The Superboomers!

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

my interest is to provide decent housing for people whether renting or buying, rather than target any specific level of rent or mortgage payments or prices

in relation to peoples wishes we have insufficient housing

the solution is to build more to meet the people's wishes.

prices and rents will then fall anyway.

I have never disagreed with the need to build more houses, as long as controls and rules and laws are in place to stop it making the situation worse. I.e. Fuelling more markets rises and worsening the owner occupier/ renting ratio.

Residential properties will only be built if there is profit to be made and planning approval in place.

It is up to central government to incentivise residential property building....

One idea is to link a significant chunk of funding given from central government to local government to a target for house building in their area. Also, Due to national variations.... Local government could decide what percent of the new builds would be allowed to be buy to let and buy to occupy.

There are similar successful incentives imposed on local government in the past.... Such as targets for percentage waste recycling to drastically reduce landfill which is a terrible practice.

This incentive tool will soon increase house building.... But the same amount of effort needs to be put in by government to make the house building a positive thing in all aspects by putting laws and regs in place.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I also mentioned many properties are purchased without mortgages, so that part of the housing market is completely free from the controls in place over mortgages. So prices will rise... but if buy to occupy are allowed first choice to buy properties it will by definition slow the market value increase. You can only buy 1 property and live in it! You can buy more and rent them out... but not until a property pops up that owner occupiers do not want.

I see what you mean about earners... so when you say higher earners... how many of these earners and what % of the population of renters are high earners? If you look at many parts of the UK wages are low and not many people are high earners. By definition high earners are a very small percentage? So that is not really a big impact on the average rent ceiling?

If landlords put the rent price up people will simply move to a cheaper area...

I said higher not high earners.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I have never disagreed with the need to build more houses, as long as controls and rules and laws are in place to stop it making the situation worse. I.e. Fuelling more markets rises and worsening the owner occupier/ renting ratio.

Residential properties will only be built if there is profit to be made and planning approval in place.

It is up to central government to incentivise residential property building....

One idea is to link a significant chunk of funding given from central government to local government to a target for house building in their area. Also, Due to national variations.... Local government could decide what percent of the new builds would be allowed to be buy to let and buy to occupy.

There are similar successful incentives imposed on local government in the past.... Such as targets for percentage waste recycling to drastically reduce landfill which is a terrible practice.

This incentive tool will soon increase house building.... But the same amount of effort needs to be put in by government to make the house building a positive thing in all aspects by putting laws and regs in place.

Sadly you have failed /refused to learn anything about economics or our financial systems.


I have, in the spirit of sharing knowledge with new comers, done all within my ability to add some enlightenment.


One wins some and loses some.

bigheadxx

daveyjp wrote: »

Rose tinted spectacles time again. Especially the bit about the economy booming.

I'm sure at the time of double digit mortgage rates, high inflation, recession and house prices crashes these over 50s weren't thinking life was so wonderful.

The spectacles are yours! Double digit mortgages were eased with MIRAS, high inflation reduced debt burden, house prices have risen over the 30 years of their property ownership.

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

Sadly you have failed /refused to learn anything about economics or our financial systems.

I have, in the spirit of sharing knowledge with new comers, done all within my ability to add some enlightenment.

One wins some and loses some.

You have a very high opinion of yourself? In the past you refused to let us all know where you gained your oracle level of expertise.... maybe now you will validate your status?

If all you can do is throw that post at me, it makes me think you don't have an argument against my suggestions.

Let's see others opinions.....

ukcarper

bigheadxx wrote: »

The spectacles are yours! Double digit mortgages were eased with MIRAS, high inflation reduced debt burden, house prices have risen over the 30 years of their property ownership.

Price rises are irrelevant although prices fell in the early 90s and didn't return to 1989 level until 1998 and that is in nominal terms. Also between 1984 and 2002 earnings have increases 3.7x while RPI has only increased 2.6x. Even with MIRAS net interest rates were almost 3x what they are now. Inflation reducing debt is valid but in brings other problems and earnings increases lagged inflation.

wotsthat

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I have never disagreed with the need to build more houses, as long as controls and rules and laws are in place to stop it making the situation worse. I.e. Fuelling more markets rises and worsening the owner occupier/ renting ratio.

Residential properties will only be built if there is profit to be made and planning approval in place.

It is up to central government to incentivise residential property building....

One idea is to link a significant chunk of funding given from central government to local government to a target for house building in their area. Also, Due to national variations.... Local government could decide what percent of the new builds would be allowed to be buy to let and buy to occupy.

There are similar successful incentives imposed on local government in the past.... Such as targets for percentage waste recycling to drastically reduce landfill which is a terrible practice.

This incentive tool will soon increase house building.... But the same amount of effort needs to be put in by government to make the house building a positive thing in all aspects by putting laws and regs in place.

You really think more regulation is the solution?

I don't really see how more building can fuel more market rises but, that aside, I do agree that owner occupiers make better neighbours. However, if more houses are built the market will allocate accordingly without a committee in your local council dreaming up elaborate ways to decide who is owner occupier material and who isn't.

TickersPlaysPop

My point is the competition at the point of buying a property.... Between potential owner occupiers and potential landlords (buy to let or otherwise). This is competition at the lower end of the market, 1-2 bed room flats and houses.

The suggestion that councils decide, on ONLY new builds, how many properties will be subject to 1 yr on housing market for owner occupiers only to buy has nothing to do with councils deciding on a case by case basis what individuals can buy a property!

I am focussing this thought on the lower end of housing market..... If property building starts to ramp up, it will not make a sudden shift into massive build numbers per mth.... It will be a slow increase... in a market going up this will mean increases in price and also as the price increases there will be even more of a selective advantage to potential landlords and buy to letters because they have the ability to pay more than potential owner occupiers.

So.... if more properties are built, in the first instance, there will be still more of a shift towards more landlords and less owner occupiers....

This is what is not good for the future retirement age prosperity of the current young generation.... whether they make good neighbours or not is NOT my point!

carefullycautious

PasturesNew wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being out there ...... I am.

Ouch!!! I knew that was coming.