My G-I-L had a council house (she rented)

* The council would not adapt the house to suit here elderly needs, so we (as a family) supported her to buy her house and modernise to help her (one renter down, now an owner occupier)

* A few years later, she needed to go into care, so the house was sold on to another owner occupier. (Owner Occupier)

* The thing is, the next generation has one less council house to choose from. Historically, when the G-I-L went into care, the house was then recycled for the next council house tenant (there are plenty on the waiting lists)

So short term, yes, one renter down, one extra owner occupier = no imbalance.
Extrapolate longer term and there is a lack of supply for the next generation and growing population.

if the population grows and the housing supply doesn't; then yes there are fewer houses in relation to the growing population

can't disagree with that

I've no idea however why you see that a council house converted into an owner occupier house is a bad thing

ABetterLife

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've no idea however why you see that a council house converted into an owner occupier house is a bad thing

Maybe because then there are less council houses for the thousands of people waiting?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

But more owner occupied houses for the millions of people waiting....

Bantex_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

if the population grows and the housing supply doesn't; then yes there are fewer houses in relation to the growing population

can't disagree with that

I've no idea however why you see that a council house converted into an owner occupier house is a bad thing

When the council end up paying £2000 per month HB on a place that they used to rent for £300 per month, it gets a bit daft.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Yes but everything I have ever seen tells me that these sorts of interventions into the market simply don't work.

Much better to make it easier to build houses. There are loads of unemployed builders, apparently, that would love to be out there building. More houses = lower prices (long term) + more employment. Every one's a winner.

My thoughts entirely.

HTB has in effect, already done this.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've no idea however why you see that a council house converted into an owner occupier house is a bad thing

Like I mentioned, it means the council housing stock is not cycled back for the future generations.

The example I gave was one where a person had a council house for 50 years, bought it under RTB and then sold a few years later.

The next generation is deprived of the house as a council house option.

I've posted graphs before showing the reduction in social housing and that BTL has only partially filled the void. Population expansion merely magnifies the problem.

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

When the council end up paying £2000 per month HB on a place that they used to rent for £300 per month, it gets a bit daft.

Yes indeed HB as currently working is entirely mad and needs much more reform.

Many people in council houses are richer than people who rent privately or are struggling to buy their own home : I've no idea why you think this is a good thing that these struggling people should pay taxes to support people better off than themselves.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Like I mentioned, it means the council housing stock is not cycled back for the future generations.

The example I gave was one where a person had a council house for 50 years, bought it under RTB and then sold a few years later.

The next generation is deprived of the house as a council house option.

I've posted graphs before showing the reduction in social housing and that BTL has only partially filled the void. Population expansion merely magnifies the problem.

There is little reason why tax payer subsidised council housing should be an option.

I see it an desirable that more people own rather than live in ghettos of subsidised housing.