Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[Loz]

True, but the 'I MUST OWN A HOUSE' mentality is too deeply embedded here. Maybe when they do become too expensive the mentality will change to a German-style rental-is-OK approach.

But I believe you used to have more assured tenancies here (back in the 70s??), but they were dumped as they were discouraging the rental market (from a landlord's perspective).

[Jeremy]

Renting is also more common in France (with no stigma attached).

But with a probable pension crisis on the horizon, who can blame people for wanting to own their own property - or even a second one?

[PokerTime]

In the 70s, one in three people lived in council housing. So power within the rental market has completely shifted back to private landlords.

Basically the housing market in one big pyramid scheme, and has been increasingly so over the last 25 years. Every time the fodder at the bottom of the pyramid dries up, some new scheme is invented to keep it coming. Now you have government backed loans for deposits for example. Well that doesn't really help anything, bar allowing people unable to save deposits to take on more debt. Like all pyramid schemes it will one day collapse.

I think also that property inflation is tied in with the looming pensions crisis. It's a short term fix that sucessive governments have facilitated. But it can't go on as it has. The 'I must own a house' mentality is born out of fear. Fear of never being able to afford anything if you don't act asap. And also the shift away from stable and secure tenancies also feeds that fear.

[StraferJack]

Jeremy. You might not be able to blame people. But it's not the answer to a pension crisis. It's the answer for a small number of people at the expense of others, whilst simultaneously f@@@ing up a current housing market

It's not quite looting. But it's not so far off

[Jeremy]

Oh I agree (more or less). It's just that when people start talking about property 'addiction' I kind of think that it's not really surprising.

[StraferJack]

well, comparatively, culturally, it is "surprising"

It's localised (albeit being exported aggressively. Which is useful)

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Jeremy. You might not be able to blame people. But

> it's not the answer to a pension crisis. It's the

> answer for a small number of people at the expense

> of others, whilst simultaneously f@@@ing up a

> current housing market

>

> It's not quite looting. But it's not so far off

Some might say that having your pension underpinned by other people's tax money whilst they have got nothing for retirement is similar, if you want to be so provocative...

Both are horses shit positions.....

[StraferJack]

Not remotely similar

Public sector pensions was part of a post war collective agreement. The private sector decided to erode matching pensions and something similar is happening in public sector anyway.

But if you think the on topic use of housing as a private pension is defendable by all means do it. Try not to rope in straw men arguments tho eh?

[Otta]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Renting is also more common in France (with no

> stigma attached).

>

> But with a probable pension crisis on the horizon,

> who can blame people for wanting to own their own

> property - or even a second one?

Exactly. I have no problem with renting at all, it would just be nice not to have to spend whatever money I end up upon retirement on rent.

Assuming I get that far.

[StraferJack]

Wanting to own your own property is natural

Wanting to own more than one? Slippage

It's becoming more common tho and not unrelated to the problem at hand

[DaveR]

So being a private landlord in Germany is fine but in the UK it's somehow immoral? You talk about straw men but I don't understand your logic

[Otta]

Surely the point is that in Germany it's a better system so the people renting are paying reasonable rents as opposed to being shafted.

I would have no problem with tax breaks for landlords if it meant cheaper rents and better rights for tenants. I'd have a big problem with it if it just benefited the landlords and they were left free to charge ridiculous rents to people.

[StraferJack]

"So being a private landlord in Germany is fine but in the UK it's somehow immoral? "

I don't think anyone said anything near that daver

[PokerTime]

The problem is that we are looking at solutions that aren't designed for closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Rent caps work in an economy that's already had them for a long time, and indeed social housing rents are regulated by various formulas in this country and have always been.

The problem with the UK is that the overwhemling bulk of private rental property still isn't paid for (i.e still mortgaged). 'Buy to Let' has been incredibly damaging to the rental market and has limited the range of workable solutions possible. Gordon Brown was warned at the time of the possible consequences, but chose to ignore them. Regulation that may affect the ability of landlords to repay mortgage and other fees becomes very problematic.

London has unique problems of course. A sizeable percentage (around 20%) of the properties that will be on offer when the new Elephant and Castle development is buld have already been sold to Chinese investors. That's before a single brick is laid, and those buyers are not planning to live there!

If we are going to change anything for the better, we have to find ways to reduce the attraction of property as a comodity, and get back to buying a home, really being about buying a HOME. That has to be a range of things, from increased tax levels on investment purchases, to breaking the house building monopoly held by certain contractors. Rent controls may play a part in that, if carefully designed.

