Rcession

[louisiana]

AcedOut Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So are we saying we should only ever buy things we

> NEED!? How ridiculous is that! All the bars and

> restaurants down Lordship Lane will have to close

> up and we'll fall into a recession for sure. Ok,

> so buying a second home/house is not analogous to

> eating out, but the principle is the same. If

> someone has worked hard and they can afford it,

> then why not!? It's not about need, it's about

> life-style choices and potentially investing for

> the future of either one's self or family. Sure,

> there are possible eco-reasons to not leave a

> property unoccupied, but I have no issue with

> someone owning n number of houses if that's what

> they want to do.

>

Fine. Just let them be taxed on their investment/opportunism (not on their 'home' - they've already got one of those). Shelter is a basic human requirement, and there's a limited amount of it in a densely populated country with aggressive planning laws that distort the market.

> And who said we all have a right to own our homes

> anyway? A first time buyer still doesn't own

> their home until the mortgage is paid in full

> anyway, so is there really such a big difference

> between paying an interest only mortgage and

> renting!? If there was no property price

> inflation, then we'd all rent wouldn't we!?

Um, no.

There was very little increase in property prices for a long, long time. Until the '47 Act or so.

>

> I'll try to remember only to live to survive from

> now on. I shan't bother working hard, since

> luxuries are no longer allowed! Holiday

> cancelled!

Prams, toys.

[AcedOut]

LOL as I enjoy my martini!

*kisses*

[Brendan]

Jimbob Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nothing wrong with having 2 houses provided....

you are not denying another family their chance to have a home in which to raise their family.

[indiepanda]

Highly amused by all the comments re second homes - the suggestion they should be subject to a higher rate of stamp duty suddenly turns into no luxuries for anyone whether they can afford it or not... slight overreaction don't you think?

I can't think of anything else that is as limited in supply as homes in this country, not unreasonable something should be done to disincentive people from having more property than they actually need.

If the water companies were allowed to put prices up in the face of higher demand, would people find it acceptable if in a hot summer rich people filled their swimming pools because they could afford it while others less fortunate couldn't afford to wash? I hope not, but that doesn't strike me as that dissimilar to the housing situation.

We all rely on having nurses to look after us when we are in hospital, teachers to educate our children etc etc, but the housing market has got so silly they can't afford to buy now so we have to have schemes to help key workers buy homes, part ownership etc... it's crazy.

Anyway, rest easy, I rather doubt any government will have the balls to do anything about it.

[Jimbob]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jimbob Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > nothing wrong with having 2 houses provided....

>

>

> you are not denying another family their chance

> to have a home in which to raise their family.

no i,m not actually, both the houses were vacant when i bought them, and from what i can see in the estate agents windows, there,s still plenty more available.

[Brendan]

I?m not getting into this anymore it?s like banging your head against a brick wall.

[Jeremy]

If someone has worked hard, earned a bit of money and wants a second home, I think that's OK... I don't object to second homes in the same way that I object to treating residential property as a financial investment.

But I agree that something does need to be done to limit its impact on the housing market. We already have capital gains tax for second homes and investment properties... but maybe another system is needed.

[Brendan]

What he said.

[DaveR]

"I object to treating residential property as a financial investment"

Who do you expect to own rental properties, and why? Money has to find a home somewhere - if you put your savings in the bank they will lend it to others, and some of them (individuals, small companies, big companies) will decide there's a reasonable return to be made from investing in residiential property - if they didn't, where would rental properties come from? Would you prefer every landlord to be some Rigsby-esque figure that you could pity rather than envy?

The idea that there is a UK wide shortage of homes caused by buy-to-let investors is one of the maddest things I've ever heard.

[Jeremy]

DaveR, you make a fair point... but surely there's a difference between renting out properties for the steady return on investment, and rampant property speculation. It's the latter which is the problem... investors have been buying properties at prices which would give a terrible ROI, so have obviously been looking for capital gains.

Just my opinion, I'm far from an expert on this stuff...

[JimSmith]

Firstly I'm agaisnt second home ownership, but it should be pointed out that the number of second homes is that significant in the context of the whole of the UK. I've seen figures from 80,000 to 350,000 quoted although obviously they are concentrated in particular areas of the country - Cornwall, Devon, North Norfolk, Central London. However they have become a sort of symbol of the discontent caused by often much wider social changes. The huge numbers of long distance commuters, the switch away from agriculture and manufacturing towards office work, a much more mobile population and communities becoming less mixed are far more significant but less visible causes of things like the loss of the post office and young people moving away.

