C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

You are truly a Lysenko apologist.

To evaluate an idea, a rational person doesn't need to know their source. To most people it doesn't matter e.g. whether the idea comes from Aryan or Jewish science. You may need to know but that's you and not most rational non prejudiced people.

Data is different.

Well, I'm sure there is a fancy word for it, but switching the words

Idea

And

Comment

Will help you insult me even more, so please continue....

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Pssssst ...... Clappers (in quiet voice)... The Cold War is over.... Your insult references are out dated.... the common enemy of the western world is now supposed to be extreme Islamism ....

I do welcome all view points, just because I might not agree with you doesn't make me an enemy. Try to not push things to the extreme all the time.

Peace to one and all :-)

you still haven't said whether you would prefer the Battersea site to be derelict for another 30 years rather than to be developed by foreigner money for the benefit of all.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Well, I'm sure there is a fancy word for it, but switching the words

Idea

And

Comment

Will help you insult me even more, so please continue....

complete nonsense :

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

you still haven't said whether you would prefer the Battersea site to be derelict for another 30 years rather than to be developed by foreigner money for the benefit of all.

See post 101 above....
With love
Tickers

TickersPlaysPop

I only bait you to get your attention....

..... You know?..... Some people enjoy being spoken to like that ;-)

With your open mind and liberal views it's a safe guess you won't mind......?

Jason74

Cornucopia wrote: »

Explain it to me.

Happy to oblige, and sorry both about the delay responding, and the lengthy response.

Essentially, the problem with BTL is part of a bigger problem of how Housing works in the UK. We basically have three main tenures in the UK, with key charecteristics. These are.

1) Home ownership – provides security of tenure, and an asset for the owner occupier
2) Social Housing – provides security of tenure, a relatively low and predictable rent, but yields no asset for the person living there
3) Private renting – provides very little security for the occupier, with no meaningful security of tenure or protection against rent rises

I think most people would probably agree that in the long term, the desirability of the three tenures is (all other things being equal) broadly in the order above, and for broadly the reasons stated. Given the fundamental importance of housing to someone’s wellbeing, it is therefore desirable as a society that as many people as possible are in owner occupation, and as few as possible in private rented.

There is of course a group of people for whom the flexibility of private renting has short term advantages, and for whom the disadvantages of the tenure are not really an issue. Lisyloo appears to be a great example of such people. But for most people in private rented (shelter estimate between 70-80% of private renters, and they are imho by some way the most credible source on this subject), the reason they are in that tenure is the lack of availability of anything else.

It would therefore be a very beneficial thing if a much smaller portion of the existing housing stock was held as private rented, with greater portions of it in both the owner occupied and social rented sectors (we also need more housing full stop of course, but that’s another discussion). At the moment, the trend is for the exact opposite, with the portion of homes in private rented increasing at the expense of both other main tenures. There can be no doubt that this is a bad thing for the reasons above.

Therefore, anybody involved in BTL is part of a significant problem that is damaging the life chances of many people. Even with tenants like the one you describe on long term sick benefit, the fact is that that tenant should have a social tenancy available to them , not least because any self respecting Housing Association will provide support services that a private landlord with the best will in the world can’t. That's before we even consider the fact that in the long term, the cost of housing that resident in the private sector will be far greater than the cost of meeting their needs (and the needs of those who come after them) in social housing

That’s not to say that anyone involved in a BTL is a bad person, and Rugged Toasts description of landlords as blood sucking parasites is way out of line imho. BTL landlords are simply acting rationally in their own best interests. But there’s no doubt in my mind that the overall impact of such actions is a hugely negative one. Of course, curbing BTL is only part of the solution. We need more Social Housing, and for owner occupation to be more affordable.

But I’m very clear on the fact that in terms of the deepening crisis that exists in UK Housing, BTL is very much part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And attempting to discourage BTL (probably through the tax system) certainly isn’t “going down the North Korean route”. There are plenty of UK examples of where limitations are placed on the actions of people and business in relation to “property rights” in order to ensure the best outcomes for society as a whole (rules around mergers, and the planning system are just two examples). Appropriate measures to limit BTL would simply be another example of that tradition

Cornucopia

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think it's well worthwhile using the forum as a medium to discuss and analyse these issues, rather than just "ranting into the void".

However, I disagree with a number of your points.

1. I don't agree that there is a single order of priority for the three types of tenure. (Indeed, you seem to accept this to an extent). What suits will differ from one household to another, and what suits a single household will differ over time.

2. My property in London has had two tenants, both of whom were new to the UK and looking for an easy start to living here (with the possibility that it might be temporary). This is a key group that the rental sector needs to serve.

3. There are practical and economic issues to expanding social housing, and there is a further segment of the renting market where people want to pay more to get a better location, bigger or better specification of property.

I'm open to the idea that BTL is "part of the problem", although to me it's more symptom than cause. To me overall shortage of property (in some areas) is much more significant, and transport costs play a part, too. We cannot all cram into a 20-mile radius of London, and there is significant lifestyle and economic benefit for those who choose not to.

I live 40 miles from London, and it could be a different country - both in good ways and bad ways. If we could bridge that divide better, then London would not be soaring away, and there would be a better distribution of wealth overall.

When I said "Explain it to me", I meant explain to me how BTL does anything else than meet the needs of the market, potentially making property (ie. homes) available to people who cannot (or do not want to) afford significant capital investment.

In other words, rents and purchase prices are forced up by excess demand. BTL merely moves property from one part of the pool to another. It does not and cannot affect the overall shortage.

As someone who was 20 once, I'm not sure that this generation face anything qualitatively different to what was faced by me and my generation, and every other generation. Being a FTB is tough and has always been tough. There are no easy answers, especially not in the nonsense narrative of inter-generational theft of wealth.

wotsthat

Can't see the big deal myself - BTL is just a business model for providing a lettings service but has become lazy shorthand for amateur parasite.

I wonder if part of the problem isn't simple jealously in that BTL's are, in addition to making a profit based on the service they provide, able to benefit from 'unearned' HPI as well.

There's a fairly simple solution. Build some more houses and moderate HPI - that would radically change the BTL business model.

jjlandlord

People are letting homes in every single country on this planet and have done so for centuries.

This does not "damage the life chances" of anybody, or any other nonsense.

Everyone needs a roof on his head, but not everyone is in a position to buy, either because they can't or don't want.

That's it. No more, no less.

There is no right to buy before you get to 30. That's a fairy tale story.

If there is a housing issue, then the only solution is to deliver more housing.
Thus, instead of making the situation worst by discouraging BTL, production of housing units should be encouraged.

CLAPTON

It is clearly not a 'given' and 'obvious' 'fact' that that owner occupation is beneficial to society as a whole even if it is often beneficial to the individual owner.
The oft quoted example of Germany is an illustration of how a well housed and wealthy society can exist with about 50% OO.


There are several US studies that show that locations with higher levels of OO show lower growth and lower incomes. The general logic being that owner occupiers are less willing to relocate for better jobs etc.

At the moment, in London at least a significant shift from renting to ownership would be a housing disaster for many having to rent. Owner occupiers buying previously rented homes would almost certainly reduce the occupation levels and so cause a crisis for people needing to rent.


Of course building more houses would changes the dynamics of the situation.


The fundamental problem in the UK is we don't build enough houses : all else spring from housing shortage.