C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

lisyloo

The costs of buying are only cheaper than renting long term and also if you ignore significant lost opportunities.

I'm renting out of choice due to a contract situation and not a permanent job. We are well off but don't have long term security in this role.

By lost opportunity I mean 40% tax relief for pensions, plus also business tax relief (worth about 30%).

For some buying is absolutely NOT cheaper than renting or indeed arguable not a good idea either. We're planning on staying in London 6.5 years and buying only works out after 9.5 years (given CGT, salary sacrifice, buying & selling costs and service charges etc.)

sharnad

antrobus wrote: »

And yet public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector.

And yet a lot of public sector worera earn less than those in the private sector

Thrugelmir

Cornucopia wrote: »

From a personal perspective, I need to see a fair return on my investment. .

In which case residential property is your preferred investment choice currently. If there was a better opportunity elsewhere you would transfer your money. Housing is a necessity to everybody in one or another. Not a choice. At which point the conversation turns into what sort of United Kingdom one wishes to live in. One based on community spirit or akin to the US model of selfishness.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In which case residential property is your preferred investment choice currently. If there was a better opportunity elsewhere you would transfer your money. Housing is a necessity to everybody in one or another. Not a choice. At which point the conversation turns into what sort of United Kingdom one wishes to live in. One based on community spirit or akin to the US model of selfishness.

Indeed so
it is unarguable that each should contribute to the community according to their abilities in generous spirit
and that each should take according to their needs all without selfishness


It is obvious that such a system would automatically produce enough food, shelter, clothing, clean water, electricity, transport systems, medical facilities without need of money or cohesion.

Cornucopia

I kind of like property as an investment. I much prefer to see the value and the practical benefit of property, compared to a share certificate or bank balance.

And I'm not a one-size fits all LL, either. I'm happy to be distant if that's what the tenant wants, or to offer them my time or advice, if they want that.

The idea of being a LL as a purely selfish thing is wrong (and slightly offensive) - at least in my experience.

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

In some respects, you have a point (although I think even in isolation, curbing btl would be a positive move, but the case there is certainly less clear cut), which is why I said that curbing BTL in itself was "far from the whole solution". You also need to be looking at large scale building of social housing (and by that I mean, proper social rented housing, not the ironically titled market based "affordable rent" stuff that social landlords are being increasingly pressured to build). Unfortunately there is little hope of that happening right now, because the prevailing political ideology is effectively that "the market is always right".


The problem with that logic is that if there's one thing that is consistently demonstrated by the history of housing in this country, it's that leaving the market to it's own devices leaves large sections of the population without access to safe, secure (including security of tenure) housing. We accept that leaving the market to its own devices is unacceptable in fields like health and education, and there was a time when we took a similar approach to housing. If we're going to deal with the problems that exist in UK housing today, we need to get back to some of that approach imho.

I'd agree that the ideal solution would be to build more social housing but I really can't see that happening. I can't see how restricting BTL on its own would help the situation it might slowdown HPI a little but it would cause rents to increase.

I also think problem is mainly restricted to London and the South East. Where I live there is a shortage of rental properties and most rent for above the LHA. There has been a lot of building in the area and there is a lot plan but prices are still to high for a lot of people and I can't see them falling low enough for people on lower earnings to buy them. That's why I see the need for secure affordable rental accommodation.

antrobus

sharnad wrote: »

And yet a lot of public sector worera earn less than those in the private sector

Perhaps, but they must be outnumbered by those in in the public sector that earn more than those in the private sector, because the former are getting 14.5% more than the latter. It's simple arithmetic.

Cornucopia

With regards to Social Housing, apart from cost, there is the issue of what will be built. In the past, some social housing projects have been poorly designed, poorly built and treated to an on-going lack of maintenance.

In many ways, integrating social housing tenants into the owner-occupier community is a much better approach.

Herzlos

antrobus wrote: »

Perhaps, but they must be outnumbered by those in in the public sector that earn more than those in the private sector, because the former are getting 14.5% more than the latter. It's simple arithmetic.

Because the vast majority of NMW jobs are in the private sector: retail, cleaning, catering, etc.

Sure the average wage is 14.5% higher in the public sector, but beyond that the number is completely meaningless. Like for like jobs were higher paid in the private sector, but with less security. I've no idea if that's still the case.

ukcarper

Cornucopia wrote: »

With regards to Social Housing, apart from cost, there is the issue of what will be built. In the past, some social housing projects have been poorly designed, poorly built and treated to an on-going lack of maintenance.

In many ways, integrating social housing tenants into the owner-occupier community is a much better approach.

There are plenty of examples of good social housing and the system used to work well in 60 and 70s and still does in some places. I wouldn't have though it would be difficult to devise a scheme that benefited both the tax payer and tenant, although finding the money is another story even though I think it would be cheaper in the long term. I think the main problem with BTL long term security, would you be prepared to give a tenant say a 10 year contract that only they could end early? I can see why most BTL landlords wouldn't.