furrycushion
Concerned Citizen
Posts:37
 |
| 24/01/2010 6:52 AM |
 Alert
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7026801/Buying-a-home-costs-four-times-as-much-as-50-years-ago-says-Halifax.html
Biggest expense in your life and we have to work four times longer to pay for it.
Absolutely outrageous that nobody removes planning restrictions when house price inflation exceeds a certain level.
Sure you may not want your neighbour to build an extra room above his garage. But you know what? Fuck you, you do not have a right to stop people having a place to live just so you can save a precious view.
That's whats happened a million times up and down this country by old gits on planning councils who bought their houses 50 years ago when prices were less than 25% of today's.
|
|
|
|
|
midway
First Timer
Posts:0
|
| 24/01/2010 5:49 PM |
Alert
|
It's not right that prices are driven sky-high like that (and with dishonest government help in the form of bailouts) but it still won't change. I'm a bit too old for waiting, and I expect zero from all governments. Nothing will happen. They have vested interests in keeping prices up.
In 2006 when prices finally shot through the roof in my area (40% increase in ONE year), my family faced reality and started discussing emigration instead. The general outline is described in some of my older posts on this forum. We can now set the ball in motion, should we decide to do so.
I am pleased to say that my daughter and her husband recently announced they are apparently emigrating in about six months from now. I think they are correct in going, and I fully support their decision, even though it means that they will be quite some distance away (not in Europe).
If it works out for them - and I would be very surprised if it doesn't - then I would expect to follow suit within a couple of years. There might be grandkids once they feel SETTLED enough, and I'm certainly not going to miss out on that... :) |
|
|
|
|
barry37
Concerned Citizen
Posts:36
|
| 26/01/2010 5:09 AM |
Alert
|
I couldn't agree more about the planning restrictions. Further to a previous post a big part of the unaffordable housing issue could be solved by promoting self-build initiatives. However the government won't do this because they want to protect rising prices and the big building firms are obviously happy to assist them in that regard. So now we have large stocks of land held by builders with no sign of when they will build on it.
In addition the government and councils are not tough enough on people with empty properties. Given the high prices these properties need to be taxed heavily in order to force the owners to put them into use somehow.
Finally I do think there is an additional problem which the goverment will find much more difficult to solve. The fact is that large areas of our inner cities have become rough, no-go areas. This may have a lowering effect on prices in these particular areas but it exerts a lot of upward pressure in the surrounding better places. FTBs therefore become victims of a broken society.
This country has huge problems and requires a strong government with radical ideas - but we will not get that of course! |
|
|
|
|
slicedcake
Activist
Posts:467
|
| 26/01/2010 1:14 PM |
Alert
|
Hmm a house for £43,000 (as mentioned in the original post) would be really good. Now we know where all the money is going!
|
|
|
|
|
Leitmotif
First Timer
Posts:2
|
| 18/02/2010 3:43 PM |
Alert
|
| I'm really angered by the fact that I as a prudent saver am being punished for the folly of those who overborrowed and overlent. National average selling prices are still many times the national average wage, and it makes sense to say that they should fall to a more realistic level. With that in mind, it makes no sense to reward the idiots that paid too much by reducing interest rates to save them from losing their homes. Governments in the nineties advocated the laissez faire approach, and it bit them on the bum, but the antidote is not to step in and say "let's help these poor people who were lent too much" - the antidote is to let it self-correct and allow them to lose their homes. Instead, the government seems intent on propping up house prices at all costs, at the expense of the savers. One result is currency devaluation. So if you paid £200K for a 2-bedroom terraced house, and you refuse to sell for anything less, you might well get it, but that £200K isn't worth the same in real terms as it was in 2007. And neither, unfortunately, is my £90K in various savings accounts/ISAs, etc. |
|
|
|
|
slicedcake
Activist
Posts:467
|
| 28/02/2010 8:04 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By barry37 on 26/01/2010 5:09 AM
So now we have large stocks of land held by builders with no sign of when they will build on it.
