Historical evidence of London moving into bubble & dragging rest of UK with it

chewmylegoff

padington wrote: »

There must be a point where if you increase taxation on property, other investments could begin to look like a better alternative for some people and this would slow down the housing market, no ?

I for one would like to cash out of property and travel the world with out the bother of renting it out but there is no other taxable investment so alluring so I'm keeping my money in London property in the meantime.

When or if the dynamic changes sufficiently, I'll move my money and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

If you invest in property rather than live in it you already have to pay 18% capital gains tax on any gains and that doesn't deter people so it seems unlikely that 1% or 2% gains tax will bother anyone especially since as Clapton points out that is less than the existing stamp duty regime (and recent increases at the top end of that regime appear to have made little difference).

Tax of 100% of gains or 150% of gains might make a difference but that is unlikely to win anyone any votes.

Just build more houses.

AndyGuil

junglejame911 wrote: »

I've looked at this a few times now and I'm still not clear what the y axis is and what they take zero to be. The critical threshold is almost linear, considering the short period represented here, the confidence intervals must be pretty wide and so this is all fairly meaningless. Happy to be corrected on this one.

Yearly HPI. Zero would be no HPI.

BillJones

padington wrote: »

If you think innovation is funded as well as housing in the UK, you certainly are confused.

Look how much of the money banks actually loan to small businesses. It's peanuts.

As you would seem to have the figures available, would you share them with the rest of us?

Also, I seem to recall that lending without sufficient care and attention became viewed as a very, very bad thing a few years ago. Are you in favour of banks lending to riskier propositions than they currently do (with the inherent risks) or not?

cepheus

Why not ask what the Y axis is, these authors often respond.

Jason74

mayonnaise wrote: »

Compared to the previous cycle, we're now in 1999. Sounds good.

Kind of how I read it too . Which is of course terrible news to anyone who gives a monkeys about social cohesion and opportunities for young people in London.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Kind of how I read it too . Which is of course terrible news to anyone who gives a monkeys about social cohesion and opportunities for young people in London.

what problems are there with social cohesion?

or indeed with opportunities for young people in London?

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

what problems are there with social cohesion?

or indeed with opportunities for young people in London?

Apologies, I probably should have made the second part of my post clearer. I meant opportunities for independent (ie, without BOMAD) home ownership for young people in London. Prices increasing faster than wages by definition makes this harder, and is, from a social perspective, a very bad thing.

In terms of the first part of my initial previous post, the problems around social cohesion are fairly obvious to anyone visiting large parts of London. It's also very clear that insecure housing is a big part of the problem, and that rising prices contribute to this issue for many people.

Thrugelmir

Jason74 wrote: »

Prices increasing faster than wages by definition makes this harder, and is, from a social perspective, a very bad thing.

Tail off in mortgage approvals suggests that this factor is already impacting the wider market.

AndyGuil

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Tail off in mortgage approvals suggests that this factor is already impacting the wider market.

Isn't that just the effect of the new mortgage lending rules causing the mortgage process to take significantly longer hence causing a lag in the market?

mobfant

AndyGuil wrote: »

Isn't that just the effect of the new mortgage lending rules causing the mortgage process to take significantly longer hence causing a lag in the market?

This is the question. Have the number of mortgage rejections increased, or the levels of mortgage approval reduced? As a reduction in the number of approvals each month on its own might just mean they are taking longer to approve.