Why are house prices still so high?

David_Evans

fatbeetle wrote: »

House prices aren't high, didn't you hear? In 2016 the Sage of the remain campaign, George Osborne, forecast that;



That did happen, didn't it?

No.
Because the BoE hasn't raised interest rates.

At 0.75pc - there isn't much room to cut when the next recession hits.
So I expect more QE.

David_Evans

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Most areas of the north east are now cheaper in real terms than 10 years ago.
)

My house is probably cheaper now (in GBP) than it was in 2006.
(Difficult to be certain due to the renovations I've done etc).

But measured in USD it's much cheaper.

The only true way to compare house prices over time is to use the price in gold or silver.

'Adjusting for inflation' in fiat terms isn't accurate - because the RPI / CPI figures are kept deliberately low.

GreatApe

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Absolutely but i think you're still missing the point.
Big cities will always be more expensive due to more job opportunities & access to amenities etc. The disparity is disgusting, really you should be paying 2 times (maybe 3 times) more in London than up north, not the 7, 8 or 9 times it currently is.

The housing stock is not comparable

It might cost you £200k for an ok 3-4 bedroom house in birmingham and it costs £400k for an ex council 3 bed flat in zone 2 so the price is only 2x

Now you might be thinking why are you comparing an ex council flat to a 3-4 bed house. The reason is they are the majority of the stock in each area. Hackney zone 2 London, like a lot of zone 2 London is mostly council stock.

Also renting is cheaper in London...really for many it is. Hackney Islington Tower Hamlets Newham is council homes as far as the eye can see. Some parts 50% council stock. So many residents actually pay lower rents than rUK where there is no nowhere near as much council stock

And actually the house prices are just a sympton of a greater issue. That issue being our successive governments dont care about the regions, just London. So London gets way too much public investment per head than it should which then drives more private investment. Its a vicious circle.

What sort of public investment? Transport? Its paid for above an over in ticket sales parking charges and parking tickets (10x as much as rUK combined) and London pays most the taxes. What other 'public investment' is there?

Post credit crunch/austerity its those let down areas which have suffered the hardest. Its then no surprise those same areas voted for brexit. Then our supposed educated politicians then scratch their heads wondering why it happened.

Let down areas? What has the government done to let down a certain area? London has the least number of public sector workers per capital. If private sector businesses are not flocking to the north you need to ask yourself why. Its not the government, the government charges £1 million a year in business rates for a small office in London you can rent the same space in a place like telford for £30k a year with no business rates to pay so already the government is punishing firms to be in London by huge sums yet they prefer it because London is just more productive and we are lucky that is the case

We need a more balanced economy spreadout more accross the country & government should start by moving as many department out of the capital as possible.

Why should the government dictate where companies are based?
The government already heavily taxes London business more than elsewhere in the form of rates and rents (which are also taxed) and higher wages being taxed higher income and employers NI. There is already a incentive to not be in London we dont need the economy skewed more by these dumb ideas

GreatApe

If anything the UK should be broken up into its 12 regions and all taxes collected within the region should stay and be spent in that region. Let the non London regions take a good look at themselves once they need to balance their own checkbooks before they cry life is unfair

Thrugelmir

Zero_Sum wrote: »

We need a more balanced economy spreadout more accross the country & government should start by moving as many department out of the capital as possible.

Same was said and tried in the 70's. No Government has suceeded. Decentralisation to local level would be more effective.

Zero_Sum

GreatApe wrote: »

The housing stock is not comparable

It might cost you £200k for an ok 3-4 bedroom house in birmingham and it costs £400k for an ex council 3 bed flat in zone 2 so the price is only 2x

Now you might be thinking why are you comparing an ex council flat to a 3-4 bed house. The reason is they are the majority of the stock in each area. Hackney zone 2 London, like a lot of zone 2 London is mostly council stock.