Having a tax on that unused land would be a step in the right direction. Selling some of the land would raise enough money to pay that tax. The land then becomes more useful to the nation, instead of being useless.
|
|
|
|
|
barry37
Concerned Citizen
Posts:36
|
| 01/03/2010 9:05 AM |
Alert
|
Yes, it would be a great idea and would force builders to do what they are supposed to - ie. build!
In a similar way people who own empty properties should have to pay council tax after a set period of time as well (maybe 3 or 6 months). Councils are always moaning about being short of funding and this is an excellent source as well as a motivation to get empty houses occupied.
The fact is that governments know these are potentially very good things to do to free up the supply of housing. The fact that they don't do them suggests that they have there own agenda for not wanting to increase the housing supply.
|
|
|
|
|
slicedcake
Activist
Posts:467
|
| 03/03/2010 12:59 AM |
Alert
|
The use of EDMOs seems to be incredibly rare, so as you say, charging council tax on empty properties would appear to be the right thing to do. A property still takes up space whether it is occupied or not, so why not recoup some of that cost for the local community. As you might have been suggesting, it does all depend on decision makers doing the right thing for the long term quality of life for everyone, instead of thinking of just the short term effects.
|
|
|
|
|
slicedcake
Activist
Posts:467
|
|
plainservice
Activist
Posts:139
|
| 16/03/2010 5:45 AM |
Alert
|
| The comparison between this generation and that in 1959 is not comparing like for like. People of today generation have a higher disposable income then those of previous generations. Did people travel overseas?. Did people have their own person phone line? did people have internet? Did people have access to music on the go?
-----------------------------------------------
Telegraph article: Britain’s fondness for home-ownership has gone from strength to strength, RISING from 43 per cent in 1961 to 68 per cent in 2008.
----------------------------------------------
Well if house prices were so cheap, then how come everyone was not owning their own homes in 1961???
The problem of high house prices, is because EVERYONE has a STRONG DESIRE to own their own home. It is this demand that has made prices shoot up. If people were not obsesed about owning their own home, prices would not have sky rocketed. You only have to look at Germany as an example. People don't want to own their own home and prefer to rent.
As for freeing Planning Laws - There have been many planning errors in this country. Just look at the ugly High Rise Council tower blocks.
Much of the housing building by housebuilders is mostly crap homes. And in a mad rush for people to get on the housing ladder they will buy anything. Why are housbuilders making 2 bedroom flats, which are really 1.5 bedrooms. The second bedroom is nothing but a single box room. Why cripple homes in this way?
We need to build high quality spacious appartment, similar to the posh mansion appartments in London Kensington, but we need to go high rise. Their bathrooms are big enough to dance in and in their living rooms, you can hear an echo. But we need to build eco friendly homes....
|
|
|
|
|
poortenant
First Timer
Posts:2
|
| 16/03/2010 2:20 PM |
Alert
|
| You prat the fact is Council tax IS charged on empty homes after SIX MONTHS - end of. If the house still has furniture there is no exemption period and council tax is charged even when empty. |
|
|
|
|
poortenant
First Timer
Posts:2
|
| 16/03/2010 2:20 PM |
Alert
|
| You prat the fact is Council tax IS charged on empty homes after SIX MONTHS - end of. If the house still has furniture there is no exemption period and council tax is charged even when empty. |
|
|
|
|
wasteful
First Timer
Posts:6
|
| 03/04/2010 5:43 AM |
Alert
|
| Just to point out, our parents were paying 15-18% interest rates so repayment of those loans was broadly speaking relative to income about the same. |
|
|
|
|
furrycushion
Concerned Citizen
Posts:37
|
| 03/04/2010 6:49 AM |
Alert
|
| Thats true, but not the full picture. Our parents were paying 15-18% interest rates because that was the level of inflation. So on average our parents were getting 15-18% payrises. So the outstanding balance they owed was effectively going down by 15%-18% every year. If a mortgage lasts 20 years then on average they had had 1.16^20 payrise by the end, but their initial house mortgage was fixed. |
|
|
|
|
wasteful
First Timer
Posts:6
|
| 03/04/2010 7:17 AM |
Alert
|
Yes but somethings rise, other things drop, the price of TV's for example have dropped, its a market.
The real problem is the baby boomers, who bought cheap and through the inflation saw thier houses massively increase then now live in half pay pensions which means employers have to suck the life out of the rest of us to pay for them.
