C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

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.

Don't know. But I'll see if I can find out.

OK, this is what ONS says;

Comparing low and high earners, London had the largest variation between public and private sector in April 2013. Among the lowest earners in each sector, using the bottom 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned 20% more (15% more when adjusting for organisation size) than private sector workers. For the higher earners, using the top 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned 24% less (28% less when adjusting for organisation size) than private sector workers.

Which is kinda what you'd expect London-wise, what with all thems investments bankers and whatnot.

Cornucopia

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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

Other than in Devon and Cornwall (where external money is a significant factor), housing cannot inflate significantly above what is affordable to the local population.

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

I don't regard wage inflation as being a benchmark upon which to cap HPI. Certain sources have suggested that UK property/London property has been historically under-valued. I was somewhat sceptical about this, but perhaps what we are seeing is an adjustment to account for this. In which case it makes no sense to cap HPI at the rate of wage inflation, even if it were possible to do that.

antrobus

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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

Ya don't say.:)

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

..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.

How's that gonna work? What you gonna do? Stick restrictive covenants on the title?

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

....Where the money to spawn building could be from local council pension pot money as suggested by Shelter.....

I think that the trustees of the LGPS might have a view on that sort of proposal. Not that I think that Shelter have ever suggested such a thing. Although I believe that they did once a few years back come up with the suggestion that some kind of new securitised mortage bond should be developed to fund investment in affordable housing that was attractive to pension funds.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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

Given that it takes about five minutes to set up a UK resident company or LLP, or that any number of beneficial owners can hide behind a nominee, that would be something of a wasted effort.

JencParker

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.



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.

With the exception of the very young and those who are temporarily living in an area, it is true. The insecurity of living in rented accommodation can be extremely distressing for most older people. Wondering whether your landlord will renew your contract next year or if you will have to move again (and all the expense that that entails) is not something people would want. WOULD YOU?

In a so called civilised society it is amoral that we subject so many people to this so that the few can make money out of them.

Thrugelmir

Cornucopia wrote: »

Other than in Devon and Cornwall (where external money is a significant factor), housing cannot inflate significantly above what is affordable to the local population.

Bath, Newbury, Oxford, try the Cotswolds!

antrobus

JencParker wrote: »

....In a so called civilised society it is amoral that we subject so many people to this so that the few can make money out of them.

On a point of order; I think you mean immoral. Something that is amoral does not involve a question of right or wrong. Presumably you were trying to say that we should make a moral judgement and not that we shouldn't.

Cornucopia

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Bath, Newbury, Oxford, try the Cotswolds!

But are any of those places so big that you couldn't commute there from somewhere much less expensive if you needed to?

Cornucopia

JencParker wrote: »

With the exception of the very young and those who are temporarily living in an area, it is true. The insecurity of living in rented accommodation can be extremely distressing for most older people. Wondering whether your landlord will renew your contract next year or if you will have to move again (and all the expense that that entails) is not something people would want. WOULD YOU?

Personally, no. I have never rented.

However, in my experience as a LL, I get prospective tenants asking for 6 month tenancies when I would prefer 12 months. When asked, they cite flexibility as their reason.

I find the melodramatic language used somewhat difficult to take seriously. For the vast majority of people, if they could have afforded a property over the past 30 years, they can afford one now - maybe not in their ideal location, but certainly nearby.

That's why I keep asking for specific examples - I fundamentally think people are being both melodramatic and unrealistic. That's not a great combination.

In a so called civilised society it is amoral that we subject so many people to this so that the few can make money out of them.

That's not why "we" do it, nor are people being "subjected" to it. There has always been private rental. So it's not a moral issue, but a question of practical details like cost and rights, and the relationship between renting and buying.

JencParker

Cornucopia wrote: »

Personally, no. I have never rented.

However, in my experience as a LL, I get prospective tenants asking for 6 month tenancies when I would prefer 12 months. When asked, they cite flexibility as their reason.

I find the melodramatic language used somewhat difficult to take seriously. For the vast majority of people, if they could have afforded a property over the past 30 years, they can afford one now - maybe not in their ideal location, but certainly nearby.

That's why I keep asking for specific examples - I fundamentally think people are being both melodramatic and unrealistic. That's not a great combination.


That's not why "we" do it, nor are people being "subjected" to it. There has always been private rental. So it's not a moral issue, but a question of practical details like cost and rights, and the relationship between renting and buying.

So, why do you do it if not for financial reasons?

Cornucopia

JencParker wrote: »

So, why do you do it if not for financial reasons?

In my case, it's my living.

Also, I was objecting more to your characterisation of it as some kind of exploitation. It's no more exploitative than selling potatoes in a lay-by.

The idea that BTL LLs act as a cartel or lobby Government to make policy changes to our benefit is nonsense. I'm not even sure that there is a LL's organisation - I don't recall hearing about one.