C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

Generali

Jason74 wrote: »

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

That's all very, very groovy but you seem to be looking at one side of the balance sheet.

You have missed the liabilities entirely. Fancy having another go? Where are the liabilities for the owner occupier for example. What happens if she loses her job?

For the Social Tenant, what happens if the renting rules change?

For the private renter, what happens if security of tenure is parachuted into the market (something I think is a very real risk that I have been banging on about for almost a decade)?

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.....

Or take Romania. Owner occupation is 96%. And yet the demographic flow is from Romania to the UK and not the other way around.

TickersPlaysPop

Very glad to see this discussed in a very productive way, especially Jason, thank you.

This debate tends to get people talking at cross purposes.

Some people are looking at how things are right now
Some are thinking about the near future 5 to 10 to 15 yrs ahead
Some are a bit behind in how things are

This is with respect to the renting situation and the debatable proportion of people that want to buy but cannot.

Those that support BTL controls and management have one eye on the future, and one on the current trends.

Clear to me, is the fact that there is a point at which things become socially detrimental:

That point is when house inflation is above wage inflation for a significant period of time, and it results in a significant number of people that want to buy their home but cannot due to low pay relative to house prices.

It is debatable if we are at that point now, I wish there was data to prove either way.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Very glad to see this discussed in a very productive way, especially Jason, thank you.

This debate tends to get people talking at cross purposes.

Some people are looking at how things are right now
Some are thinking about the near future 5 to 10 to 15 yrs ahead
Some are a bit behind in how things are

This is with respect to the renting situation and the debatable proportion of people that want to buy but cannot.

Those that support BTL controls and management have one eye on the future, and one on the current trends.

Clear to me, is the fact that there is a point at which things become socially detrimental:

That point is when house inflation is above wage inflation for a significant period of time, and it results in a significant number of people that want to buy their home but cannot due to low pay relative to house prices.

It is debatable if we are at that point now, I wish there was data to prove either way.

I too am delighted that people are discussing this in a productive way, especially anyone that agrees with me, thank you.

Cornucopia

There are several hard home truths on this topic...

The first/main one is that some people have always been priced out of owning their own homes. My Grandparents never bought a home - they lived their adult lives in rented accommodation, and their retirement in social housing.

The question, therefore, is not whether some people will be priced-out, but how many, and for the rest, what kind of capital and income will be required to purchase.

For all that the thread has taken a calmer turn, I'm still at a loss to understand what it is about BTL that is deemed inappropriate or damaging by some posters.

The nature of the housing market in London is that there has scarcely been a period in the past 50 years when HPI was not above wage inflation. This is not surprising when you understand that a typical second or third purchase will be based on Equity + Wage Inflation.

I think there is an issue of affordability, but only for key workers in public services. The decline of social housing availability means that some key workers are now commuting vast distances to be able to afford housing, and this is ultimately unsustainable.

For everyone else, the market will adapt to the prevailing circumstances, and at the moment various factors are putting pressure on limited supply in London & the SE, resulting in increasing prices.

Even so, the challenge is as much about whether people are being unrealistic in their expectations of what is a reasonable price for a given property in a particular location.

CLAPTON

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think there is an issue of affordability, but only for key workers in public services. The decline of social housing availability means that some key workers are now commuting vast distances to be able to afford housing, and this is ultimately unsustainable.

For everyone else, the market will adapt to the prevailing circumstances, and at the moment various factors are putting pressure on limited supply in London & the SE, resulting in increasing prices.

whatever evidence you have for this?


it there a law that says 'key workers in public sector' can't get a pay rise that reflected their scarcity?

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

whatever evidence you have for this?

it there a law that says 'key workers in public sector' can't get a pay rise that reflected their scarcity?

Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643

Cornucopia

I'm not making a general point, or a national point. I'm talking about selected public sector workers in London. e.g. Fire-fighters and nurses.

I'm not talking about other public sector workers (e.g. Tube train drivers) or other areas.

I don't think the issue is wide enough to warrant any general fix to the housing market, and I do not favour such fixes, generally, because Government tends to mess such things up.

CLAPTON

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not making a general point, or a national point. I'm talking about selected public sector workers in London. e.g. Fire-fighters and nurses.

I'm not talking about other public sector workers (e.g. Tube train drivers) or other areas.

I don't think the issue is wide enough to warrant any general fix to the housing market, and I do not favour such fixes, generally, because Government tends to mess such things up.

are there shortages of nurses and firefighters in London?
If so, surely a pay rise would solve the problem?

however the general housing problem in London can be solved by building more : to some extent this does seem to be happening

ruggedtoast

jjlandlord wrote: »

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.

Buy to let robs people of houses. And has also provided the UK with some of the worst landlords since Rachman.

No tenant in their right mind wants to rent from a buy to let landlord.

You might have convinced yourself that you are performing some kind of altruistic public service, but you are not.