Why prop up the new build market instead of the ENTIRE property market??

princeofpounds

moneysavinghero said:

I'll repeat - population density being a barrier to better development is just a myth. We have tons of land even in the South-East where we could build quality homes, rather than force them into Persimmon's battery farm houses.

But people also like to eat. Yes you can cover all of the available land in houses, but then you can't use that land for growing food. Generally more houses is an indication of a growing population and therefore a growing demand for food. So at the same time as you are removing land for food production you are increasing the need for food. Not sustainable in the long term.

Nothing is sustainable long-term, if you take a closed-system assumption. The UK imports just under half the food it consumes anyway. Although it could be self-sufficient - we export a similar amount - but we would all have to eat a lot more grain and a lot less bananas.

Besides, food security is not best ensured by self-sufficiency (although it can form part of it), but by diversity of supply. The Irish were self-sufficient in food but that just meant the potato blight resulted in total famine. 

Nor would it be hard to raise UK agricultural output. It would just require the incentive of higher food prices to motivate the required investment. There's plenty of land in the UK that is more optimised to farming subsidies than farming food. We have to subsidise agricultural production generally in UK and Europe because there is surplus food around (not saying that's a bad thing in all respects).

The 'we need to grow food' argument against development is genuinely one of the worst arguments there is. Good quality shelter should be as important as good quality food for living standards.

Crashy_Time

Silvertabby said:

I know this won't apply in all HTB cases - but my niece and her husband are already starting to panic.  They have just a few months to go before their 5 year 'free' loan expires - at which point they don't expect to be able to re-mortgage to cover the loan because their house hasn't risen in value, and they know that they will struggle to meet the HTB payments.

Bank of mum and dad probably won't be able to help - they took out some form of equity release to give their daughter and husband their 'own' deposit.  To be honest, I'm dreading the possibilty of them asking us to help, as a form of 'early inheritance' - but as Mr S and I are only in our 60s we will have to say no as we don't know what our own future needs will be.

Yes, it was jolly nice for a pair of first time buyers to be able to 'afford' a brand new 4 bed/2 bath/study house, but I'm dreading the next few months.

Yes, "No" is the best answer, they need to find out for themselves how the debt based ponzi economy operates, hopefully they take a lesson from the experience.

Crashy_Time

DIY housebuilding, LOL, the average person nowadays couldn`t wire a plug! I have seen first hand the results of people trying to do "self-builds", it wasn`t pretty, and the toll on their marriage/emotional/mental health wasn`t pretty either. Leave building to the experts, and remember there is plenty of land and no shortage of housing!

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

So now everybody should take twelve months off their job, and actually do the construction of their home themselves, because otherwise you're simply padding builders' profits...

I do hope you aren't paying other people to dig or transport that sand, but you're doing it yourself.

I'm just pointing out the possibilities.  Plenty of people build their own homes instead of moping around moaning about how difficult it is to get on the housing ladder because everything is too expensive.
As for taking a year out of their job, I appreciate your sarcasm but it could make perfect financial sense for some people if you consider what they would earn in a year compared to how much they could save on buying a house.

And how will they repay their mortgages during that time? Y'know, the mortgages they need to repay in order to live in the house they haven't actually built yet.

In fact, building houses could BE their job if they wish

But in your utopia, nobody's going to pay anybody else to build anything for them, just DIY. So they won't have any customers.

1.  Savings.  How much would the annual repayments be on, say, a £200k mortgage?  £10k?  Every business needs some initial funding and £10k is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.  Plus, spending savings on such a project would focus the mind on getting it finished and sold off asap.

2. You're being too narrow in your outlook and have equated 'job' with 'customers' when actually there is only one customer - the person who buys the house!  You then move on and build the next house for yourself, not for anyone else - that would involve tax and vat and all that, whereas by building the house for oneself all that is avoided and the house is eventually sold in order to fund the next project.  But if, say, £200k clear profit can be made on one house, there wouldn't be any rush.
Sure, it would take a few years but for anyone in their 20s with the drive and the energy it's perfectly feasible and almost certainly more profitable that working a standard job somewhere, saving up a deposit, then getting a mortgage to buy a house.  I'm not suggesting it's for everyone, just that it's an option.

Mickey666

moneysavinghero said:

I'll repeat - population density being a barrier to better development is just a myth. We have tons of land even in the South-East where we could build quality homes, rather than force them into Persimmon's battery farm houses.

But people also like to eat. Yes you can cover all of the available land in houses, but then you can't use that land for growing food. Generally more houses is an indication of a growing population and therefore a growing demand for food. So at the same time as you are removing land for food production you are increasing the need for food. Not sustainable in the long term.

Well you're dead right to be concerned about sustainability but I'm afraid that mankind is already well past that because of  overpopulation and average lifestyle: https://phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-alarming.html
Have a play with the numbers here: http://www.footprintcalculator.org/
In the absence of any sensible discussions on how to reduce our global population the only thing we can look forward to further environmental degredation and reducing average lifestyles.  It could be argued that we're already seeing the effects of reducing lifestyles - current generation being 'poorer' than their parent's generation etc etc.  It's slow, but it's inevitable.

Mickey666

Crashy_Time said:

DIY housebuilding, LOL, the average person nowadays couldn`t wire a plug! I have seen first hand the results of people trying to do "self-builds", it wasn`t pretty, and the toll on their marriage/emotional/mental health wasn`t pretty either. Leave building to the experts, and remember there is plenty of land and no shortage of housing!

Who wants to be average though?  That sort of thinking pretty much condemns you to mediocrity.  There are plenty of people who have proved it can be done, but you're right it's not for everyone.  Especially those with your outlook and ambition.

