One Million Council Houses per year.

[danny12]

I agree, too many people; but more houses does not mean more people, you have it the wrong way around.

More houses means lower prices, which is good for the young and the poor, but not the asset rich.

 

Increasing housing supply results in lower prices,

lower prices results in lower living costs,

lower living costs results in more immigration and larger families for some,

more immigration and larger families results in more people.

more people results more demand for housing and everything else,

more demand results in higher prices,

higher prices takes us back to square one but with a larger population.

Edited September 13, 2015 by danny12

[Happ Hazzard]

I agree, too many people; but more houses does not mean more people, you have it the wrong way around.

More houses means lower prices, which is good for the young and the poor, but not the asset rich.

It does mean more people. People that aren't having children at the moment because they can't afford it will have them. More immigrants will come if the cost of living is here is lessened. Look at how much the population increased between 1945 and 1970 while massive numbers of houses were being built.

[tinfoilhat]

That space is needed for wind farms and other environmental concerns that you seem rather supportive of in other threads. Bit inconsistent.

 

Still you have a point. But if you relax planning restrictions in the way you describe, the cost of building new houses would go down. Then as supply increased, the cost of buying and therefore of renting all houses would go down.

In which case you'd fid that the need for social housing went down as well.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 14:13 ----------

 

 

It's also not good for a great many people who struggled hard to raise a £10k deposit for £90k mortgage for a £100k house which would then be worth a lot less. Wipe 15% off the value of that house and they're in a lot of trouble.

 

That issue can be addressed by implementing the plan gradually. Then house prices would not fall in cash terms but would gradually fall in real terms (of various kinds) and would gradually become more affordable.

 

They're only in trouble if they have to move. Otherwise they could just, you know, live in it.

[apelike]

It does mean more people. People that aren't having children at the moment because they can't afford it will have them. More immigrants will come if the cost of living is here is lessened. Look at how much the population increased between 1945 and 1970 while massive numbers of houses were being built.

 

The population increased just after the war mainly because of the "baby boom." The houses that were built were mainly to replace millions that got bombed during the war and also stop the "Rachmanism" that was in existence. A term conned from Peter Rachmam who was a private landlord who exploited the poor which also led to new housing laws.

Edited September 13, 2015 by apelike

[unbeliever]

They're only in trouble if they have to move. Otherwise they could just, you know, live in it.

 

You're taking away their power to move.

Also, what if their financial situation worsens for some reason. Chronic illness, lost jobs. What if they wanted to borrow against their equity? It's just been destroyed.

When their home debt was less than its value, they had options which they would lose if the value dropped rapidly.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 15:33 ----------

 

That because the rent its not subsidised.

 

The governments have taken more in rent in the past to pay for those homes many times over. The fact that they are not being rented at an inflated market rent does not mean they are subsidised as council homes were never built to mirror market rents. Social housing rents were set as affordable rents.

 

The strange bit is that if social housing rent go up then so does the housing benefit that may be paid so raising rents is in a sense counter productive. So dont be mislead by others that claim a subsidy exists when it does not.

 

Now, the new Help To Buy scheme is costing the taxpayer £billions and IS a subsidy as it is paying towards a private sale mortgage.

 

You're playing games with the definition of subsidy.

[El Cid]

You're playing games with the definition of subsidy.

 

You gave me a link that "Council housing has been making a profit for the last 7 years, which has been paid to the Treasury."

 

Are meaning that they used to get a subsidy; you can blame Labour if you want

[unbeliever]

You gave me a link that "Council housing has been making a profit for the last 7 years, which has been paid to the Treasury."

 

Are meaning that they used to get a subsidy; you can blame Labour if you want

 

The state is in the landlord business. If they're charging less than market rates to their tenants, that's a subsidy.

Don't forget that most people in social housing have at least a large chunk of their rent paid by the state anyway.

[El Cid]

The state is in the landlord business. If they're charging less than market rates to their tenants, that's a subsidy.

Don't forget that most people in social housing have at least a large chunk of their rent paid by the state anyway.

 

So if you think that the councils should increase their rents, then private landlords would increase their rents too; costing the state more in housing benefit.

[unbeliever]

So if you think that the councils should increase their rents, then private landlords would increase their rents too; costing the state more in housing benefit.

 

NO!

 

How many times?

 

I'm not saying that the state should not subsidise housing. I'm just saying that they are doing so.

[Jim Hardie]

A previous Labour government (it might have been Wilson's) promised 500,000 a year and never got close.