C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

ruggedtoast

antrobus wrote: »

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

Nonsense. The jobs aren't remotely the same, nor do they carry the same weight of responsibility.

antrobus

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Nonsense. The jobs aren't remotely the same, nor do they carry the same weight of responsibility.

It does not matter why public sector workers are paid 14.5% more. Or whether or not you think the differential is justified.

The fact is that they are paid more, and are therefore more able to afford houses than a private sector worker.

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

It does not matter why public sector workers are paid 14.5% more. Or whether or not you think the differential is justified.

The fact is that they are paid more, and are therefore more able to afford houses than a private sector worker.

Do you know if they are paid more in London though? Anecdote would suggest that for example a base teachers salary goes a long way in Wales but even with a London weighting it doesn't go far in the capital especially when compared to other jobs in each locale.

jjlandlord

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

No, seriously: Get help.

TickersPlaysPop

Most people agree here on the need to build more....

But I find most people here overly simplify this magic bullet solution, if you look into the realities and detail it will not necessarily solve the problem of high house prices, increasing trend of rented property, lowering of standards.

If houses are built in higher numbers the question is how many more per year?

If it suddenly increased to 250k per year it might help slow HPI, but we need to make up for lost time and accommodate the increasing demand.

The likely situation is a only a slightly higher rate of building, which in reality will only support HPI in an already overly inflated market. What I am advocating is to create opportunities for people wanting to owner occupy to buy their home. If we solely build more and only a small amount extra such as 20-40% more than it has been for past 5 years, it will not create opportunities for people that are already priced out of the market. It will simply give buy to let more opportunity and push the market higher.

The new builds need to be available for owner occupiers only, if they are not purchased, then buy to let can get them. This could be part of the 'support people living and working to share the success of the country' campaign. Where the money to spawn building could be from local council pension pot money as suggested by Shelter.

Also, curb or retrict overseas demand, at least for a few years until our housing market has been moved to a more balanced state.

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Buy to let robs people of houses.

Untrue. (And you're still avoiding substantiating this).

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

Perhaps in a purely financial sense, no one wants to pay market-rate for something if it is available cheaper elsewhere. But other than that, this is not true.

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

I don't think anyone is suggesting BTL is a social service. But it is a service to the public, nevertheless. And it is obvious that it is.

Cornucopia

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Most people agree here on the need to build more....

But I find most people here overly simplify this magic bullet solution...

I think you misunderstand. It's not a magic bullet solution, it is the only viable medium-term solution and even then, it has severe limitations.

It would help enormously if those posters who are complaining about being priced-out could explain what part of the country they are talking about. There are conceivably issues with London, Devon and Cornwall. If you have a problem in another part of the country, I don't see greater housebuilding making much difference, because the market in those areas is not over-inflated.

In London, Devon and Cornwall, the issue is where will new housing be placed, how will the land it is being built on be released through planning, and how will it be priced?

TickersPlaysPop

When I say over inflated I mean too high for the local wage.

So what are your ideas for preventing HPI above wage inflation?

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Nonsense. The jobs aren't remotely the same, nor do they carry the same weight of responsibility.

I used to think like you did, and it is easy to fall into that trap, for example I could earn about £70k as a senior chartered quantity surveyor (I know some positions offer less but there are always adverts for the less able, the last salary I was on as a QS was £55k in 2000). When you compare that to my current (full time equivalent) salary of just over £53k as a senior lecturer at university, it looks like a 'no contest'. But when you take into account:

1. Additional holidays
2. The fantastic value pension
3. Shorter days v longer days

Then as far as the hourly rate goes, it really is a no contest, but the other way around. On top of that I now have much more flexibility (fractional appointment, working from home when preparing lectures and marking).

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Most people agree here on the need to build more....

But I find most people here overly simplify this magic bullet solution, if you look into the realities and detail it will not necessarily solve the problem of high house prices, increasing trend of rented property, lowering of standards.

If houses are built in higher numbers the question is how many more per year?

If it suddenly increased to 250k per year it might help slow HPI, but we need to make up for lost time and accommodate the increasing demand.

The likely situation is a only a slightly higher rate of building, which in reality will only support HPI in an already overly inflated market. What I am advocating is to create opportunities for people wanting to owner occupy to buy their home. If we solely build more and only a small amount extra such as 20-40% more than it has been for past 5 years, it will not create opportunities for people that are already priced out of the market. It will simply give buy to let more opportunity and push the market higher.

The new builds need to be available for owner occupiers only, if they are not purchased, then buy to let can get them. This could be part of the 'support people living and working to share the success of the country' campaign. Where the money to spawn building could be from local council pension pot money as suggested by Shelter.

Also, curb or retrict overseas demand, at least for a few years until our housing market has been moved to a more balanced state.

You keep missing the point people have to live somewhere and for many that is rented accommodation if you reduce the amount of property to rent by restricting sales to owner occupiers rents will increase. In an ideal more social housing would be built but we don't live in an ideal world.

Home ownership is still higher than the 80s when prices were lower and BTL didn't exist.