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!
The need for a property owning democracy
chucky
Posts: 15,170 Forumite
A very good article.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/06/margaret-thatcher-britains-obsession-property-right-to-buy?CMP=twt_guThrough thrift and hard work, went the theory, ordinary families should be able to buy their own homes.
0
Comments
-
it may well be that Guardian writers are truely obsessed by financial gain from home ownership but in the real world of real people (that Guardian writers never meet) most simply buy a home for their family.0 -
Thanks for this. A really good read, and one that I would broadly agree with. The most telling points for me were :
"Planning apart, there is a deep flaw with the idea that the market alone will meet all the country's housing needs. The problem is not only to do with the numbers supplied, but with how much each home costs and housebuilders cannot be expected to lead a process that results in the value of their product going down. They would rather sit on their land until such time as its price goes up, which means that some other agency has to do what they won't, which means, in effect, that the government has to intervene more actively in promoting building – by acquiring land, producing considered plans for its development, and then promoting such development."
And :
"Given that in much of Britain the price of homes is high, a slow deflation might be desirable; the ideal could be that prices stay the same, so that they gently fall in real terms. But the coalition's big idea is the opposite. With Help to Buy, changing pension rules and other measures, they have stimulated demand without a corresponding increase in supply, such that prices go up further. As the Financial Times has said, this is economically illiterate. It would be a useful first step to reverse these policies."
Not much chance of either of these things happening in the current political climate of course, so we'll just continue with the mantra that providing housing is not a government issue, and the problem will just continue to get worse.0 -
Thanks for this. A really good read, and one that I would broadly agree with. The most telling points for me were :
"Planning apart, there is a deep flaw with the idea that the market alone will meet all the country's housing needs. The problem is not only to do with the numbers supplied, but with how much each home costs and housebuilders cannot be expected to lead a process that results in the value of their product going down. They would rather sit on their land until such time as its price goes up, which means that some other agency has to do what they won't, which means, in effect, that the government has to intervene more actively in promoting building – by acquiring land, producing considered plans for its development, and then promoting such development."
And :
"Given that in much of Britain the price of homes is high, a slow deflation might be desirable; the ideal could be that prices stay the same, so that they gently fall in real terms. But the coalition's big idea is the opposite. With Help to Buy, changing pension rules and other measures, they have stimulated demand without a corresponding increase in supply, such that prices go up further. As the Financial Times has said, this is economically illiterate. It would be a useful first step to reverse these policies."
Not much chance of either of these things happening in the current political climate of course, so we'll just continue with the mantra that providing housing is not a government issue, and the problem will just continue to get worse.
Yes indeed the government needs to change the planning rules (and costs) so more houses can be built.0 -
The Right to Buy can be viewed as a great opportunity for the relatively poor to have a stake in the growing property owning class. For many it undoubtedly worked. They served their time on the council estate and then traded up to bigger and better homes and understood the risks of owning a house. Others stayed put on estates that now have so few council owned properties that there is no stigma attached to owning one. For these it worked rather well as they eventually owned a house mortgage free.
It also had negative effects, those that traded up developed an acquisitive streak to accumulate wealth that helped breed the selfish attitudes that started in that era. Others did not have a reliable steady income, failed to understand the cost of owning a house and ended up getting their home re-possessed causing a lot of misery and social distress.
It also stimulated wider property demand as people engaged in the trading up game, becoming obsessed with the value of their homes. It allowed employers to suppress terms and conditions or to "encourage" people to go self employed, because more and more people had something to lose by objecting to change, so working people became less willing to protest. But perhaps the worst impact was that it made borrowing money a way of life, people became ever ready to borrow against increasing equity of their house: increase your mortgage, have a car or holiday you could not really afford, get into debt....
So yes it worked well for those that could cope, but had its casualties.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Developers need an income stream. Sitting on land banks is an expensive business. As it's borrowed money in the main.0
-
Not a chance of anything changing.Not much chance of either of these things happening in the current political climate of course, so we'll just continue with the mantra that providing housing is not a government issue, and the problem will just continue to get worse.
People need to adapt to the system or get left behind.0 -
The Right to Buy can be viewed as a great opportunity for the relatively poor to have a stake in the growing property owning class. For many it undoubtedly worked. They served their time on the council estate and then traded up to bigger and better homes and understood the risks of owning a house. Others stayed put on estates that now have so few council owned properties that there is no stigma attached to owning one. For these it worked rather well as they eventually owned a house mortgage free.
It also had negative effects, those that traded up developed an acquisitive streak to accumulate wealth that helped breed the selfish attitudes that started in that era. Others did not have a reliable steady income, failed to understand the cost of owning a house and ended up getting their home re-possessed causing a lot of misery and social distress.
It also stimulated wider property demand as people engaged in the trading up game, becoming obsessed with the value of their homes. It allowed employers to suppress terms and conditions or to "encourage" people to go self employed, because more and more people had something to lose by objecting to change, so working people became less willing to protest. But perhaps the worst impact was that it made borrowing money a way of life, people became ever ready to borrow against increasing equity of their house: increase your mortgage, have a car or holiday you could not really afford, get into debt....
So yes it worked well for those that could cope, but had its casualties.
we are all truely sorry that your family and your personal circle of friends became greedy and selfish obsessed only with the price of their property and drowning in debt
fortunately many people bought houses to live in, upgraded when their family expanded or when they could afford that large garden they always wanted, enjoyed a good lifestyle and hardly ever mentioned the price of their property.0 -
we are all truely sorry that your family and your personal circle of friends became greedy and selfish obsessed only with the price of their property and drowning in debt
They did not but I do know a few that did.fortunately many people bought houses to live in, upgraded when their family expanded or when they could afford that large garden they always wanted, enjoyed a good lifestyle and hardly ever mentioned the price of their property.
Of course they did and this is how many sensible people like you and I live our lives.
The problem is that a lot of people did not do this. Some were reckless, some unlucky, and some just failed to understand how to deal with the situation. If you have never met such people it perhaps suggests the rarefied social circles you mix in
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
They did not but I do know a few that did.
Of course they did and this is how many sensible people like you and I live our lives.
The problem is that a lot of people did not do this. Some were reckless, some unlucky, and some just failed to understand how to deal with the situation. If you have never met such people it perhaps suggests the rarefied social circles you mix in
There are always unwise people whatever the circumstances; these few oddballs have little relevance to the current housing situation.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
- 454.3K 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