One Million Council Houses per year.

[Berberis]

I don't think the UK's chav population has it in them to produce enough children to fill a million council houses a year.

[tzijlstra]

I agree that we need to build more but would those new builds be to rent or to buy? as you seem to be implying that they would be for sale. If they are for sale then the prices may come down affecting those people who already have a mortgage and maybe forcing them into negative equity.

 

That is not what this government want so they prefer to subsidise new mortgages with the Help To Buy scheme costing £billions and at the same time it keeps house prices high.

 

If there are plenty houses in private ownership than rental properties will become available. But until that is possible than the (local) government can impose regulations on projects that have been cultivated by councils. The problem is, as said before, that councils don't cultivate enough. For some reason Britain thinks this is a national problem, it is not, it can only be tackled on a regional/local level where a solid knowledge of the local housing-stock exists.

[danny12]

It all depends on where you put the peg. Measure from 1990 and it has gone up. Either way, considering the UK population has gone up, isn't that the most significant indicator that the UK needs to build more?

 

Its declined from its peak of 82,530,000, ours hasn't, it's gone up significantly, this is one of the reasons we have high prices and they have lower prices.

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2015 at 20:26 ----------

 

Its been a deliberate political social policy for decades. Thatcher knew that getting people to buy their homes and encouraging people with the RTB meant getting them into debt from buying.

 

Debt is better than rent because the debt will one day be paid off and you will own an house, rent is never paid off and you never own the house you live in. Borrowing money to buy an house works out much cheaper in the long term than renting.

[unbeliever]

If there are plenty houses in private ownership than rental properties will become available. But until that is possible than the (local) government can impose regulations on projects that have been cultivated by councils. The problem is, as said before, that councils don't cultivate enough. For some reason Britain thinks this is a national problem, it is not, it can only be tackled on a regional/local level where a solid knowledge of the local housing-stock exists.

 

Do you think it could help to fund councils with something other than a local property value tax?

It may be providing a perverse incentive.

 

How is local government funded for example in Germany?

[apelike]

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2015 at 20:26 ----------

 

Debt is better than rent because the debt will one day be paid off and you will own an house, rent is never paid off and you never own the house you live in. Borrowing money to buy an house works out much cheaper in the long term than renting.

 

That really depends on how you look at it.

 

At the moment it may be better because of very low interest rates but that will not last. I can remember when interest rates were in the 10-12% range and when the rates increase it means it costs more and takes longer to pay off. That £120,000 home may actually sound cheap but may cost you over £350,000 once it is eventually paid off. The only time it is really beneficial is if you have more than one, that way you rent one out to get a steady income. There is also the prospect that as the home is an asset it has to be sold to pay for any healthcare needed later on in life. I know many people who are over 55 and yet have not paid off their mortgage.

 

Is it better to have money to spend when younger or tying that money up in an asset that you may only capitalise on when you are old?

 

As pointed out Germany and France seem to rent much more rather than buy but that also maybe because I think their rents rises are restricted.

[danny12]

That really depends on how you look at it.

 

At the moment it may be better because of very low interest rates but that will not last. I can remember when interest rates were in the 10-12% range and when the rates increase it means it costs more and takes longer to pay off. That £120,000 home may actually sound cheap but may cost you over £350,000 once it is eventually paid off. The only time it is really beneficial is if you have more than one, that way you rent one out to get a steady income. There is also the prospect that as the home is an asset it has to be sold to pay for any healthcare needed later on in life. I know many people who are over 55 and yet have not paid off their mortgage.

 

Is it better to have money to spend when younger or tying that money up in an asset that you may only capitalise on when you are old?

 

As pointed out Germany and France seem to rent much more rather than buy but that also maybe because I think their rents rises are restricted.

 

Me too, my first mortgage reached the dizzy heights of 17%, but when interests rates go up rents also go up unless you are fortunate enough to be in a council house. Most mortgages are for 25 years, some go to 30 and even 40 years, rent is for life and there is nothing to leave your kids when you die. Rents go up years after year, your debt repayment only goes up if interest rates go up and sometimes they come down, over the long term you will pay more in rent than you will in interest on the debt.

[chem1st]

private housing is the way forward. Build more houses, convert existing empty buildings, create flats above shops. The more there are, the lower their price will be. Market forces work.

 

Sadly they do not and the private sector is incapable of housing the people.

 

There must be public sector involvement as the private sector has failed to provide enough homes, time and time again. The only way housing need will be met is if the public sector builds.

 

Large scale social housing construction is needed, along with rent controls, and the recapture of public investment via a land value tax.

 

The owners of land and property in the UK are benefit and subsidy dependent welfare junkies, and owning property, has allowed entire families to live off of estates, due to the state, for centuries. They are the real scroungers and the only example of multi generational benefit dependent families in this country, although rather than being dependent on direct cash transfer benefits, such people have been dependent on hidden benefits, via the land and property, and public investment which increases the desirability and value of said land and property.

[unbeliever]

Sadly they do not and the private sector is incapable of housing the people.

 

There must be public sector involvement as the private sector has failed to provide enough homes, time and time again. The only way housing need will be met is if the public sector builds.

 

Large scale social housing construction is needed, along with rent controls, and the recapture of public investment via a land value tax.

 

The owners of land and property in the UK are benefit and subsidy dependent welfare junkies, and owning property, has allowed entire families to live off of estates, due to the state, for centuries. They are the real scroungers and the only example of multi generational benefit dependent families in this country, although rather than being dependent on direct cash transfer benefits, such people have been dependent on hidden benefits, via the land and property, and public investment which increases the desirability and value of said land and property.

 

Whilst I find your overblown neo-Marxist view on the situation to be profoundly wrong on many levels, you start with a valid point.

 

What is preventing the house building we need?

There is clearly plenty of demand for housing. In the absence of an impediment developers would be jumping over each other to build houses and enjoy the profits from such endeavours. Something is preventing them from doing so. What is it?

 

Remove that impediment and the housing problem will resolve itself without something as drastic and ultimately catastrophic as chem1st suggests, which as far as I can tell amounts to a program of nationalising property.

[danny12]

Whilst I find your overblown neo-Marxist view on the situation to be profoundly wrong on many levels, you start with a valid point.

 

What is preventing the house building we need?

There is clearly plenty of demand for housing. In the absence of an impediment developers would be jumping over each other to build houses and enjoy the profits from such endeavours. Something is preventing them from doing so. What is it?

 

Remove that impediment and the housing problem will resolve itself without something as drastic and ultimately catastrophic as chem1st suggests, which as far as I can tell amounts to a program of nationalising property.

 

Lack of land that local residents are happy to see covered in housing.

[unbeliever]

Lack of land that local residents are happy to see covered in housing.

 

Local citizens' objections to planning applications?

I doubt that.