The Superboomers!

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I don't have a problem with boomers wealthy or not.... the problem is residential property is seen as a good investment by anybody, because it is. I would much prefer the investments to go into more constructive and sustainable ends.... maybe government bonds specifically channeled to go into new business development, training and apprenticeships?

There must be something the government can set up to stop profiteering from a scarce resource? Especially when it is a resource that is very socially devisive.

Sucking dry... that is when properties are snapped up by buy to let merchants who out bid people who want to buy and occupy. The buy to let merchants are stopping a generation from getting on the ladder and making each mthly payment go towards a future where they can own outright... Rather than hand their very own future prosperity to the buy to letters mth by mth.

I have nothing against buy to letters... I have a big problem with the laws and regulations put in place by government that support and promote this activity without controls.

We've been through all this before and BTL is a symptom not the cause. Before the present rules landlords were withdrawing their properties at an alarming rate. If you discourage BTL there will be a large gap in the housing market and people who cannot buy will have difficulty to find somewhere to live.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I don't have a problem with boomers wealthy or not.... the problem is residential property is seen as a good investment by anybody, because it is. I would much prefer the investments to go into more constructive and sustainable ends.... maybe government bonds specifically channeled to go into new business development, training and apprenticeships?

There must be something the government can set up to stop profiteering from a scarce resource? Especially when it is a resource that is very socially devisive.

Sucking dry... that is when properties are snapped up by buy to let merchants who out bid people who want to buy and occupy. The buy to let merchants are stopping a generation from getting on the ladder and making each mthly payment go towards a future where they can own outright... Rather than hand their very own future prosperity to the buy to letters mth by mth.

I have nothing against buy to letters... I have a big problem with the laws and regulations put in place by government that support and promote this activity without controls.

you're certainly correct that the government could change the laws and regulation to allow more properties to be built;


-better housing for more real people to live in
-cheaper prices due to more supply
-more jobs for builders

TickersPlaysPop

I was thinking sustainable business and jobs not connected to housing.

Not many on here would agree, but I think residential property should be put on market and only owner occupiers should be allowed to purchase in the first instance... if it doesn't sell then open up to buy to let merchants.

This will reduce the pressure pushing prices up, help keep the rental stock to a level that is needed. If this rule was in place in 2007 it would have helped stop the market from booming?

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I was thinking sustainable business and jobs not connected to housing.

Not many on here would agree, but I think residential property should be put on market and only owner occupiers should be allowed to purchase in the first instance... if it doesn't sell then open up to buy to let merchants.

This will reduce the pressure pushing prices up, help keep the rental stock to a level that is needed. If this rule was in place in 2007 it would have helped stop the market from booming?

The rental stock is already below the level that is needed especially in the south east so I'm not sure what reducing it further is going to do.

TickersPlaysPop

You are missing the point

If this idea was implemented a while ago the property market would not have increased as much as it has done... so more poeple would be able to buy now and there would be less demand for rental property.

The idea is to allow poeple to own their own home and avoid throwing money away (into pockets of landlords).... Also to avoid unnecessary house property price inflation by temporarily removing competition between buy to letters and owner occupiers.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

You are missing the point

If this idea was implemented a while ago the property market would not have increased as much as it has done... so more poeple would be able to buy now and there would be less demand for rental property.

The idea is to allow poeple to own their own home and avoid throwing money away (into pockets of landlords).... Also to avoid unnecessary house property price inflation by temporarily removing competition between buy to letters and owner occupiers.

Why the overall number of properties would still be the same.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

You are missing the point

If this idea was implemented a while ago the property market would not have increased as much as it has done... so more poeple would be able to buy now and there would be less demand for rental property.

The idea is to allow poeple to own their own home and avoid throwing money away (into pockets of landlords).... Also to avoid unnecessary house property price inflation by temporarily removing competition between buy to letters and owner occupiers.

how would it have increased the number of houses being built?

TickersPlaysPop

Both of you have repeatedly said it is a simple 'supply/demand' situation....

.... If we reduce the demand on residential property by preventing wannabe owner occupiers competing with buy to letters.... there will be less increase in asking prices over the yrs.

Therefore, as you say.... building more houses..... is not the only way to fix the problem we are in.

In fact, it is my opinion that solely building more residential properties without changes to the current system in the way of regulation, law and rule changes, it will make the situation worse.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Both of you have repeatedly said it is a simple 'supply/demand' situation....

.... If we reduce the demand on residential property by preventing wannabe owner occupiers competing with buy to letters.... there will be less increase in asking prices over the yrs.

Therefore, as you say.... building more houses..... is not the only way to fix the problem we are in.

In fact, it is my opinion that solely building more residential properties without changes to the current system in the way of regulation, law and rule changes, it will make the situation worse.

I don't think it will house prices might drop slightly but rents will increase and it will do nothing to help overall situation.

ash28

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Both of you have repeatedly said it is a simple 'supply/demand' situation....

.... If we reduce the demand on residential property by preventing wannabe owner occupiers competing with buy to letters.... there will be less increase in asking prices over the yrs.

Therefore, as you say.... building more houses..... is not the only way to fix the problem we are in.

In fact, it is my opinion that solely building more residential properties without changes to the current system in the way of regulation, law and rule changes, it will make the situation worse.

BTL doesn't remove properties from residential use, it changes the tenure.

Not everyone wants to buy a house....when we first married we moved around 4 times in as many years from England (Bedfordshire), to the Isle of Man, to Northumberland, to Scotland.......we wanted and needed houses to rent.

Not everyone can afford a mortgage, and I'm not talking south east size mortgages either.

Not everyone can get a mortgage.

You can reduce the demand pretty quickly by putting up interest rates.....

Ultimately, it is the seller who decides who will buy their property not the buyer. Most sellers will sell for highest possible price. Are you suggesting you remove that choice from the seller?

I'm not a lover of BTL but it serves a purpose and has a place in UK housing options. And any change to regulation will not increase housing supply...

It's government policy that has made BTL a very attractive option for people.....it can give a better return than saving (not hard) and a better return and is safer than stocks and shares.