Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Suppose the government proposed a law that decreed that the maximum you could sell a house for was the value you bought it for, plus the cost of certain additions such as extensions, conservatories, etc, recalculated in accord to inflation, plus 10% of that value... would you be for or against it? To be clear. A house bought for £40,000 in 1980 (the average house price at the time). Taking inflation into account £40,000 is equivalent to about £160,000 today. As such, the maximum value the owner of this property could put it on the market for would be £176,000" My first question would be ..what would be the purpose?, what about the folk who buy a house for more than the "Max value" prior to it being imposed , they'd be plunged into negative equity and saddled with potentially massive debts  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And why? To achieve what?" . The left are obsessed with equity, there constantly dreaming up nonsense in a bid to make all 7.4 billion of us equal because life's so unfair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And why? To achieve what?" I'm assuming to prevent housing becoming unaffordable? But it woukd stoo it being a viable investment and inheritance wise not so attractive to help your children I'm guessing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? " . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? " Are you in favour of socialism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no profit unless they want to sell up and live in a cardboard box." Not all properties are lived in by the owner. Would the lower house prices mean lower rents? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression that our Government used the price of housing as a measure for how wealthy the country is. I don't know how but I read it somewhere. If it's correct can a clever clogs explain it to me please. I don't mind if it's mansplained. " . GDP, it's not really worth the paper it's written on  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no profit unless they want to sell up and live in a cardboard box. Not all properties are lived in by the owner. Would the lower house prices mean lower rents?" . Second houses incur a profit tax | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless." As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And why? To achieve what?. The left are obsessed with equity, there constantly dreaming up nonsense in a bid to make all 7.4 billion of us equal because life's so unfair."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers " And the people who have invested their money in property? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression that our Government used the price of housing as a measure for how wealthy the country is. I don't know how but I read it somewhere. If it's correct can a clever clogs explain it to me please. I don't mind if it's mansplained. . GDP, it's not really worth the paper it's written on "I thought that was for goods etc that we make and sell, and services. Are utilities part of this too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers " . Move to communist China, there great at controlling everything!. Me I like freedom and profit although in this case there is no profit unless you become homeless like I've pointed out to you. Profit is great, whow I've got all this lovely money, what should I buy, I know how about a house, oooops | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers And the people who have invested their money in property?" Would have to find other ways to earn money on investments. Roofs over heads shouldn't be an investment should they? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the impression that our Government used the price of housing as a measure for how wealthy the country is. I don't know how but I read it somewhere. If it's correct can a clever clogs explain it to me please. I don't mind if it's mansplained. . GDP, it's not really worth the paper it's written on
I thought that was for goods etc that we make and sell, and services. Are utilities part of this too?". We do make and sell houses, surely you've driven past a building site! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? " Nope.Property is the only viable investment for those with no capital. Of course, you might have to work for it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in. ". Yes because Elon musk is a pauper | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in. .
Yes because Elon musk is a pauper "Meritocracy- he's earnt it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in. .