Also renting is cheaper in London...really for many it is. Hackney Islington Tower Hamlets Newham is council homes as far as the eye can see. Some parts 50% council stock. So many residents actually pay lower rents than rUK where there is no nowhere near as much council stock



What sort of public investment? Transport? Its paid for above an over in ticket sales parking charges and parking tickets (10x as much as rUK combined) and London pays most the taxes. What other 'public investment' is there?



Let down areas? What has the government done to let down a certain area? London has the least number of public sector workers per capital. If private sector businesses are not flocking to the north you need to ask yourself why. Its not the government, the government charges £1 million a year in business rates for a small office in London you can rent the same space in a place like telford for £30k a year with no business rates to pay so already the government is punishing firms to be in London by huge sums yet they prefer it because London is just more productive and we are lucky that is the case



Why should the government dictate where companies are based?
The government already heavily taxes London business more than elsewhere in the form of rates and rents (which are also taxed) and higher wages being taxed higher income and employers NI. There is already a incentive to not be in London we dont need the economy skewed more by these dumb ideas

Usual londoncentric drivel from you

https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-transport-figures-reveal-north-to-receive-indefensible-2-555-less-per-person-than-london

Germany has the right idea in having the bank in Frankfurt rather than Berlin

Zero_Sum

GreatApe wrote: »

If anything the UK should be broken up into its 12 regions and all taxes collected within the region should stay and be spent in that region. Let the non London regions take a good look at themselves once they need to balance their own checkbooks before they cry life is unfair

Thats like FFP in football. The likes of Chelsea & Man City would now be ok but to get there they wouldve had to break the rules which previoysly didnt exist.

Its a chicken & egg situation London does get more per head than the regions which drives private investment. Who's paying for HS2? The only beneficiaries are London. The money spent on that would make a massive difference to the rest of the country & ease the burdon on london with regards to housing.

David_Evans

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Usual londoncentric drivel from you

https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-transport-figures-reveal-north-to-receive-indefensible-2-555-less-per-person-than-london

Germany has the right idea in having the bank in Frankfurt rather than Berlin

You are both correct.

London has more business and so pays more tax.
Probably because many of the new businesses starting up - or expanding etc are office-based service sector type businesses.

I don't think many new factories are getting built in London.

The decline in the North / Midlands / South Wales etc is due to heavy industry and manufacturing moving overseas. These industries provided 'real' jobs that a man could do for life and support a family. The new service jobs (in warehouses etc) are seen as insecure and also lack a sense of workplace identity. This is a major reason for the discontent I hear from people - especially men.

GreatApe

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Usual londoncentric drivel from you

https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-transport-figures-reveal-north-to-receive-indefensible-2-555-less-per-person-than-london

Germany has the right idea in having the bank in Frankfurt rather than Berlin

Why do you think a 'think tank' is anything more than a lobby group peddling propaganda?

A first order estimate shows they are full of !!!!.
'London will receive £4,155 per person'
£4,155 x 8.8 million people = £36.5 billion annually

No way does London get £36,5 billion annually spent on transport PAID FOR BY CENTRAL GOVERNEMNT

So your report is simply full of !!!!

HAhahaha it also suggests transport spending as £108 billion so the government spends almost as much on transport as it does on the NHS. Give me a break. How dumb can you be to believe this !!!! without thinking for a moment for yourself?

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

Why do you think a 'think tank' is anything more than a lobby group peddling propaganda?

A first order estimate shows they are full of !!!!.
'London will receive £4,155 per person'
£4,155 x 8.8 million people = £36.5 billion annually

No way does London get £36,5 billion annually spent on transport PAID FOR BY CENTRAL GOVERNEMNT

So your report is simply full of !!!!

HAhahaha it also suggests transport spending as £108 billion so the government spends almost as much on transport as it does on the NHS. Give me a break. How dumb can you be to believe this !!!! without thinking for a moment for yourself?

The governments own figure for this year is 19.3 billion for transport in the whole of the nation. So somehow your think tank has managed to have London spending being 200% of while uk spending....