Are new houses really needed ?.

SkyeKnight

Bantex wrote: »

Where are all these people who have not got anywhere to live?

Mainly still living at home with their parents. The number of adult children still living with parents has shot up. Of course they aren't on the street - 99.9% of parents would have their children live with them before seeing them living rough. There are also more houses of multiple occupancy. The end result is the number of people per house is gradually increasing - which would seem to indicate a lack of housing.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumably you are talking about holiday homes and holiday lets ?
why would you describe something, that is designed to be used for only a limited period each year, as being 'underused'

Not holiday lets no. Second homes.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not holiday lets no. Second homes.

so why is that a problem?

second homes are meant to be occupied only part of the time

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

so why is that a problem?

second homes are meant to be occupied only part of the time

Because people buying second homes are taking away a home that could otherwise have been occupied by an honest hard working family? It's simply not fair that some people should own two homes, when there are others struggling to own just one?

Or something like that.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Because people buying second homes are taking away a home that could otherwise have been occupied by an honest hard working family? It's simply not fair that some people should own two homes, when there are others struggling to own just one?

Or something like that.

oh, I hadn't thought of that

The-Joker

patman99 wrote: »

In the UK there are around 2.5 million empty properties (excluding un-sold new builds).

There are approx. 2 million people requiring a home.

As it costs less to bring an empty house back up to modern standards than it does to build a new house, why are we not encouraging the authorities to bring these houses back into use rather than giving permission for new homes to be constructed.

In London now there are new blocks of flats going up all over. Also plans for some high rise blocks of luxury flats.

Going to be a glut on the next downturn.

TheFactory

antrobus wrote: »

Because people buying second homes are taking away a home that could otherwise have been occupied by an honest hard working family? It's simply not fair that some people should own two homes, when there are others struggling to own just one?

Or something like that.

How do you know the people who own the second home arn't honest and twice as hard working? Some of us put in 70 hour weeks to have the surplus to invest in another property, why is that not fair?

mobfant

TheFactory wrote: »

How do you know the people who own the second home arn't honest and twice as hard working? Some of us put in 70 hour weeks to have the surplus to invest in another property, why is that not fair?

Because a property/secure housing is among the most important thing's for an individual/family's happiness. You probably know that as you have one yourself. You have a choice for where to invest your remaining funds.

It is not fair, and it is selfish, to deprive someone else of the chance of home ownership for the benefit of an investment. If there were enough houses at an affordable for everyone who wanted to buy one, then it wouldn't be an issue; there is a need for lettings for those who cannot yet afford or do not wish to buy. Life isn't fair, though, and so selfish people use buy-to-let as an investment in the same way bankers used complex financial instruments to make a profit in 2008. The latter group survived largely unscathed, and I'm sure buy-to-letters will as well.

michaels

Some people can afford sky mutiroom with sports and movies and a new iphone every year. We have free view and a 3 her old android phone...it's not fair

Out,_Vile_Jelly

michaels wrote: »

Some people can afford sky mutiroom with sports and movies and a new iphone every year. We have free view and a 3 her old android phone...it's not fair

Pointless as I find new gadgets, the purchase of these is providing jobs and contributing tax. As do most luxury items.

Second homes don't benefit the economy in the same way; they certainly don't help the local community much. They are luxury items that have a social cost.

I went to the Windmill Museum on Wimbledon Common yesterday (very cute, run by enthusiastic volunteers). I learnt that a couple of centuries ago the local toff proposed turning Wimbledon Common into a private park (for his own enjoyment of course) and flogging off Putney Heath for housing. An act of parliament was forced and the land became "common" and managed for the benefit of the local community. There needs to be a sensible balance between individuals spending as they please and a harmonious society.