Crashy_Time

Mickey666 said:

moneysavinghero said:

I'll repeat - population density being a barrier to better development is just a myth. We have tons of land even in the South-East where we could build quality homes, rather than force them into Persimmon's battery farm houses.

But people also like to eat. Yes you can cover all of the available land in houses, but then you can't use that land for growing food. Generally more houses is an indication of a growing population and therefore a growing demand for food. So at the same time as you are removing land for food production you are increasing the need for food. Not sustainable in the long term.

Well you're dead right to be concerned about sustainability but I'm afraid that mankind is already well past that because of  overpopulation and average lifestyle: https://phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-alarming.html
Have a play with the numbers here: http://www.footprintcalculator.org/
In the absence of any sensible discussions on how to reduce our global population the only thing we can look forward to further environmental degredation and reducing average lifestyles.  It could be argued that we're already seeing the effects of reducing lifestyles - current generation being 'poorer' than their parent's generation etc etc.  It's slow, but it's inevitable.

That is due to the financial system and "financialization" of everything from education to basic living spaces, and everything in between, very little to do with population and environmental degradation.

Crashy_Time

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

So now everybody should take twelve months off their job, and actually do the construction of their home themselves, because otherwise you're simply padding builders' profits...

I do hope you aren't paying other people to dig or transport that sand, but you're doing it yourself.

I'm just pointing out the possibilities.  Plenty of people build their own homes instead of moping around moaning about how difficult it is to get on the housing ladder because everything is too expensive.
As for taking a year out of their job, I appreciate your sarcasm but it could make perfect financial sense for some people if you consider what they would earn in a year compared to how much they could save on buying a house.

And how will they repay their mortgages during that time? Y'know, the mortgages they need to repay in order to live in the house they haven't actually built yet.

In fact, building houses could BE their job if they wish

But in your utopia, nobody's going to pay anybody else to build anything for them, just DIY. So they won't have any customers.

1.  Savings.  How much would the annual repayments be on, say, a £200k mortgage?  £10k?  Every business needs some initial funding and £10k is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.  Plus, spending savings on such a project would focus the mind on getting it finished and sold off asap.

2. You're being too narrow in your outlook and have equated 'job' with 'customers' when actually there is only one customer - the person who buys the house!  You then move on and build the next house for yourself, not for anyone else - that would involve tax and vat and all that, whereas by building the house for oneself all that is avoided and the house is eventually sold in order to fund the next project.  But if, say, £200k clear profit can be made on one house, there wouldn't be any rush.
Sure, it would take a few years but for anyone in their 20s with the drive and the energy it's perfectly feasible and almost certainly more profitable that working a standard job somewhere, saving up a deposit, then getting a mortgage to buy a house.  I'm not suggesting it's for everyone, just that it's an option.

Average self-builder would be lucky to avoid that in budget over-run, lets face it "flipping" houses is over, the average person now just flips things on their phone screen and after this mess blows through and there is no more FOM there will be plenty of empty property to go round so why get bogged down in a "project" if you don`t need to?

annetheman

It's a vicious cycle. I don't particularly like the modern style but I'm buying a new build leasehold with a govt scheme because as a single 31 year old in the south east, that's all I can afford. Like x00,000s in my age group, I am feeding the new build monster machine and the chance to start building equity quietens the dull ache I feel when I see beautiful original Victorian features in freehold houses I couldn't afford until I'm in my 50s.

If only they were available on Shared Ownership/HTB/Share Equity, or better yet, if only wage increases had kept up with house price increases. And the more that gap widens, the more of us need the govt schemes, thus feeding the new build monster machine, thus driving up prices, thus widening the gap, thus more of us need..... etc etc.

Mickey666

Crashy_Time said:

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

So now everybody should take twelve months off their job, and actually do the construction of their home themselves, because otherwise you're simply padding builders' profits...

I do hope you aren't paying other people to dig or transport that sand, but you're doing it yourself.

I'm just pointing out the possibilities.  Plenty of people build their own homes instead of moping around moaning about how difficult it is to get on the housing ladder because everything is too expensive.
As for taking a year out of their job, I appreciate your sarcasm but it could make perfect financial sense for some people if you consider what they would earn in a year compared to how much they could save on buying a house.

And how will they repay their mortgages during that time? Y'know, the mortgages they need to repay in order to live in the house they haven't actually built yet.

In fact, building houses could BE their job if they wish

But in your utopia, nobody's going to pay anybody else to build anything for them, just DIY. So they won't have any customers.

1.  Savings.  How much would the annual repayments be on, say, a £200k mortgage?  £10k?  Every business needs some initial funding and £10k is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.  Plus, spending savings on such a project would focus the mind on getting it finished and sold off asap.

2. You're being too narrow in your outlook and have equated 'job' with 'customers' when actually there is only one customer - the person who buys the house!  You then move on and build the next house for yourself, not for anyone else - that would involve tax and vat and all that, whereas by building the house for oneself all that is avoided and the house is eventually sold in order to fund the next project.  But if, say, £200k clear profit can be made on one house, there wouldn't be any rush.
Sure, it would take a few years but for anyone in their 20s with the drive and the energy it's perfectly feasible and almost certainly more profitable that working a standard job somewhere, saving up a deposit, then getting a mortgage to buy a house.  I'm not suggesting it's for everyone, just that it's an option.

Average self-builder would be lucky to avoid that in budget over-run, lets face it "flipping" houses is over, the average person now just flips things on their phone screen and after this mess blows through and there is no more FOM there will be plenty of empty property to go round so why get bogged down in a "project" if you don`t need to?

Average . . . average . . . like I said, who wants to be average?