Yes because Elon musk is a pauper
Meritocracy- he's earnt it."Elon Musk is a terrible analogy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why are you trying to cap "profits" on housing? To what end? On the face of it I hate the idea and think you'd have a helluva time setting benchmarks and would need a ton of assumptions to set the maximum sale price, it would be an expensive and unwieldy system. Tell us what the purpose of doing it is and maybe we can provide better critique. " Hi Amber  I thought it would make an interesting thread. It just struck me earlier today that I'd never really thought of such an idea before. It seems fair enough to say "look. we can't really let everyone use housing like an alternative stock market as it's pricing the younger generations out of it. so we're going to introduce a cap". But I thought I'd open it to discussion to flush out the flaws in the idea | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers And the people who have invested their money in property? Would have to find other ways to earn money on investments. Roofs over heads shouldn't be an investment should they? " Why not? Plenty people invest in property to bring in a regular monthly income and then perhaps sell the property later on in life to enable them to retire/pay off mortgages etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers . Move to communist China, there great at controlling everything!. Me I like freedom and profit although in this case there is no profit unless you become homeless like I've pointed out to you. Profit is great, whow I've got all this lovely money, what should I buy, I know how about a house, oooops" In Communist China the Party elite are making millions at the expense of villagers in rural areas by land grabbing and displacing people to the cities, where they live and work in Dickensian hovels so that the elite can buy designer goods, houses in London and salt everything away in Swiss bank accounts. So much for sharing wealth and everyone being equal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers And the people who have invested their money in property? Would have to find other ways to earn money on investments. Roofs over heads shouldn't be an investment should they? Why not? Plenty people invest in property to bring in a regular monthly income and then perhaps sell the property later on in life to enable them to retire/pay off mortgages etc. " Do you not see this as slightly cannibalistic; older generations buying up property, renting it out so that the young can pay their mortgages for them, then penalising the young all over again when they later sell that property at a hugely inflated price. Isn't that cannibalistic? The old eating the young | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in. .
Yes because Elon musk is a pauper
Meritocracy- he's earnt it.
Elon Musk is a terrible analogy.". So you think younger people should be able to get wealthy from housing?. I mean that's your insinuation, that they can't get on the ladder to profit? And to cure this problem you think we should remove profit from the equation, meaning they can get on the ladder but never profit from it?. I suppose it's one way to look at it .
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers And the people who have invested their money in property? Would have to find other ways to earn money on investments. Roofs over heads shouldn't be an investment should they? Why not? Plenty people invest in property to bring in a regular monthly income and then perhaps sell the property later on in life to enable them to retire/pay off mortgages etc. " Because the rent they charge isn't affordable so people have to claim housing benefit,or whatever it's called now, and that is paid from taxes. Tax payers are making landlords rich. In my little part of the borough I live in-back in 2011-67% of the council houses that were bought by tenants were being rented out privately. Private rents are more than double council rents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers And the people who have invested their money in property? Would have to find other ways to earn money on investments. Roofs over heads shouldn't be an investment should they? Why not? Plenty people invest in property to bring in a regular monthly income and then perhaps sell the property later on in life to enable them to retire/pay off mortgages etc. Because the rent they charge isn't affordable so people have to claim housing benefit,or whatever it's called now, and that is paid from taxes. Tax payers are making landlords rich. In my little part of the borough I live in-back in 2011-67% of the council houses that were bought by tenants were being rented out privately. Private rents are more than double council rents. " That should never have been allowed either. Buying council properties at ridiculous prices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers And the people who have invested their money in property? Would have to find other ways to earn money on investments. Roofs over heads shouldn't be an investment should they? Why not? Plenty people invest in property to bring in a regular monthly income and then perhaps sell the property later on in life to enable them to retire/pay off mortgages etc. Do you not see this as slightly cannibalistic; older generations buying up property, renting it out so that the young can pay their mortgages for them, then penalising the young all over again when they later sell that property at a hugely inflated price. Isn't that cannibalistic? The old eating the young " The young and low earners can't afford to buy, and can't get a council property, so rent privately and get help with their rent and council tax (until they claim Universal Credit so it seems). Is this some kind of false economy with the Government propping up the housing market? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget how many politicians and members of parliament are landlords. They wouldn't want their investment to go down. " . You pay tax on profit of second homes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in. .
Yes because Elon musk is a pauper
Meritocracy- he's earnt it.
Elon Musk is a terrible analogy..
So you think younger people should be able to get wealthy from housing?.
I mean that's your insinuation, that they can't get on the ladder to profit? And to cure this problem you think we should remove profit from the equation, meaning they can get on the ladder but never profit from it?.
I suppose it's one way to look at it .
"Eh? They'd only profit as much as anything else, regardless of when they were born. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the real issue is the lack of homes. Build more, lots more." Where? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the real issue is the lack of homes. Build more, lots more. Where?" Building up. Too many semi-detached and detached homes with gardens, drives ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in. .
