nightrider Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 a BIG THANK you to everyone for the comments, to angus, altus, WallBuilder, Cyclone, erebus, Obelix, lil-minx92, Ms Macbeth, tinfoilhat and Anna B I am no expert but the impression I get after reading and re-reading the above there seems to be a monopoly over who can buy a house, when, where, and how … and in the main it has very little to do with supply & demand To say that building many houses in a short space of time would devalue the houses of many owners makes sense but doesn’t solve the problem does it? And to say that we have enough houses as it is and don’t need to build more I think is against what I know … I'm not sure - I know lots of people who are not homeless, yet they are unable to buy houses due to high prices. Clearly in these cases the problem is not lack of housing because they live in one, but the problem is prices have been pushed too high for an ordinary person. So they are forced to rent from someone who can afford to buy the house. I also believe high prices are caused partially by credit being too loose - e.g. the new help to but scheme is effectively allowing people who can't afford to house to get one, with the taxpayer shouldering some of the risk. If people could not afford it AND no-one else would step in to buy a particular house at that price then the prices should drop at some point - schemes like help to buy work to keep the price high or even increase it (many seem to be predicting HTB will cause the price bubble to inflate even more in london) because then that individual suddenly can afford the high price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Its mainly social housing that is in short supply especially in London and the South East. Its never going to be built in large quantities again, certainly not by councils. No it probably won't. of course in hinesight the intelligent thing to do when a council property is sold off is to keep hold of the money and use it to build new council stock. For some reason no-one figured this out, lots of housing stock was sold off and the money was wasted?? Can't even blame Maggie for this one, it was down to the individual councils to sort the money out and they ****** it up the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Me please! I can buy a larger house cheaper then and I'm not daft enough to use it as a piggy bank. It's quite astonishing that so many people don't realise this, especially as it would benefit most people who own their home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil-minx92 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I'm not sure - I know lots of people who are not homeless, yet they are unable to buy houses due to high prices. Clearly in these cases the problem is not lack of housing because they live in one, but the problem is prices have been pushed too high for an ordinary person. So they are forced to rent from someone who can afford to buy the house. I also believe high prices are caused partially by credit being too loose - e.g. the new help to but scheme is effectively allowing people who can't afford to house to get one, with the taxpayer shouldering some of the risk. If people could not afford it AND no-one else would step in to buy a particular house at that price then the prices should drop at some point - schemes like help to buy work to keep the price high or even increase it (many seem to be predicting HTB will cause the price bubble to inflate even more in london) because then that individual suddenly can afford the high price. This is a good point. If a person on an average wage cant afford an average house, either wages are too low, or house prices are too high, or we should accept that the structure of the economy has changed such that home ownership shouldn’t be viewed as attainable for the average person. What is the definition of an affordable home anyway?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 No it probably won't. of course in hinesight the intelligent thing to do when a council property is sold off is to keep hold of the money and use it to build new council stock. For some reason no-one figured this out, lots of housing stock was sold off and the money was wasted?? Can't even blame Maggie for this one, it was down to the individual councils to sort the money out and they ****** it up the wall. Weren't councils banned from using the proceeds of council house sales for building replacement council houses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Me please! I can buy a larger house cheaper then and I'm not daft enough to use it as a piggy bank. Yep I'm with you on this one, I would like a bigger house with a couple of acres, if they fall in price by 50% I would be able to afford one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 This is a good point. If a person on an average wage cant afford an average house, either wages are too low, or house prices are too high, or we should accept that the structure of the economy has changed such that home ownership shouldn’t be viewed as attainable for the average person. What is the definition of an affordable home anyway?? An average wage at what point in their life? It's not a single fixed value from the age of 18 through to 65 you know... And should that be a single person? Or a couple? Just using two average values doesn't mean that they should be related. Has it ever been possible to buy the average priced home on the average national salary? ---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 17:19 ---------- There isn't a political will to get house prices down. Why would there be? Hands up all home owners (the vast majority of the country) who want thousands knocking off the value of their house? Won't be many people voting for that. I'm in, when can we do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Weren't councils banned from using the proceeds of council house sales for building replacement council houses? Yes. The whole idea was to reduce the number of homes owned by councils and remove them from political control. Many local authorities now own none, as they've passed them on to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)/Housing associations. Margaret Thatcher's government wanted as many people as possible to own their own homes. The opportunity was great for people who were already tenants of nice brick built houses in desirable areas, but it certainly didn't give all aspiring home owners a fair chance. I worked on an estate in a nearby town where there were actually a few detached council houses. I believe they were all bought pretty quickly! ---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 17:35 ---------- I think we should be doing a lot more to bring disused houses back into use. There are loads of them and they would go a long way to ending the housing crisis. Any new building should be done on brownfield sites. There's lots of that available too. I also think it makes no sense to have flats standing empty when there are people without homes. Why don't the councils buy them and rent them out themselves, rather than leaving it to private Landlords? It doesn't need councils to buy them (most haven't the money), but they could work with the landlords to get them up to scratch and rent them out via the local authority's lettings system. Alternatively, housing associations could buy them, as many do, and let them to people in need. I believe there should be more emphasis on ensuring that empty properties aren't left to rot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Yes. The whole idea was to reduce the number of homes owned by councils and remove them from political control. Many local authorities now own none, as they've passed them on to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)/Housing associations. Margaret Thatcher's government wanted as many people as possible to own their own homes. The opportunity was great for people who were already tenants of nice brick built houses in desirable areas, but it certainly didn't give all aspiring home owners a fair chance. I worked on an estate in a nearby town where there were actually a few detached council houses. I believe they were all bought pretty quickly! ---------- Post added 22-08-2013 at 17:35 ---------- It doesn't need councils to buy them (most haven't the money), but they could work with the landlords to get them up to scratch and rent them out via the local authority's lettings system. Alternatively, housing associations could buy them, as many do, and let them to people in need. I believe there should be more emphasis on ensuring that empty properties aren't left to rot. Empty properties still have to pay council tax, if they are empty for more than 2 years the council tax increases by 50% so that's one way of trying to stop properties remaining empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 May I start by saying if you believe like I do that there is demand for new houses that has not been met, what is in your opinion the reason? Land banks. Miliband targets land banking in building drive NIMBYism A desire to keep house prices high in order to keep the 70% who are home owners happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.