[ClareC]

This thread certainly seems to have some strong feelings and a rather pro communism stance.

Yes, there is a housing shortage in the UK. Preventing people buying to let isnt going to change that. If there were no properties purchased to let, the demand for houses is still larger than the supply so the prices will still be high albeit maybe not quite as high given the slight decrease in demand. There will still be and will always be people who cannot afford / do not wish to buy - with no rental properties available where do these people live? There is very limited social housing and I cant see workers from abroad being eligible for it even if there were enough, which in term would lead to corporations buying houses to house their seconded execs / temporary workers, which in turn would increase demand and then prices...... and so the cycle continues!

On a more local stance, London is the major financial institution in the world, its a small place with limited housing. There will always be a high demand for property both in the rental and purchase market.

Buy to let is just another form of investment. Putting savings into the bank whether it be in a savings account, ISA, bond or investing on the Stock exchange is no different.... other than you having less control as to where the money ultimately goes / what it funds!

[benmorg]

ClareC Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, there is a housing shortage in the UK.

> Preventing people buying to let isnt going to

> change that. If there were no properties

> purchased to let, the demand for houses is still

> larger than the supply so the prices will still be

> high albeit maybe not quite as high given the

> slight decrease in demand.

there's a fallacy in this reasoning. Many people say house prices are high because supply is limited. If this were true, rents would also be very high as the accommodation shortage would affect rental properties too. In reality, rents have only risen in line with salaries over the last 10 years or so, while house prices have risen disproportionately strongly. The cause of high house price inflation wasn't constrained supply - it was cheap credit and speculative demand following the dotcom crash. Exactly the same factors have pushed up house prices in many other countries, e.g. denmark, spain, ireland,usa, australia, new zealand. Note these aren't all "small islands" with a lack of housing supply.

now we have a situation in the UK where there is an excess supply of properties for sale and falling house prices. When house prices reach a point where buying and renting are at the same affordability level, it will be fair to use the constrained supply theory to explain prices. But until then, it's a fallacious argument.

[lard]

It is hardly a pro communist stance, more an argument for a fair and regulated property market which truly reflects the economy as a whole. Unfortunately, as others have said, cheap credit, greed and a lackadaisical approach by the government has led to the property market being completely out of synch with the general economy. To the extent where would-be first time buyers have completely been left in an impossible situation.

Yes there will always be richer and poorer, yes people will always have the right to own more than one house etc. What shouldn't be allowed to happen though, is that a whole generation be sold short and by timing alone, be left out to dry.

If you bought a long time ago and you are sitting there all smug in your nice house, just imagine how you would feel if you were wanting to start a family as a youngish couple, not currently owning a house, and with jobs as nurses. Then you would realise how this generation can feel slightly 'miffed' at their situation.

All we are seeing now is a natural, and quite necessary correction.

Even if you are a smug home owner in Dulwich, I bet when you started out you really thought that your status in life by now should have meant a house in Chelsea or Kensington. Sorry, but the majority of you all have had to move out to Dulwich as a "second choice" not through a desire to live out. Everyone trying to recreate Kensington. Shishi bars and organic butchers. Everyone has been sold short, just some more than others. Go to Kensington and most people now aren't English, they are foreign bankers. With some houses over a million pounds in Dulwich, I really can't see how anyone can argue that the crash isn't a good thing to happen for society as a whole.

[louisiana]

ClareC Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This thread certainly seems to have some strong

> feelings and a rather pro communism stance.

This is a bonkers statement. Communism concerns the common ownership of the means of production, normally involving collectivisation. I don't think anything on this thread has advocated any form of collectivisation of anything.

ClareC (anybody...): would you like to provide an *anti-Communist* assessment of the impact of the Town & Country Planning Act 1947? (And its successors.)

(Perhaps you are an ultra-libertarian, in favour of the abolition of all forms of regulation of land? Who knows. There are many of that view.)

Could you also point to a town or city anywhere in the UK where anybody is at liberty to construct whatever they like? (In other words, where a free market exists in the supply of houses and flats.) In other words, that falls outside the Act. Because that would be the only place where any kind of free market existed... And all this pseudo-economics presupposes a free market, perfect information, and all the rest... And if you don't have a free market (the freedom to supply more when there is clear demand, by building more houses), all that micro-economic theory falls flat on its face.

[louisiana]

AcedOut Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The concept of a greed tax I'm finding hilarious.