You cant just as many people on here blame speculators its way to complex for that. Houses are I would say now at a sustainable level. The problem is people want to go out partying and live a glamourus life style but also think they have the right to own a house without effecting that lifestyle. The people I know that have bought houses have been sensible with thier money, saving up. Those that cant afford houses are those that have to spend every penny that comes thier way. |
|
|
|
|
hotelgirl
First Timer
Posts:15
|
| 03/04/2010 10:55 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By wasteful on 03/04/2010 7:17 AM
Yes but somethings rise, other things drop, the price of TV's for example have dropped, its a market.
Its not a maket, its an evil govt controlled regime. They have to make consumer products easy to access to the poor are placated to accept their place in society. The walled cities are still there only the walls are financial and the poverty brushed under the rug. How can you say your poor if you cant afford a nice new TV to digest govt propoganda?
I live in Slough, and the huge Tescos there is nothing other than a giant food distribution center in a massive refugee camp. People are kept in by financial walls. Rents are low, wages are low. Try to move out, 2 miles down the road to Windsor, rents are 2-3 times more, higher than the average wage.
these are social prison camps.
Prices of goods make no sense. Thats because social control is the highest motivation. Look at the price of a car. You can buy a new car for £4000. Thats impossible. Look at the materials, you could almost melt down the components and sell them for scrap and get most of that back. half a tone of mild steel. Prices of TV's, computers at £150. Free phones. It makes no sense.
Unless you ask yourself, how would you manage a distributed concentration camp with no gaurds and only financial fences in place? Ask yourself that and you'd come up with a model for modern day England.
Cheap drugs? Wow, what a way to dope up the angry factions of the inner city camps. Drugs creates crime which creates fear which keeps people in order. Where do all thesedrugs come from? Its not easy getting drugs into this country. The media creates the impression of sinistor drug barons with elaborate chains of commands!!! Rubbish, its the 'government' as referenced above, the govt want drugs in this country to appease the radicals and create crime and give them something to wage war on.
The reason houses are 4 times more expensive is that the govt cant control the other side of the equation as easily as they could when society was more job centric and wages were easily controlled. Today people go on the internet and can see that people dont have to work in a factory to get a decent living. They want to be in a band or be a gangster, people are taking more control over their earnings, which leaves the government the only option of ramping up the other side of the equation. The bottom line is that they want the carrot to be where its always been, just out of reach.
|
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:477
|
| 04/04/2010 3:07 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By wasteful on 03/04/2010 7:17 AM
Yes but somethings rise, other things drop, the price of TV's for example have dropped, its a market.
As technology marches on, the cost of all functionality has fallen relentlessly; except houses. Don't you find that odd?
The fact deserves more attention than it is usually given..What makes real estate so different from any other piece of functionality?
Posted By wasteful on 03/04/2010 7:17 AM
The real problem is the baby boomers, who bought cheap and through the inflation saw thier houses massively increase then now live in half pay pensions which means employers have to suck the life out of the rest of us to pay for them.
They bought 'cheap' because the conservative government thought it would be good if we had a 'homeowning democracy'. They could see that the land-ownership patterns in the uk were going to be a boon left parties and blockage for them in the future and bought some political time for centre conservatism by letting council residents buy up the public housing stock. This has become the basis for the patterns of privelige we now see in the uk.
Posted By wasteful on 03/04/2010 7:17 AM
You cant just as many people on here blame speculators its way to complex for that.
We had a rapidly rising price - I am struggling to see how this could be 'too complex' to be caused by speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:477
|
| 04/04/2010 3:20 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By hotelgirl on 03/04/2010 10:55 AM
Its not a maket, its an evil govt controlled regime. They have to make consumer products easy to access to the poor are placated to accept their place in society. The walled cities are still there only the walls are financial and the poverty brushed under the rug. How can you say your poor if you cant afford a nice new TV to digest govt propoganda?
I live in Slough, and the huge Tescos there is nothing other than a giant food distribution center in a massive refugee camp. People are kept in by financial walls. Rents are low, wages are low. Try to move out, 2 miles down the road to Windsor, rents are 2-3 times more, higher than the average wage.
these are social prison camps.
