Register   Login   Search:  
Friday, November 21, 2008
     
Using the Forums
To post on the forums you need to register with the site and then log in. Registration is free and confidential, it literally only takes a few seconds. No personal details are required to register.
PricedOut Discussion
Subject: Key worker property schemes
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2 << < 12
Author Messages
Michael
Administrators

Activist
Activist
Posts:101


27/03/2006 9:17 AM Alert 
If you can give me some tangible reasons why they are not good for the individual - and I don't mean macro reasons like sustaining the unsustainable, then I may have some sympathy, but at the moment all I have read is effectively, "Don't like them, want my own and all my own...." - that's not particularly insightful is it ?

Well you will always struggle to come up with immediate reasons why a whopping big subsidy is bad for the individual in the short term. You will always have to look at the bigger picture.

My main problem with it is summed up by the paragraph in "Better Homes, Greener Cities";

The problem with UK housing is clearest in the concern
over affordability, where there is a contradiction at the
heart of policy. There is a desire to minimise the amount of
land being built on by redeveloping existing urban land.
But in the face of increasing demand this results in rising
land and house prices. These high prices are a consequence
of planning policy but they are also, economically, a part of
that policy. Homes are then said to be ‘unaffordable’; key
workers are excluded from decent housing. This is followed
by a demand that housing should be built which is ‘affordable’,
in other words, subsidised. But this then limits the
land available for unsubsidised ‘market’ housing, so the
price of that housing further increases. Some housing is
made more affordable but only by making the rest less so.

This effect is magnified if developers are forced to pay a
levy for affordable housing or have to make a percentage of
the development affordable once planning permission is
granted.


So the main problem for the individual is that when they come to buy their next house, the price is ultimately higher than if the government hadn't been using money for subsidising key workers or building "affordable" housing schemes.

Besides why would you diminish the macro economic effects, surely it's valid for us to point out these schemes favour a few over the many and don't target the root cause of the problem. Is there a more valid point you can ever make!
Michael
Administrators

Activist
Activist
Posts:101


27/03/2006 9:23 AM Alert 
You might not like the responses I am giving, but I am trying to be constructive - at the moment, the vast majority of posts read like "I want it and it's not fair" - there's very little rationale for sweeping statements and it needs to graduate from the junior common room antics

Actually I'm finding your responses very useful.

I think you are being a bit hard on people letting steam off regarding their personal situations... it's very frustrating place to find yourself at and it's cathartic sometimes to share it with other people in similar situations. Perhaps we should set up a "have a good moan about it" forum for those sort of posts.

actually formulating something that is presentable to the public (if you are serious about taking it forward).

We are very serious about taking this forward. Setting up this site was not cheap and has consumed a lot of time. It would not have been done unless there was very strong motivation driving it.
frugalista
Volunteers

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Posts:64


27/03/2006 7:21 PM Alert 

If you do pay more, do you really think most people will spend it on houses, no they will spend it on big tellies and holidays or on paying even more for small one bed flats.... in effect it boosts inflation (which is already in the real world and ignoring the government's (all of them do it) play on picking and choosing what counts towards the official rate and what does not at somewhere between 5 and 8% in my view. More money won't do it, you have to effectively put the money in but ringfence it so it can't get wasted by people or so it does not feed the monster - hence they are trying to do shared equity.


Well, it seems I agree with you almost entirely. You mentioned that you can't pay key workers more as it's public money. But take the case of "equity loans" offered to teachers etc. The government hands the teacher a lump sum, say £50k, to buy a house. Suppose the £50k makes up 25% of the house value. The teacher buys the house and pays no interest on the loan while living there. When the house is sold, the teacher must return 25% of the sale proceeds to the government. That's how the equity loan system works. So the government is making a bet on the housing market. It's not free though, the opportunity cost on the £50k is public money. In fact, the size of this opportunity cost is roughly equal to the amount the teacher's pay would have to increase to fund the purchase outright. So, they *are* spending public money. I think. And they *are* paying teachers more, effectively. They are just paying them in a way guaranteed to stimulate demand for a particular commodity which is not in the inflation basket.

frugalista
frugalista
Volunteers

Concerned Citizen
Concerned Citizen
Posts:64


27/03/2006 7:23 PM Alert 
PS Rachman, I should add that you are a good Devil's advocate. Please do stay on the site and pick apart our sixth-form level reasoning so that we make it watertight!

frugalista
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 2 << < 12

Forums > General Discussion > General Discussion > Key worker property schemes



ActiveForums 3.6
Terms Of Use   Privacy Statement   © 2008 PricedOut.org.uk