Help to Buy creates surge in new homes

MARTYM8`

mwpt wrote: »

This place is funny. Entitled generation. Just suck it up and hand over the £500k for your 50m^2 apartment. Do not express any other thoughts than capitulation and/or gratitude for the previous owner for parting with it.

Yes - those young Londoners should be so grateful that they are being helped to buy flats for £500k that twenty years ago would have been lucky to have sold for £50k. Sadly wages havent risen ten fold since 1996.

If I was in my 20s now I would be out protesting - yet they blindly sit back and accept all this and all the debt servitude (including student tuition fees).

CLAPTON

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Yes - those young Londoners should be so grateful that they are being helped to buy flats for £500k that twenty years ago would have been lucky to have sold for £50k. Sadly wages havent risen ten fold since 1996.

If I was in my 20s now I would be out protesting - yet they blindly sit back and accept all this and all the debt servitude (including student tuition fees).

what would they protest about: the young mainly support the flood of immigrants to London/SE, which is a major cause of high house prices.

cells

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Yes - those young Londoners should be so grateful that they are being helped to buy flats for £500k that twenty years ago would have been lucky to have sold for £50k. Sadly wages havent risen ten fold since 1996.

If I was in my 20s now I would be out protesting - yet they blindly sit back and accept all this and all the debt servitude (including student tuition fees).

why waste their youth protesting about returning London to the unsustainably cheap prices of 1996 when they can just go to stoke and buy a house for less than £50k with todays earnings. or spend £100k in about half the rest of the country and buy a house

how can everyone fit inside London maybe we need London to grow to 50 million and we can change its name to england and what remains of old england can be bolted onto a larger scotland and wales?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

what would they protest about: the young mainly support the flood of immigrants to London/SE, which is a major cause of high house prices.

No they don't.

Look at any yougov poll on this and they give age ranges to the responses.

Every age group sees the highest percentage of people responding that they wish to see immigration reduced.

What you are referring to is that of those who want to see immigration increased, as a proportion, are most likely to be younger.

But overall, every age range wants to see immigration reduced.

See question 2....

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/88q0g7tq8f/YG-Archive-140211-Channel5-Immigration.pdf

Aged 18-24, 14% want immigration increased, 39% want it reduced.
Aged 25-39, 4% want immigration increased, 44% want it reduced.

It's completely false to suggest the young want immigration increased or support the current flood.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

what would they protest about: the young mainly support the flood of immigrants to London/SE, which is a major cause of high house prices.

why would the young in london complain about immigrants when the young in London are mostly immigrants or children of immigrants?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No they don't.

Look at any yougov poll on this and they give age ranges to the responses.

Every age group sees the highest percentage of people responding that they wish to see immigration reduced.

What you are referring to is that of those who want to see immigration increased, as a proportion, are most likely to be younger.

But overall, every age range wants to see immigration reduced.

See question 2....

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/88q0g7tq8f/YG-Archive-140211-Channel5-Immigration.pdf

Aged 18-24, 14% want immigration increased, 39% want it reduced.
Aged 25-39, 4% want immigration increased, 44% want it reduced.

It's completely false to suggest the young want immigration increased or support the current flood.

the reference was to London : I believe the young of London will vote to stay in the EU

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Please guy, do your own thinking for once.

I presume your point is that increased credit can lead to increased prices but you've gone for the response above because you don't want to discuss whether it can also lead to increased supply.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I presume your point is that increased credit can lead to increased prices but you've gone for the response above because you don't want to discuss whether it can also lead to increased supply.

It can....

But whether it actually does is another matter and a point you don't ever seem to wish to discuss.

Historical evidence from the last 40 years or so would suggest that increased credit has never once driven builders to build enough houses for the population.

I don't know why you expect it to be different this time.

That's just fact.

The only house building programme in the medium term, when looking at history to have delivered enough houses for the population was the council house building programme.

If you want supply (instead of hiding behind this facade of wanting extra supply but not wanting to see anything that actually could deliver it), you'd want to see council building.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you want supply (instead of hiding behind this facade of wanting extra supply but not wanting to see anything that actually could deliver it), you'd want to see council building.

I'd like to see extra supply but there are limits. I don't want to pay to build and maintain houses which are allocated on a questionable definition of need and, importantly, create a society based on dependency.

When I'm in charge I'm going to dramatically ease planning requirements in certain zones which will put one up the NIMBY'S, it'll stop already rich landowners benefiting from a lottery win that the planning process currently provides and reduce the cost of new builds. Zero taxpayer cost - nothing. I'll also get rid of HTB - I trust I can rely on your vote.

I've taken your comments on board about the wondrous ability of councils to build lovely houses so if that doesn't work I'll just let them knock up million lovely houses and sell them at cost. The cost will, of course, be higher than the private sector can supply even with their dirty profits but that's by the by.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Historical evidence from the last 40 years or so would suggest that increased credit has never once driven builders to build enough houses for the population.

No credit alone isn't going to solve a housing shortage even in the most simple of worlds. It's a single factor.

When you're in charge you can restrict it. Houses will then be cheaper but less easy to buy for people needing credit to buy. Of course better off people won't need the credit so will be able to mop up houses at lower price and rent them to those without the credit.

It worked out last time it was tried. I picked up a second home on the cheap because the potential FTB had suddenly discovered he needed a 20% deposit instead of 5%.

Graham_Devon - making the well off better off. Gets my vote.