Prices of goods make no sense. Thats because social control is the highest motivation. Look at the price of a car. You can buy a new car for £4000. Thats impossible. Look at the materials, you could almost melt down the components and sell them for scrap and get most of that back. half a tone of mild steel. Prices of TV's, computers at £150. Free phones. It makes no sense.
No, it makes sense. These are the compounding benefits of technical progress. This is the way relatively free markets work - plentifull goods, low prices etc etc. Real estate doesn't work like this, because real estate is an evil govt. installed cartel.
|
|
|
|
|
prof
First Timer
Posts:13
|
| 04/04/2010 4:11 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Magrathea on 04/04/2010 3:20 AM Posted By hotelgirl on 03/04/2010 10:55 AM
Its not a maket, its an evil govt controlled regime. They have to make consumer products easy to access to the poor are placated to accept their place in society. The walled cities are still there only the walls are financial and the poverty brushed under the rug. How can you say your poor if you cant afford a nice new TV to digest govt propoganda?
I live in Slough, and the huge Tescos there is nothing other than a giant food distribution center in a massive refugee camp. People are kept in by financial walls. Rents are low, wages are low. Try to move out, 2 miles down the road to Windsor, rents are 2-3 times more, higher than the average wage.
these are social prison camps.
Prices of goods make no sense. Thats because social control is the highest motivation. Look at the price of a car. You can buy a new car for £4000. Thats impossible. Look at the materials, you could almost melt down the components and sell them for scrap and get most of that back. half a tone of mild steel. Prices of TV's, computers at £150. Free phones. It makes no sense.
[/quote]
No, it makes sense. These are the compounding benefits of technical progress. This is the way relatively free markets work - plentifull goods, low prices etc etc. Real estate doesn't work like this, because real estate is an evil govt. installed cartel.
High house prices are caused by high demand. If people were not so desperate to get on to the "housing ladder" regardless of their circumstances then prices would fall. Prevent banks lending on high salary multiples and see affordabiliy improve. In the late eighties multiple tax relief was abolished, there was a brief frantic press-fuelled boom to buy before the deadline then the market dropped off a cliff and took five years to come back.When prices dropped so catastophically lots of people were left sharing mrtgages with friends and partners they no longer got on with, or living in custom-built first-time buyer properties that were worth nothing. There was a "joke" going round at the time, "what's the difference between a Barret starter home and a dose of clap? You can get rid of a dose of clap." Ho ho. |
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:477
|
| 04/04/2010 4:50 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By prof on 04/04/2010 4:11 AM
High house prices are caused by high demand. If people were not so desperate to get on to the "housing ladder" regardless of their circumstances then prices would fall.
You are modelling home ownership as being qualitatively just like any other ownership. It simply isn't. Having a home is not the same having a fridge or a lollipop. A substantial part of home-ownership is in reality simple human rights - for instance, the right to be left alone by others is embedded in (comes with) the ownership of a home. You don't have this right without one.
If you look at it in this light, it is relatively obvious why there is 'high demand' for houses. There is high demand, because home ownership in the uk is just about the only route to gain some basic human rights. There has always been high demand for basic human rights and in the uk your human rights are sold to you by the owners of real estate at a high (and rising) price.
So to say 'people should stop wanting houses.' is a bit like suggesting that people should give up wanting to have human rights - it isn't very helpfull
The tax system in the uk means that most of the surpluses created by economic activity will end up the various prices of real estate. This means that if you work in the uk and don't own real estate, somebody else is recieving the lion's share of the surpluses you create with your work, merely because they own real estate. That's why there is high demand; again, it boils down to people trying to obtain their natural rights
Posted By prof on 04/04/2010 4:11 AM
Prevent banks lending on high salary multiples and see affordabiliy improve.
It will be more affordable if you 'qualify' - for anyone else, housing will now be even more unnaffordable, because they are not legally allowed to have a loan to buy it. Eventually the rising price of real estate will create a situation in which many working people are forced to rent for life and the restriction will be removed because it is seen as causing economic enslavement. (back to square 1) |
|
|
|
|