Yes because Elon musk is a pauper
Meritocracy- he's earnt it.
Elon Musk is a terrible analogy..
So you think younger people should be able to get wealthy from housing?.
I mean that's your insinuation, that they can't get on the ladder to profit? And to cure this problem you think we should remove profit from the equation, meaning they can get on the ladder but never profit from it?.
I suppose it's one way to look at it .
Eh? They'd only profit as much as anything else, regardless of when they were born.". There's nothing stopping younger people from ploughing all they're money into a mortgage today! Nothing at all, there just to busy ploughing they're money into mobile phones, sun tans, new clothes, new cars and other stuff that nobody back then had. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
To be honest I think more needs to be done for renters. It's so frustrating for those that rent that pay a mortgage and more than for the landlord but are then not able to buy due to needing a deposit- which they can't get together due to paying double what a mortgage would be. I feel there should be a new deal for people who have rented for more than 5 years with no arrears to be able to get a 100 % mortgage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget how many politicians and members of parliament are landlords. They wouldn't want their investment to go down. . You pay tax on profit of second homes "Yes you do, same tax as you would on any other income. I try not to get involved in these threads and I’ve done well so far seeing as my views always seem to be in the minority on them! I’m going to trot off to one of bananamans threads where I’m safer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ours would actually be worth more than it is now. It is valued at 30k more than it was purchased at. It's had loads of work done on it- more than 30K... So yes please
To be honest I think more needs to be done for renters. It's so frustrating for those that rent that pay a mortgage and more than for the landlord but are then not able to buy due to needing a deposit- which they can't get together due to paying double what a mortgage would be. I feel there should be a new deal for people who have rented for more than 5 years with no arrears to be able to get a 100 % mortgage ". The government have been providing FREE deposits for exactly those people for years!. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a complete lack of affordable housing and social housing and rents in some areas are ridiculous. This is a huge problem that needs tackling.But the OP's suggestion really isn't a solution to any of that" I guess another idea which could work would be a cap on rent. If you didn't stump up enough of a deposit for your mortgage so that the monthly payments are hell you shouldn't be allowed to pass that on to the renter. You shouldn't be a landlord Just ideas guys  Probably flawed... as well as extremely unpopular haha. But thought provoking perhaps | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget how many politicians and members of parliament are landlords. They wouldn't want their investment to go down. . You pay tax on profit of second homes
Yes you do, same tax as you would on any other income. I try not to get involved in these threads and I’ve done well so far seeing as my views always seem to be in the minority on them! I’m going to trot off to one of bananamans threads where I’m safer ". Millennials, they just have it so hard these days | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the real issue is the lack of homes. Build more, lots more. Where?" Around here it feels any building close to a station offering a link to London is being developed in to flats. Vast majority are brought by landlords or by Londoners. It achieves nothing for locals except force property prices and rentals up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the real issue is the lack of homes. Build more, lots more. Where? Around here it feels any building close to a station offering a link to London is being developed in to flats. Vast majority are brought by landlords or by Londoners. It achieves nothing for locals except force property prices and rentals up. " . Yes at last now we're talking capitalism. And do you know what the best solution would be? More capitalism not less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget how many politicians and members of parliament are landlords. They wouldn't want their investment to go down. . You pay tax on profit of second homes
Yes you do, same tax as you would on any other income. I try not to get involved in these threads and I’ve done well so far seeing as my views always seem to be in the minority on them! I’m going to trot off to one of bananamans threads where I’m safer .
Millennials, they just have it so hard these days "They sure do  . I don’t remember my dad transferring me £100 to see me through till payday. Or is it we’re just too soft  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ours would actually be worth more than it is now. It is valued at 30k more than it was purchased at. It's had loads of work done on it- more than 30K... So yes please
To be honest I think more needs to be done for renters. It's so frustrating for those that rent that pay a mortgage and more than for the landlord but are then not able to buy due to needing a deposit- which they can't get together due to paying double what a mortgage would be. I feel there should be a new deal for people who have rented for more than 5 years with no arrears to be able to get a 100 % mortgage .