[Penguin68]

You could probably do something to rebalance by making (you'd need a taper for existing properties) interest payments for loans issued against purchase (but not, possibly for capital works such as refurbishment or major repair) not allowable against rents for tax purposes. This would effectively end the leveraged buy-to-let market, where capital appreciation in an existing portfolio is used as security against high percentage loans to buy more properties, with interest payments being offset by tax allowances. This would leave more properties coming onto the market to be bought by buy-to-live purchasers - effectively increasing supply which will have the effect of reducing price growth rates. You may have to limit this to the residential market, so as not to destroy overnight the commercial property market, but it would be entirely possible to legislate for - and is little different from the removal of a similar allowance for buy-to-live purchasers back in the 1970s, if memory serves (mortage interest payment acted as an allowance against income tax liability).

[Loz]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Surely the point is that in Germany it's a better

> system so the people renting are paying reasonable

> rents as opposed to being shafted.

People misunderstand rent control in Germany. The only control is the control over rises after you begin the tenancy - there are no controls over the initial rent. Austria has a similar system and private rents for a small two bed flat in Vienna start at about 1000 euros a month. Cheaper than London, but not amazingly so.

Mind you, Vienna has a lot of social housing.

[PokerTime]

That's actually a very good suggestion Penguin, and I think an example of the kind of tinkering that could be done without destroying huge numbers of those already invested.

But no party in government or in opposition is interested. All we keep hearing is that we need to build more affordable housing! Something which all parties conceed can't happy quickly enough to solve anything. I disagree on both points. We have more than enough housing for everyone. It's just that some own too much of it. Building new homes means nothing if we do nothing about the sell off of social housing through right to buy (40% of which bought since the 80's is now in the ownership of provate landlords) and buy-to-let investment schemes. We are losing affordable homes quicker than we can replace them. And why does construction of new homes take so long? Regulation, consultation, planning all make building anywhere a lengthy and complex process.

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Not remotely similar

>

> Public sector pensions was part of a post war

> collective agreement. The private sector decided

> to erode matching pensions and something similar

> is happening in public sector anyway.

>

> But if you think the on topic use of housing as a

> private pension is defendable by all means do it.

> Try not to rope in straw men arguments tho eh?

So who is exactly fit to be the landlords of rented property? The banks? Big corporations? Just the state?

But a private individual owning more than one property is a 'looter'

If you are going to band around such provocative terms, personally, I think it would be more valid to say anyone who makes their corn and contributes to the profit of a giant global investment bank is better described as a looter than people just trying to meme the best to look after their family and future...wouldn't you?

[StraferJack]

Clearly I wouldn't

Houses are people's homes. They shouldn't be investment vehicles

Nothing wrong with individuals letting their homes or even owning multiple if circumstances so happen. But actively chasing homes as investments is obviously a problem. It's the balance in this country which is so off. Surely that's obvious?

[StraferJack]

Ps. Are you trying to having an individual dig at me?

[PokerTime]

Owning two houses, when you actually only need one to house a family, at the expense of another family, giving more than half their household income to pay your second mortgage is ethical? This is the crux of the moral question. Yes we are all driven by a desire to look after OUR family, OUR kids future and so on. Well what about ALL families and ALL kids futures?

[Jeremy]

My main point was that people want to own their own home outright by the time they retire, because their pension is uncertain. The investment point was secondary really... but whether you like it or not, ppl will continue to do it until the government does something to discourage it.

[StraferJack]

Well this is it Jeremy

Nothing will change until... Insert action here

But as loz says, any action will provoke an outcry

There is no unanimity. Yet, the problem itself seems obvious. And further yet, some people want to deny there is a problem

[worldwiser]

PokerTime says there are more than enough properties (if I've understood correctly) poorly distributed between landlord and owner-occupied. This is patently false. If there were enough to go around, prices would be nowhere near their current levels with 6000 people currently chasing a mere 400 properties for sale in ED alone (source: local estate agent). We need hundreds of thousands of new dwellings, have done for years, and yet we build at a rate of tens of thousands. And why is there such acute shortage? Way more single-person households than there ever used to be and a sky-high divorce rate. It's not landlords' fault. You may as well tax young professionals for having the audacity to buy space fit for a small family. Build according to prevailing demand. The single only solution. There is none other that can possibly work.

[StraferJack]

Panic on the streets of london

Let's treat those numbers with if not suspicion then at least a question

Why the SUDDEN rise in demand. There isn't this amazing increase in influx to account for numbers such as these. Conditions are such that panic has set in and people are paying stupid money. It s not new. Every time it's "yyyy people chasing xxx houses"

If others weren't panicking the equilibrium would be more stable, without a single extra brick laid