Why are house prices so expensive in the south east

Herzlos

Good point, I was only really thinking in terms of EU because that's the one that seems to be the problem because we can't control it.

It never actually occurred to me we'd do so badly when we can control it, but that's just naivety on my part.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

Yup, the problem is your poor build rate. Stopping immigration won't necessarily mean Londons population won't increase either, someone needs to take the jobs.

I don't see easy realistic options in London because nearly all new build involve knocking something down: this is obviously very expensive and often requires complusory purchase, planning restricts, affordable housing rules etc.
The result is very expensive and small flats at a low rate.

Exactly, so why the obsession with immigrants?

immigration cn be controlled whilst I see no way of controlling the birth rate of the citizens.

Which is more than paid for by the increase in population, assuming decent planning and a competent government.

There clearly isn't enough money to build the number of properties, increase the NHS, increase transport etc. We could of course increase income tax by a few pence or simply borrow a few more billion

Once we leave the EU and control immigrants, the only thing we can do is put up tax to cover the defecit we've just created by controlling immigration. You do realise that on the whole, immigration gains us more money than it costs us, right?

If the population was lower then there is less need to build more houses or infrastructure.
If london had say a million or so fewer people, then would be very little need to build more housing or other infrastructurespending

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

If london had say a million or so fewer people, then would be very little need to build more housing or other infrastructurespending

But there would also be a million or so fewer people paying for it.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

But there would also be a million or so fewer people paying for it.

it wouldn't need to be paid for as we would need to cater for the million or the yearly increase of 100,000 (for London)

but that would bring us back to the question of ; are large population states better off per capita that ones with smaller populations ; but we needn't go there

Herzlos

We'd still need to pay for the other 7.6 million people though, all the existing infrastructure, and pensions etc.

This has long since been on topic, so I'm going to give up there. I don't think you'll ever change or mind re migration, and neither will I.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't see easy realistic options in London because nearly all new build involve knocking something down: this is obviously very expensive and often requires complusory purchase, planning restricts, affordable housing rules etc.
The result is very expensive and small flats at a low rate.


immigration cn be controlled whilst I see no way of controlling the birth rate of the citizens.


There clearly isn't enough money to build the number of properties, increase the NHS, increase transport etc. We could of course increase income tax by a few pence or simply borrow a few more billion



If the population was lower then there is less need to build more houses or infrastructure.
If london had say a million or so fewer people, then would be very little need to build more housing or other infrastructurespending

If London had a million fewer people you are looking at £20 billion less in taxes. If rents also fell as a result by say 30% you are looking at another £3 billion lost in rental income tax. If house prices fell 30% you are looking at about £45 billion less in capital gains tax (spread over maybe 20 years).

Then you have your infrastructure problems. For a start how much would TFL tube and bus pass prices have to go up? 10% maybe? What's that as an additional cost to the Londoners that remains £500m a year?

Then what about the high street and offices? About 1/10th of them will have to close too so you have lost rental and capital gains there.

There will be lots and lots of losses. Overall I think you are looking at a £70B loss in London and maybe £35B in taxes. How will you cover the shortfall in taxes? You could fire 10% of all the public sector and close 10% of the schools and hospitals etc. However that won't be enough as London is the most efficient region (state is a smaller portion of London and fewer state workers per capita). I would guess you could cut £10B so the difference of £25B will have to come from tax increases. Would you like to cut that from the NHS or from the schools budjet or increase income taxes that much?

cells

Herzlos wrote: »

We'd still need to pay for the other 7.6 million people though, all the existing infrastructure, and pensions etc.

This has long since been on topic, so I'm going to give up there. I don't think you'll ever change or mind re migration, and neither will I.

Its worse than that he wants to cut about 10% of the population of the most productive region in the UK.

If you did that in wales you would probably see a bigger fall in state expenditure than in taxes. I'd you do it in London you will see a much bigger fall in taxes than in expenditure possibly in the region of £25 billion which would mean every single tax in existence in the uk would have to go up about 5% to compensate

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

If London had a million fewer people you are looking at £20 billion less in taxes. If rents also fell as a result by say 30% you are looking at another £3 billion lost in rental income tax. If house prices fell 30% you are looking at about £45 billion less in capital gains tax (spread over maybe 20 years).

Then you have your infrastructure problems. For a start how much would TFL tube and bus pass prices have to go up? 10% maybe? What's that as an additional cost to the Londoners that remains £500m a year?

Then what about the high street and offices? About 1/10th of them will have to close too so you have lost rental and capital gains there.

There will be lots and lots of losses. Overall I think you are looking at a £70B loss in London and maybe £35B in taxes. How will you cover the shortfall in taxes? You could fire 10% of all the public sector and close 10% of the schools and hospitals etc. However that won't be enough as London is the most efficient region (state is a smaller portion of London and fewer state workers per capita). I would guess you could cut £10B so the difference of £25B will have to come from tax increases. Would you like to cut that from the NHS or from the schools budjet or increase income taxes that much?

another beautiful structured total load of nonsense.

e.g is 3 billion less was paid in rent then there would be 3 billion in some much more deserving peoples' pockets.

I'm sure you have upset Helzlos's eveningnow, worrying that the rentier class will lose 3 billion and decent ordinary people will gain the equivalent.

I unreserved welcome lower house prices in London even if your own personal dream is for everyone in London to live in a shared room worth 10 million each.

You know the value of nothing.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Its worse than that he wants to cut about 10% of the population of the most productive region in the UK.

If you did that in wales you would probably see a bigger fall in state expenditure than in taxes. I'd you do it in London you will see a much bigger fall in taxes than in expenditure possibly in the region of £25 billion which would mean every single tax in existence in the uk would have to go up about 5% to compensate

no totally wrong
the only people who would be effected would be the lowest paid : we all agree this quartile take out more than they contribute

plus we have the huge Keynesian effect that a transfer of rental income from the rich to the poor will make
and of course the huge savings in not having to spend so much on infrastructure, schools, NHS etc.

if bus / car usage falls then Londoners get a further huge boost health wise from the lower EU dicated toxic emissions.

what is there not to like.

enthusiasticsaver

There are regional differences in house prices all over the country. My daughter has just been successful in getting a new job in Bristol. Her 3 bed house in the Midlands will only buy her a 1 or 2 bedroom flat in Bristol. Here in Cornwall even though we have low wages our house prices are comparatively high.

It all comes down to demand. People usually want to live where the jobs are or at least commuteable from and they want to live in nice areas of the country. It is not rocket science therefore that these areas are more expensive. There are pockets of expensive houses everywhere even in the North. No different to any other commodity.