The government have been providing FREE deposits for exactly those people for years!."Lol have you ever looked into it? You still need a 5% deposit which is a hell of a lot where you live in a area where the cheapest property is 200k and you are paying 1k rent a Month. I inherited my property or I would be still struggling renting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? " No! Buy it at the market price and then sell it for whatever the market price goes to. The law should never interfere with such things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the real issue is the lack of homes. Build more, lots more. Where?" My borough. And other boroughs around London. The plan was to build 400,000 new homes I think. That would bring another million people into London possibly. What they are doing is selling off council land-some with council properties on them that are demolished. The private sector builds on the land and has to make a small %age of the properties social housing (Which is a bit cheaper to rent than private, but nowhere near the same as council rents. This is because the councils can't afford to develop land or buildings they already rent out. The ridiculous property prices in Central and inner London are pushing people to Outer London, which is putting a demand on properties there, meaning people who have been brought up there have to look further out of London to live. Even those areas are being advertised in the Metro as cheaper places to live if you want to work in London. The population of my borough has gone up by hundreds of thousands in the past 15 years I think. Soon they will only be able to build up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? . There is no profit until the moment they sell and become homeless. As you can appreciate though, if this law was imposed it would have the effect of permanently controlling house prices, meaning an end to housing bubbles, and quite possibly reducing the price across the board too, bringing them more within reach of new house buyers And the people who have invested their money in property? Would have to find other ways to earn money on investments. Roofs over heads shouldn't be an investment should they? Why not? Plenty people invest in property to bring in a regular monthly income and then perhaps sell the property later on in life to enable them to retire/pay off mortgages etc. Do you not see this as slightly cannibalistic; older generations buying up property, renting it out so that the young can pay their mortgages for them, then penalising the young all over again when they later sell that property at a hugely inflated price. Isn't that cannibalistic? The old eating the young The young and low earners can't afford to buy, and can't get a council property, so rent privately and get help with their rent and council tax (until they claim Universal Credit so it seems). Is this some kind of false economy with the Government propping up the housing market? " No different than the benefits people are paid because they are very low paid. Companies like Tesco have got rich by paying low wages knowing that the slack will be taken up by tax payers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ours would actually be worth more than it is now. It is valued at 30k more than it was purchased at. It's had loads of work done on it- more than 30K... So yes please
To be honest I think more needs to be done for renters. It's so frustrating for those that rent that pay a mortgage and more than for the landlord but are then not able to buy due to needing a deposit- which they can't get together due to paying double what a mortgage would be. I feel there should be a new deal for people who have rented for more than 5 years with no arrears to be able to get a 100 % mortgage .
The government have been providing FREE deposits for exactly those people for years!.
Lol have you ever looked into it? You still need a 5% deposit which is a hell of a lot where you live in a area where the cheapest property is 200k and you are paying 1k rent a Month. I inherited my property or I would be still struggling renting ". A 5% deposit is exactly what I put on my first house 30yrs ago. Nothings changed except the fact youngsters today don't want to pay all they're wages in a mortgage just like I did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there are 2 different issues here. I don't agree with capping profit on selling residential property, but I think there should be control on what landlords can charge. Exorbitant rents for shitty properties are common. The difficulty, as ever, is in implementing suitable and fair controls." Agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The area i live you can still by a house for 40k. Some go for even less. " Because no one wants to live there. A house identical to mine ( that I know was bought for £23k back in the 90s) was sold last year for £320,000. It had had nothing done to it except paper and paint and was snapped up in a week of being viewed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ours would actually be worth more than it is now. It is valued at 30k more than it was purchased at. It's had loads of work done on it- more than 30K... So yes please
To be honest I think more needs to be done for renters. It's so frustrating for those that rent that pay a mortgage and more than for the landlord but are then not able to buy due to needing a deposit- which they can't get together due to paying double what a mortgage would be. I feel there should be a new deal for people who have rented for more than 5 years with no arrears to be able to get a 100 % mortgage .