We have quite a few of them already.....

congestion charging...

annual hike in fuel duty...

[karter]

Three boards have just gone up on my road, let's see how long the sold signs take to come.

[ClareC]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ClareC Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This thread certainly seems to have some strong

> > feelings and a rather pro communism stance.

>

> This is a bonkers statement. Communism concerns

> the common ownership of the means of production,

> normally involving collectivisation. I don't think

> anything on this thread has advocated any form of

> collectivisation of anything.

>

> ClareC (anybody...): would you like to provide an

> *anti-Communist* assessment of the impact of the

> Town & Country Planning Act 1947? (And its

> successors.)

> (Perhaps you are an ultra-libertarian, in favour

> of the abolition of all forms of regulation of

> land? Who knows. There are many of that view.)

>

> Could you also point to a town or city anywhere in

> the UK where anybody is at liberty to construct

> whatever they like? (In other words, where a free

> market exists in the supply of houses and flats.)

> In other words, that falls outside the Act.

> Because that would be the only place where any

> kind of free market existed... And all this

> pseudo-economics presupposes a free market,

> perfect information, and all the rest... And if

> you don't have a free market (the freedom to

> supply more when there is clear demand, by

> building more houses), all that micro-economic

> theory falls flat on its face.

Communism seeks to establish a classless, stateless society with common ownership. Organised to produce according to socially managed goals. This is acheived by studying economic activity and its relationship with the social life. It is an alternative to the problems associated with capitalist economies, one of which is being discussed on this thread - hence the reference.

[MrBen]

"A fair and regulated property market for the benefit of all" - smells commie to me. Nothing wrong with having a communist view but to be honest communism didn't work. And I don't think property is any more "fair" or "unfair" than any other market.

Regulate property as a market and where do you stop? What about regulating City bonuses? Credit derivative trading? Taxing investment banks or private equity deals at a massive rate?

When it comes to property, we get emotional because of the concept of home, shelter etc. But remove that emotion and property is just another speculative market in a capitalist economy.

[Pugwash]

We purchased a ex council house in Worthing area to be used by our daughter and boyfriend. She was a student in Brighton and paying ?650 for a tiny one bed flat per month. landlady was going to increase rent to ?750 pm. At the time of looking 1 bed flats were going for around ?80k with 2 beds around ?90 k. Within 3 months of deciding to buy a property - the prices rose to around ?90k and ?100K and kept rising. We eventually landed up in Worthing with a 3 bed exncouncil house.

Boyfriend pays rent, and since we were committted to pay daughter's accommodation costs whilst at Uni - we paid rest.

The aim was to rent property to daughter and boyfriend after she finished uni (to cover mortgage costs)and when they had a couple of years work behind them, sell them the house for the remaining mortgage. This way they knew that any improvements made was for their benefit. A second home as such but used 52 weeks a year. We also own our ED house but realised that daughter would have difficulty in getting on property ladder unless we helped her.

[lard]

MrBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "A fair and regulated property market for the

> benefit of all" - smells commie to me. Nothing

> wrong with having a communist view but to be

> honest communism didn't work. And I don't think

> property is any more "fair" or "unfair" than any

> other market.

>

> Regulate property as a market and where do you

> stop? What about regulating City bonuses? Credit

> derivative trading? Taxing investment banks or

> private equity deals at a massive rate?

>

> When it comes to property, we get emotional

> because of the concept of home, shelter etc. But

> remove that emotion and property is just another

> speculative market in a capitalist economy.

The concept of home, shelter shouldn't be removed from the equation. It's not as if we can choose to get involved or not in "shelter", as we can with most of the other markets. Like food, health and energy, procedures should have been in place so that boom busts don't happen. Speculative markets are all very well for those that choose to speculate. The problem with housing is that everyone needs one.

[Huguenot]

Spot on Lard.

[????]

mmmm...wasn't some 'socialist' on this thread recently crowing on about his lovely 20% tax rate out east.................HIYA Hugenot

[macroban]

> wasn't some 'socialist' on this thread recently crowing on about his lovely 20% tax rate out east

I thought the message was that when it comes to food chain security then Singapore is only self-sufficient in eggs.

I've not ventured far from home recently. Has anyone seen any recent "SOLD" signs in East Dulwich?

[missd]

a house on our street was sold within about 3 weeks of the board going up which i was pretty impressed with. am keen to see what price it went for when it finally comes up on houseprice.co.uk