Labour plans longer tenancies and rent control

princeofpounds

michaels wrote: »

New properties will get built while there is a profit to do so. At the margin a flat costing 60k to be build will be built if it can be sold to a btl investor for 61k. If the new rules mean it is only worth 59k to btl investor then it will not get built leaving the potential tenant living with their parents.

So no this is unlikely to lead to any existing properties being left empty but at the margin it will reduce building.

The key word being at the margin. Your theory assumes that there is not a tighter marginal bottleneck to supply than BTL equity finance.

It's a bit like having a single lane road turn into a four lane highway; make it three lanes and the single road is still going to be the cause of the jam. The reduction in the highway will have barely any impact

The single lane is planning permission. You can see this very simply in the economics of house building. When agri land becomes building land there is a multi-fold increase in value. When building land becomes a house there is a development margin of typically just 15-20pc. In this country building houses is really just a way to monetise value extracted from the planning cartel.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Generali wrote: »

The problem is, you can't get planning permission. Make that simple and cheap to get and the housing problem would solve itself.

I like to think of myself as a liberal, but I wonder if I'm actually a suppressed fascist. I think in situations involving certain key issues of relevance to the whole country (housing, energy, water, transport infrastructure etc) they should just stop muttering about tax benefits for trying to meet housing targets by 2095 and say "we are The Government and we are going to build (council) houses right here." And then hire some builders and do it. Does that make me a dictator or something? There's just no way building of any impact is going to happen if it's left to developers looking at lines on their spreadsheets.

michaels

princeofpounds wrote: »

The key word being at the margin. Your theory assumes that there is not a tighter marginal bottleneck to supply than BTL equity finance.

It's a bit like having a single lane road turn into a four lane highway; make it three lanes and the single road is still going to be the cause of the jam. The reduction in the highway will have barely any impact

The single lane is planning permission. You can see this very simply in the economics of house building. When agri land becomes building land there is a multi-fold increase in value. When building land becomes a house there is a development margin of typically just 15-20pc. In this country building houses is really just a way to monetise value extracted from the planning cartel.

I think that is generally true in most parts of the country, but in lower price areas I am sure there are times where build costs currently exceed values but of course these are not areas with excess demand. However I wonder if even in for example the east end of London where for brownfield sites the clean up and build costs make development marginal and where even a small fall in btl demand might result in some flats not being built. The small fall in prices in 2009 saw a big reduction in residential construction even in the SE.

Generali

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I like to think of myself as a liberal, but I wonder if I'm actually a suppressed fascist. I think in situations involving certain key issues of relevance to the whole country (housing, energy, water, transport infrastructure etc) they should just stop muttering about tax benefits for trying to meet housing targets by 2095 and say "we are The Government and we are going to build (council) houses right here." And then hire some builders and do it. Does that make me a dictator or something? There's just no way building of any impact is going to happen if it's left to developers looking at lines on their spreadsheets.

The biggest part of the problem there is that there is no money. There simply isn't a way for the Government to build, say, 400,000 houses a year for the next 8-10 years.

CLAPTON

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I like to think of myself as a liberal, but I wonder if I'm actually a suppressed fascist. I think in situations involving certain key issues of relevance to the whole country (housing, energy, water, transport infrastructure etc) they should just stop muttering about tax benefits for trying to meet housing targets by 2095 and say "we are The Government and we are going to build (council) houses right here." And then hire some builders and do it. Does that make me a dictator or something? There's just no way building of any impact is going to happen if it's left to developers looking at lines on their spreadsheets.

it would certainly help if the government identified the LAND on which you would like them to build social house and then make that available to the private sector

tax benefits aren't an issue for new builds: it's the planning process and actual taxes that are the constraints

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

The biggest part of the problem there is that there is no money. There simply isn't a way for the Government to build, say, 400,000 houses a year for the next 8-10 years.

Dump HS2 and most of the foreign aid, and could build quite a few.

CreditCrunchie

I might actually vote labour if they're sincere about this! Btl and amateur landlords are running wild. The private rental sector is nothing but a way of taking advantage of those not in a position to buy their own or qualify for social housing. It's time the UK was brought in line with Germany and Holland!

wotsthat

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

I might actually vote labour if they're sincere about this! Btl and amateur landlords are running wild. The private rental sector is nothing but a way of taking advantage of those not in a position to buy their own or qualify for social housing. It's time the UK was brought in line with Germany and Holland!

Tesco's are taking advantage of me just because I'm not in a position to make my own baked beans.

CLAPTON

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

I might actually vote labour if they're sincere about this! Btl and amateur landlords are running wild. The private rental sector is nothing but a way of taking advantage of those not in a position to buy their own or qualify for social housing. It's time the UK was brought in line with Germany and Holland!

which bit of German housing do you want to bring us in line with

the only 55% of owner occupiers?

the very small social housing sector?

low mortgages availability?

high 'key' payment on rental property?

BillJones

Bantex wrote: »

it should help weed out some of the chancers who are really in no position to have such influence over others lives.

That'd be Labour, then...