The government have been providing FREE deposits for exactly those people for years!.
Lol have you ever looked into it? You still need a 5% deposit which is a hell of a lot where you live in a area where the cheapest property is 200k and you are paying 1k rent a Month. I inherited my property or I would be still struggling renting .
A 5% deposit is exactly what I put on my first house 30yrs ago. Nothings changed except the fact youngsters today don't want to pay all they're wages in a mortgage just like I did."For a lot, all their wages wouldn't cover a mortgage. New builds around here are being advertised as affordable for two people on average wages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there are 2 different issues here. I don't agree with capping profit on selling residential property, but I think there should be control on what landlords can charge. Exorbitant rents for shitty properties are common. The difficulty, as ever, is in implementing suitable and fair controls." Yep the landlord is always the basterd isn't he. If only that was true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ours would actually be worth more than it is now. It is valued at 30k more than it was purchased at. It's had loads of work done on it- more than 30K... So yes please
To be honest I think more needs to be done for renters. It's so frustrating for those that rent that pay a mortgage and more than for the landlord but are then not able to buy due to needing a deposit- which they can't get together due to paying double what a mortgage would be. I feel there should be a new deal for people who have rented for more than 5 years with no arrears to be able to get a 100 % mortgage .
The government have been providing FREE deposits for exactly those people for years!.
Lol have you ever looked into it? You still need a 5% deposit which is a hell of a lot where you live in a area where the cheapest property is 200k and you are paying 1k rent a Month. I inherited my property or I would be still struggling renting .
A 5% deposit is exactly what I put on my first house 30yrs ago. Nothings changed except the fact youngsters today don't want to pay all they're wages in a mortgage just like I did."I have a young couple as neighbours and they managed to buy their property by living with her parents for 6 years and saving very hard. Not enough young people are prepared to do this and many want a property that equates with what their parents live in, forgetting that they may have lived in a bedsit or with family to save up in the beginning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I thought. An interesting debate "Truble couser | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The answer is in the interest rate!. While we have very very low interest rates you will always get capital flow into housing. Return the interest rate to 9 or 10% and all this stops overnight." I am a Landlord of a property I rent out - this was a property I used to live in so I didn't buy it for this purpose. If interest rates returned to 6% I would sell it and live off the interest. I have just spent £15k on updating the property because of all the new legislation coming in this year to ensure I surpass all the current regulations. I have only increased the rents by a small margin - not all Landlords are greedy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ours would actually be worth more than it is now. It is valued at 30k more than it was purchased at. It's had loads of work done on it- more than 30K... So yes please
To be honest I think more needs to be done for renters. It's so frustrating for those that rent that pay a mortgage and more than for the landlord but are then not able to buy due to needing a deposit- which they can't get together due to paying double what a mortgage would be. I feel there should be a new deal for people who have rented for more than 5 years with no arrears to be able to get a 100 % mortgage .
The government have been providing FREE deposits for exactly those people for years!.
Lol have you ever looked into it? You still need a 5% deposit which is a hell of a lot where you live in a area where the cheapest property is 200k and you are paying 1k rent a Month. I inherited my property or I would be still struggling renting .
A 5% deposit is exactly what I put on my first house 30yrs ago. Nothings changed except the fact youngsters today don't want to pay all they're wages in a mortgage just like I did.
For a lot, all their wages wouldn't cover a mortgage. New builds around here are being advertised as affordable for two people on average wages.
