More from the economist on uk housing

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

Wasn't there talk the other day of encouraging older people to move out of larger properties?

If they extended the definition to cover not only larger but higher value property, then they might be able to encourage people to cash in on their London property and free up the home to younger working familes?

Round here a lot of properties have recently come onto the market. The reason for this is easy to see. The residents of these properties mostly bought the house new 50+ years ago, and have lived in the same house all their lives.

I wonder if this is too slow a property turnover rate. It will become a greater issue as life expectancy increases too.

The problem is that if you encouraged people to leave London who could afford the houses they vacate? Maybe some home owners within 30 miles of London in places like Farnham and Haselmere. I cannot see that it will drive down prices.

People do downsize but not everyone can buy a property they want in the area they want.

You need something radical to make London less attractive to own property in. Something that does not affect those who live in London. Maybe a selective and punitive property tax paid by non-EU nationals, non-doms, long term unoccupied property etc. I am sure that has practical issues but something like this that reduces prices and increases affordability

Mistermeaner

lisyloo wrote: »

There was - but just asking people nicely isn't going to work.
If you are serious about wanting people to stop "overoccupying" then there are two methods - carrot and stick, but I'm not giving up my spare bedrooms just because someone says I should. Make it worth my while or tax me then I'll think about it.

Can I come and live with you? I'll make it worth your while

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Owners may have a stake in individual properties but the state owns the infrastructure and sets the rules within which they operate. Just because businesses and foreigners want inflate property values and rents in London does not mean that we (ie the national government) have to allow this situation to continue.

I don't think London's wealth and income comes form property; rather London's high property prices result from its wealth and income.


I'm sure the government will have success in directing immigrants and foreign investment to Newcastle.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

There was - but just asking people nicely isn't going to work.
If you are serious about wanting people to stop "overoccupying" then there are two methods - carrot and stick, but I'm not giving up my spare bedrooms just because someone says I should. Make it worth my while or tax me then I'll think about it.

the economy works on demand why punish demand?

in any other sector we would be pushing people to do more of it, eat out more buy new cars go out more spend spend spend it will employ people and generate money and activity for everyone

but when it comes to homes its almost the opposite. build as few as possible employ as few as possible generate as low as possible economic activity

cells

BobQ wrote: »

The problem is that if you encouraged people to leave London who could afford the houses they vacate? Maybe some home owners within 30 miles of London in places like Farnham and Haselmere. I cannot see that it will drive down prices.

People do downsize but not everyone can buy a property they want in the area they want.

You need something radical to make London less attractive to own property in. Something that does not affect those who live in London. Maybe a selective and punitive property tax paid by non-EU nationals, non-doms, long term unoccupied property etc. I am sure that has practical issues but something like this that reduces prices and increases affordability

moving people about doesn't really reduce demand

if enough families in a one bed flats swap places with a granny in a 4 bed houses then the result would be that the difference in price between smaller and larger properties reduce. The overall average price wont do much at all

If anything, those entering the bottom who can only afford the one bed flats will find that granny had outbid them with 50 years of equity.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

The problem is that if you encouraged people to leave London who could afford the houses they vacate? Maybe some home owners within 30 miles of London in places like Farnham and Haselmere. I cannot see that it will drive down prices.
...

Perhaps the larger houses in London which are vacated could be redeveloped into multiple occupancy dwellings ; which could mean flats but not necessarily.

Some the economic migrant families who fare well are used to the idea of developing property to accommodate 2/3/more generations living under the same roof. That's more efficient housing use.

We hear these complaints on London property affordability daily. It's a question of will and creativity to solve the issue.

lisyloo

the economy works on demand why punish demand?

We have limited supply.
So by allowing some people to have 2 (or more) homes, that means someone else is living in cramped conditions. I'm referring to holiday homes which would be mostly un-occupied, not BTL where it would be mostly occupied.
I would agree with you that the social fairness and the economic priorites are conflicting.

in any other sector we would be pushing people to do more of it, eat out more buy new cars go out more spend spend spend it will employ people and generate money and activity for everyone

In practical terms we can fairly easily generate more cars/beers/clothes or whatever it is. Housing is different because it's finite, both physically because of land but also contraints like planning and physical amount of water etc.

but when it comes to homes its almost the opposite

Housing is finite (we could build more but it's not quick and there would still be limits).
Most of the other things you are talking about are not limited and certainly not in short supply.
If something does go into short supply e.g. we find the last mine of tanzanite, then you will certainly find the price goes up. If it's something we don't need for our basic living e.g. tanzanite, then it's not a problem, but if it's a basic human need then there's an issue.

If it was just about economics then there wouldn't be a problem, but there's a social justice issue here. I don't mean just refugees, I mean young people as well, even highly qualified ones - young doctors for example who will start life with massive debts.

lisyloo

Can I come and live with you? I'll make it worth your while

Love it :-)
Actually you'd have to massively incentivise or penalise me to make me change, so perhaps it's a non-starter.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

I mean young people as well, even highly qualified ones - young doctors for example who will start life with massive debts.

the average graduate does 3 years at uni
the average scientist/engineer does 4 years at uni
the average doctor does 5 years at uni


none have to repay a penny until they earn over 21,000


the average doctor can look forward to earning £100,000
the average scientist and engineer will never earn £100,000


financially which would you choose?

lisyloo

financially which would you choose?

If I wanted to be the richest person in the graveyard, then investment banking or law and probably London (I'm being flexible in my thinking and completely disregarding my talents or dependents).