Govt policies demonstrated to be helping housing shortage crisis...

ukcarper

Sapphire wrote: »

What an odd thing to say. I agree that BTL needs to be controlled, or even stopped, especially while there is a housing shortage in London and other areas. However, I don't know any 'boomers' that have BTLs (I do know three people in their thirties who have BTLs, though). Property is being bought above all by foreign investors, sometimes in bulk. That practice should definitely be stopped and first option to buy property, at a truly affordable price (that is, not starting at £300,000, which is absurd), should be given to citizens who actually need property to live in. I thought that was one of the new major's promises before he was elected. :rotfl:

According to this survey https://homelet.co.uk/homelet-rental-index/landlord-survey-2015 46% of landlords are under 51 how many are over 70 is not shown but I would say if the survey is an accurate representation there is a strong chance the majority of landlords are not boomers.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

Perhaps the average summarises a range? and perhaps at some points in the range, as claimed by the company in question, BTL taxes have reduced demand.

It is purely a surmise on my part that reducing demand might lead to a supply reaction.

Never seen Berkeley build affordable home around here. Always upmarket.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Never seen Berkeley build affordable home around here. Always upmarket.

new builds should be the larger higher end, why would catering to the low end make sense?

If new builds are the high end then the people who go to live there are vacating mid and low end which is adding supply to the mid and low end via displacement. If new builds are the low end its just more low end properties. This forces people who want higher end property to extend mid to low end property which is economically inefficient and the net gain on the lower end is still zero

westernpromise

Also of course if you build a lot of low end property for FTBs you dump the price of such properties, so they can't trade up from them to family homes because the prise step up is large and they're in negative equity any way.

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

new builds should be the larger higher end, why would catering to the low end make sense?

If new builds are the high end then the people who go to live there are vacating mid and low end which is adding supply to the mid and low end via displacement. If new builds are the low end its just more low end properties. This forces people who want higher end property to extend mid to low end property which is economically inefficient and the net gain on the lower end is still zero

Stating the obvious. It's Berkeley Homes business model. Nothing complex at all.

lisyloo

ruperts wrote: »

The whole idea of BTL needs a major rethink. At a time of housing crisis, it's morally absurd that we allow people with means, usually baby boomers, to hoard houses for profit as if they are a commodity. Instead we should be treating houses as what they are which is a place that human beings in a country like this need in order not to die.

Shelter is a basic human right, however ownership of property (which is what you are referring to) is not a right. The lowest earners is society have never owned (roughly 1/3rd).

However I do agree with you that some form of rationing is required and some measures are already in place e.g. Stamp duty, cgt.
I believe the consensus on these forums and more widely is not about ownership of property (plentry of people will NEVER be in a position to buy and plenty like me are happy to rent for short term work) but the amount of property available for a growing need. The fundamental problem is we don't have enough and that's causing 30 year olds to stay with their parents which will have knock-on effects e.g. More IVF, more care really needed for the elderly because their kids are working not retired, more childcare required as grandparents are senile etc.

mwpt

michaels wrote: »

Very moral high ground.

But in reality rental accommodation is used more intensively (more people per property) than owner occupied. So using a financial model that shifts occupation to oo from rental just exacerbates the current shortage. Perhaps those who can get together a deposit and but benefit a fraction but those who can't lose out from higher rents covering the extra tax take.

I think you may favour different policies if you didn't already own a house but wanted to. People tend to be self interested.

If we just want to look at it from a practical view, the evidence is in. Allowing BTL to run wild in London over the last decade or so has not helped first time buyers.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I think you may favour different policies if you didn't already own a house but wanted to. People tend to be self interested.

If we just want to look at it from a practical view, the evidence is in. Allowing BTL to run wild in London over the last decade or so has not helped first time buyers.

pretending that the increase in population of London has no consequences and ignoring the consequences, hasn't helped first time buyers
with the existing stock and low build rate , the ONLY way of accommodating the influx of people into London, is more people per houing unit

GreatApe

mwpt wrote: »

I think you may favour different policies if you didn't already own a house but wanted to. People tend to be self interested.

If we just want to look at it from a practical view, the evidence is in. Allowing BTL to run wild in London over the last decade or so has not helped first time buyers.

BTL has run wild in the north east, why are prices there cheaper than 10 years ago.
If you were living in the north east would you come to the conclusion that lots of BTL = great for first time buyers as more BTL correlated with lower prices?

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

why are prices there cheaper than 10 years ago.

Outside London and some of the South East. Incomes haven't risen. At best they've kept up with inflation. In other respects technology has reduced incomes. Working in Finance for example earns nothing like it used to do at lower levels. Nor are so many people required in management positions.