Relativity...

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Actually, insulation is free in many cases, but that's besides the point

The issue with what you have said is that it's all based on technological advancements. It isn't more expensive to have those things installed, it's just what's done now.

What's the installation cost of an indoor toilet compared to an outside toilet today? The outside toilet is probably far more expensive today. Probably many multiples more expensive.

Yet your point is to make out that people can afford these technological advancements because they spend less on food etc. Simply not the case.

My point is that if people couldn't afford these technological advancements (maybe because their non-discretionary spending is so high) they wouldn't buy them.

It's only 'done' to build houses with modern conveniences because people can afford to buy them and are willing, and able, to divert income to housing.

We all spend 100% - you might be different but I'd prefer to spend as bigger proportion as possible on fripperies rather than be forced to spend on non-discretionary items.

zagfles

ukcarper wrote: »

That's not strickly true many older terraced houses were very small the house I was bought up in was a two up two down all rooms 12 x 12 or smaller, no bathroom and toilet up the garden.

I said "round here" so how do you know that's not "strickly true". Do you know where I live?

Some older house are small. But in general round here the vast majority of older houses are larger than new builds. Some of the newer houses look like dolls houses! And very few newer houses seem to have decent sized gardens, except for the stupidly expensive ones.

ukcarper

zagfles wrote: »

I said "round here" so how do you know that's not "strickly true". Do you know where I live?

Some older house are small. But in general round here the vast majority of older houses are larger than new builds. Some of the newer houses look like dolls houses! And very few newer houses seem to have decent sized gardens, except for the stupidly expensive ones.

OK for your area but people have a misconception that Victorian houses are large when in fact large numbers possibly if not the majority were small.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Indoor toilets, central heating, insulation, hot water, double glazing, conservatories etc. aren't free. Thankfully, being able to choose to spend money on these things instead of on food and fags has led to a better quality of life.

Nice is relative and I expect you're getting nostalgic for a time that only existed in your imagination.

Yup, sure. It's my imagination that everywhere you look on MSM these days the words housing crisis appear.

This place is like the flip side of the HPC coin at times. Every time something appears that shows that housing is relatively more unaffordable today, I know that the pavlovian posts that follow will be excuses on why it isn't. For some reason you guys seem to take it personally. We have a housing affordability problem. If we didn't, then why the need for all the stupid demand side props ("stimulus")?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Yup, sure. It's my imagination that everywhere you look on MSM these days the words housing crisis appear.

This place is like the flip side of the HPC coin at times. Every time something appears that shows that housing is relatively more unaffordable today, I know that the pavlovian posts that follow will be excuses on why it isn't. For some reason you guys seem to take it personally. We have a housing affordability problem. If we didn't, then why the need for all the stupid demand side props ("stimulus")?

we have a housing supply problem

the reason for demand side props is purely political

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

we have a housing supply problem

the reason for demand side props is purely political

It is my belief that the supply problem is less bad than is made out, but it is still bad. I think credit bubbles are as much to blame.

And I was slightly disingenuous mentioning the props, because it is also my belief they are political. GO probably believes he needs private debt, in the form of expensive houses, as a counterbalance to shrinking public spending. That's why they'll never say houses are unaffordable, they'll just say they need to "enable hard working" people more.

zagfles

CLAPTON wrote: »

we have a housing supply problem

the reason for demand side props is purely political

No, we have a housing demand problem. As above, the housing supply has increased far faster than the population. Demand has increased, people want more property per person.

That demand could be dampened in a number of ways, for instance getting rid of the council tax single person discount, charging GCT on housing gains (allowing roll forwards to a new property), charging much higher council tax as well as stamp duty for non UK residents & second homes, having a "bedroom tax" equivalent in council tax, where spare bedrooms attract a higher tax.

Housing is in short supply due to excess demand, as with anything in short supply it makes sense to discourage "wastage" by taxing those using "excessive" housing while trying not to affect those who simply want a decent roof over their heads.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

It is my belief that the supply problem is less bad than is made out, but it is still bad. I think credit bubbles are as much to blame.

And I was slightly disingenuous mentioning the props, because it is also my belief they are political. GO probably believes he needs private debt, in the form of expensive houses, as a counterbalance to shrinking public spending. That's why they'll never say houses are unaffordable, they'll just say they need to "enable hard working" people more.

I don't think I understand that

mwpt

Osborne wants to eliminate the deficit by reducing public spending. Shrinking the money supply could have adverse effects. In order to not shrink the money supply, he probably thinks it's a good idea to encourage high levels of private debt through house prices. Pure speculation on my part.

CLAPTON

zagfles wrote: »

No, we have a housing demand problem. As above, the housing supply has increased far faster than the population. Demand has increased, people want more property per person.

That demand could be dampened in a number of ways, for instance getting rid of the council tax single person discount, charging GCT on housing gains (allowing roll forwards to a new property), charging much higher council tax as well as stamp duty for non UK residents & second homes, having a "bedroom tax" equivalent in council tax, where spare bedrooms attract a higher tax.

Housing is in short supply due to excess demand, as with anything in short supply it makes sense to discourage "wastage" by taxing those using "excessive" housing while trying not to affect those who simply want a decent roof over their heads.

In general our housing situation is the result of
-the increase in population (In London largely immigration)
-an increase in peoples wishes for housing and willingness to spend a high proportion of their income on it.
-a restriction of planning permission.

I see it as being a reasonable expectation to be able to live in decent spacious accommodation and not a luxury and so we should be able to meet the reasonable wishes of the citizens.

Virtually everyone has a decent roof over their heads already: the issue is the size and suitability.