Do you want house price to rise or fall?

System

I think the biggest problem is that much as everyone might agree in theory that houses are too expensive, in practice it would be politically and economically impossible to contrive a price collapse sufficient to achieve that.

There are only two options:
a) do nothing, and just accept whatever happens
b) nationalise all land and housing without compensation and rent it out solely on the basis of need.

As neither of those things will happen, we shall just go on tinkering and pretending, pushing prices up by small subsidies and planning restrictions.

Thrugelmir

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I think the biggest problem is that much as everyone might agree in theory that houses are too expensive, in practice it would be politically and economically impossible to contrive a price collapse sufficient to achieve that.

Doesn't require a "collapse" just sufficient control to restrict the rate of increase. That progressively makes ownership a possibility for as many people as possible.

GreatApe

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I think the biggest problem is that much as everyone might agree in theory that houses are too expensive, in practice it would be politically and economically impossible to contrive a price collapse sufficient to achieve that.

There are only two options:
a) do nothing, and just accept whatever happens
b) nationalise all land and housing without compensation and rent it out solely on the basis of need.

As neither of those things will happen, we shall just go on tinkering and pretending, pushing prices up by small subsidies and planning restrictions.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Doesn't require a "collapse" just sufficient control to restrict the rate of increase. That progressively makes ownership a possibility for as many people as possible.

What is holding ownership down is the social stock

The private stock is pretty close to full ownership. This is evident by the fact that private rental is a short term transitional tenure. 75% of renters become owners or in social within ten years.

So if you want ownership to boom just give the social tenants their houses for a 90% discount or even a 100% discount. That would take ownership towards 80% and the 20% that were private renters would only be enting temporarily.

GreatApe

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I think the biggest problem is that much as everyone might agree in theory that houses are too expensive, in practice it would be politically and economically impossible to contrive a price collapse sufficient to achieve that.

There are only two options:
a) do nothing, and just accept whatever happens
b) nationalise all land and housing without compensation and rent it out solely on the basis of need.

As neither of those things will happen, we shall just go on tinkering and pretending, pushing prices up by small subsidies and planning restrictions.

The nation is no better housed post a house price crash.

The only way to improve the quantity and quality of housing is to improve the quantity and quality of housing.

Chrysalis

GreatApe wrote: »

What is holding ownership down is the social stock

The private stock is pretty close to full ownership. This is evident by the fact that private rental is a short term transitional tenure. 75% of renters become owners or in social within ten years.

So if you want ownership to boom just give the social tenants their houses for a 90% discount or even a 100% discount. That would take ownership towards 80% and the 20% that were private renters would only be enting temporarily.

Terrible idea.

Social housing been transferred to ownership shouldnt be happening period. Definitely shouldnt be happening when we have a social housing shortage.

Your idea also offers no solution to those stuck in private rental trap.

movilogo

There are only two options:
a) do nothing, and just accept whatever happens
b) nationalise all land and housing without compensation and rent it out solely on the basis of need.

Based on response received in this poll so far, our politicians would opt for [a] as it is best option for them.

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

The only way to improve the quantity and quality of housing is to improve the quantity and quality of housing.

Private ownership is a way of maintaining quality of housing stock. Letting for profit results in much cutting of corners.

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter

I voted to rise because I own a number of properties and have no reason to move or sell any until retirement.

andrewf75

ilovehouses wrote: »

There are about 4m social homes in the UK.

That's an abundance; not a shortage.

It’s a shortage because millions more are stuck in private rentals where they pay as much as people pay for a mortgage but with no security.

Its basically just transferring public money into the hands of private landlords via tax credits/housing benefit.

westernpromise

So what's your solution? Refuse to pay housing benefit to private tenants? Good luck with that.