". That's because your in London, you can try Tokyo or new York (new York has rent control) and still the housing is extortionate. EVERYBODY wants to Live in a capital city and you simply can't house the world in capital cities hence why the prices are high. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The answer is in the interest rate!. While we have very very low interest rates you will always get capital flow into housing. Return the interest rate to 9 or 10% and all this stops overnight. I am a Landlord of a property I rent out - this was a property I used to live in so I didn't buy it for this purpose. If interest rates returned to 6% I would sell it and live off the interest. I have just spent £15k on updating the property because of all the new legislation coming in this year to ensure I surpass all the current regulations. I have only increased the rents by a small margin - not all Landlords are greedy. " . I know, I'm in full agreement with you, I'm trying to explain capitalism though to the people who don't know. Money seeks returns, when we artificially stifled interest rates to save banks we created this opening to get a return on stuff like houses, you could just use works of art in exactly the same way, years ago a Rembrandt was affordable today not so much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there are 2 different issues here. I don't agree with capping profit on selling residential property, but I think there should be control on what landlords can charge. Exorbitant rents for shitty properties are common. The difficulty, as ever, is in implementing suitable and fair controls. Yep the landlord is always the basterd isn't he. If only that was true." Touched a nerve? That's not what I said now is it, but don't tell me there aren't landlords charging high rents for poorly maintained properties, overcrowding properties and even where properties are decent, charging massively high rents because it is in an area of high demand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The answer is in the interest rate!. While we have very very low interest rates you will always get capital flow into housing. Return the interest rate to 9 or 10% and all this stops overnight. I am a Landlord of a property I rent out - this was a property I used to live in so I didn't buy it for this purpose. If interest rates returned to 6% I would sell it and live off the interest. I have just spent £15k on updating the property because of all the new legislation coming in this year to ensure I surpass all the current regulations. I have only increased the rents by a small margin - not all Landlords are greedy. . I know, I'm in full agreement with you, I'm trying to explain capitalism though to the people who don't know. Money seeks returns, when we artificially stifled interest rates to save banks we created this opening to get a return on stuff like houses, you could just use works of art in exactly the same way, years ago a Rembrandt was affordable today not so much." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there are 2 different issues here. I don't agree with capping profit on selling residential property, but I think there should be control on what landlords can charge. Exorbitant rents for shitty properties are common. The difficulty, as ever, is in implementing suitable and fair controls. Yep the landlord is always the basterd isn't he. If only that was true. Touched a nerve? That's not what I said now is it, but don't tell me there aren't landlords charging high rents for poorly maintained properties, overcrowding properties and even where properties are decent, charging massively high rents because it is in an area of high demand." Touched a nerve no not even close. Ignorance like yours is common. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there are 2 different issues here. I don't agree with capping profit on selling residential property, but I think there should be control on what landlords can charge. Exorbitant rents for shitty properties are common. The difficulty, as ever, is in implementing suitable and fair controls. Yep the landlord is always the basterd isn't he. If only that was true. Touched a nerve? That's not what I said now is it, but don't tell me there aren't landlords charging high rents for poorly maintained properties, overcrowding properties and even where properties are decent, charging massively high rents because it is in an area of high demand." Yes I agree there are and if councils used the money they are charging for licenses on policing the bad landlords it may improve - they know where properties are rented and they don't inspect them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there are 2 different issues here. I don't agree with capping profit on selling residential property, but I think there should be control on what landlords can charge. Exorbitant rents for shitty properties are common. The difficulty, as ever, is in implementing suitable and fair controls. Yep the landlord is always the basterd isn't he. If only that was true. Touched a nerve? That's not what I said now is it, but don't tell me there aren't landlords charging high rents for poorly maintained properties, overcrowding properties and even where properties are decent, charging massively high rents because it is in an area of high demand. Yes I agree there are and if councils used the money they are charging for licenses on policing the bad landlords it may improve - they know where properties are rented and they don't inspect them." Policing them won't make the rent lower. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no housing shortage, we've built millions and millions of houses in the last few decades, when I drive round the country there's housing sites bleeding everywhere." A people surplus? As soon as a house or flats are built near me they are filled. They don't sit empty for weeks; once the paint dries people move in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The area i live you can still by a house for 40k. Some go for even less. " Where I used to live it is the same. 3 beds houses in the 50k region. But it's always relative. In same area most of the few jobs available are min wage agriculture labouring jobs. You cant sell a house for much in an area where no one has any money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Too many people are bought into the Thatcher concept of a property-owning democracy. The idea that the roof over your head is an asset in a market that only ever inflates, rather than a basic necessity." . I disagree, I think Thatcher had that one bang on, owning something is the initiation into a working life, I respect that some people don't want to pay into owning a house and would prefer to rent, we're all different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Too many people are bought into the Thatcher concept of a property-owning democracy. The idea that the roof over your head is an asset in a market that only ever inflates, rather than a basic necessity.. I disagree, I think Thatcher had that one bang on, owning something is the initiation into a working life, I respect that some people don't want to pay into owning a house and would prefer to rent, we're all different." By "rent" I presume you mean "buy your landlords house for them"? Renting is far more expensive than buying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property...." Thank fuck not everyone thinks like this. It's the only asset we have. If we rented we'd have literally nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property.... Thank fuck not everyone thinks like this. It's the only asset we have. If we rented we'd have literally nothing. "I think you've missed the point somewhat.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property.... Thank fuck not everyone thinks like this. It's the only asset we have. If we rented we'd have literally nothing.
I think you've missed the point somewhat. "What was the point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property.... Thank fuck not everyone thinks like this. It's the only asset we have. If we rented we'd have literally nothing.
I think you've missed the point somewhat.
What was the point? "We want your house | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property.... Thank fuck not everyone thinks like this. It's the only asset we have. If we rented we'd have literally nothing.
I think you've missed the point somewhat.
What was the point?
We want your house "Fuck. Off!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Too many people are bought into the Thatcher concept of a property-owning democracy. The idea that the roof over your head is an asset in a market that only ever inflates, rather than a basic necessity.. I disagree, I think Thatcher had that one bang on, owning something is the initiation into a working life, I respect that some people don't want to pay into owning a house and would prefer to rent, we're all different. By "rent" I presume you mean "buy your landlords house for them"? Renting is far more expensive than buying. " . This is childish, when you buy a car the profit pays for goodness knows what at the higher level. Renting is unequivocally not more expensive than buying, just look at right move in any town!. This isn't a hard thing to do, just look. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Suppose the government proposed a law that decreed that the maximum you could sell a house for was the value you bought it for, plus the cost of certain additions such as extensions, conservatories, etc, recalculated in accord to inflation, plus 10% of that value... would you be for or against it? To be clear. A house bought for £40,000 in 1980 (the average house price at the time). Taking inflation into account £40,000 is equivalent to about £160,000 today. As such, the maximum value the owner of this property could put it on the market for would be £176,000" So what if I bought a house for £100K, and next door was bought at the same time for the same amount. Say I sold my house 6 months later for £110K, the person who bought it then sold that back to me 12 months later for £121K, I then sold it after another year for £133K, but next door was also being sold by the person who bought it 2 1/2 years previously....but because of your 10% rule, he can only put it up for £110K. We've lived in our house for 20 years, so the 50K I paid then would only be 55K now, but the house next door, that has changed hands 8 times in 20 years, and is essentially the same house, would be worth about 110K? (The differential would be even higher when adding on inflation). And what about new houses being built? How would you price them? Think there might be one or two flaws in the plan! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property...." Do you own a property? It's normally the idea of people who have nothing and get jealous of what other people have worked hard for!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property.... Do you own a property? It's normally the idea of people who have nothing and get jealous of what other people have worked hard for! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Suppose the government proposed a law that decreed that the maximum you could sell a house for was the value you bought it for, plus the cost of certain additions such as extensions, conservatories, etc, recalculated in accord to inflation, plus 10% of that value... would you be for or against it? To be clear. A house bought for £40,000 in 1980 (the average house price at the time). Taking inflation into account £40,000 is equivalent to about £160,000 today. As such, the maximum value the owner of this property could put it on the market for would be £176,000 So what if I bought a house for £100K, and next door was bought at the same time for the same amount. Say I sold my house 6 months later for £110K, the person who bought it then sold that back to me 12 months later for £121K, I then sold it after another year for £133K, but next door was also being sold by the person who bought it 2 1/2 years previously....but because of your 10% rule, he can only put it up for £110K. We've lived in our house for 20 years, so the 50K I paid then would only be 55K now, but the house next door, that has changed hands 8 times in 20 years, and is essentially the same house, would be worth about 110K? (The differential would be even higher when adding on inflation). And what about new houses being built? How would you price them? Think there might be one or two flaws in the plan!" I guess once the neighbour puts it on the market, your house is only worth what he can sell it for .... until they’ve sold there’s then you can see it for a lot more. I think you can solve this by saying it can be sold for inflation + 1% pa rather than a flat 10%. But my real question is What are we trying to achieve by all this ? The goal of capping house prices isn’t clear ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thought provoking thread. I am in the market for another buy to let in a commuter town that is slowly being gentrified and I do wonder about the ethics behind my sideline. I see it that I’m providing a simple solution (cost effective maybe) to someone who does not want to buy in the area. There is plenty of stock in the area at affordable prices so I don’t feel too bad. I thought about going down the student housing route but did not feel that was ethically sound cramming people in for profit. " Where are we going to put all the unwanted human flotsam and jetsam after all this gentrification .Or as I see it social cleansing .Should we build a new town called chavingham. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thought provoking thread. I am in the market for another buy to let in a commuter town that is slowly being gentrified and I do wonder about the ethics behind my sideline. I see it that I’m providing a simple solution (cost effective maybe) to someone who does not want to buy in the area. There is plenty of stock in the area at affordable prices so I don’t feel too bad. I thought about going down the student housing route but did not feel that was ethically sound cramming people in for profit. Where are we going to put all the unwanted human flotsam and jetsam after all this gentrification .Or as I see it social cleansing .Should we build a new town called chavingham." Build more social housing in these areas works where I’m from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And why? To achieve what?. The left are obsessed with equity, there constantly dreaming up nonsense in a bid to make all 7.4 billion of us equal because life's so unfair." Everyone must suffer equally | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the law would allow people to make a profit off their property. It would just cap how much profit they could make. Returning property to a roof over one's head rather than an investment. People have a problem with this? Is it the fact it would only allow for 10% profit. What if it allowed for 50% profit? So the average house bought in 1980 could be sold for a maximum of £240,000 today. That's the average price today. Would that be acceptable? " What's wrong with profit? Capping one industry and no other is just a further exercise in unfairness....all in the name of equity. Go back to the drawing board... Why can the guy running the corner shop have a fifty percent markup on a can of or a twix? Do you want to cap him out of existence with a 10 percent limit? Either yes or no, both answers make your proposal ludicrous. The law of supply and demand is the closest thing we have in economics to a physical law of nature.. it's not easy to surpress or control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think private individuals should own property...." Not even the clothes on their backs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wealth shouldn't be about what generation you were born in." Or even what country...will you be first in line to donate all your materials possessions to someone less well off? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The law of supply and demand is the closest thing we have in economics to a physical law of nature.. it's not easy to surpress or control. " Nonsense. Demand is utterly manufacturable and manipulatable. People who wax lyrical about supply and demand completely ignore the fact that we've long lived in a consumer society, driven and manipulated by advertising wherein demand is frequently stimulated by the suppliers. We live in a world where the big Internet giants buy up amazing new startups promising important innovations for the consumer and then kill them. It's quite clear simplistic notions of supply and demand are naive pipe dreams that simply don't match with the real world | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The law of supply and demand is the closest thing we have in economics to a physical law of nature.. it's not easy to surpress or control. Nonsense. Demand is utterly manufacturable and manipulatable. People who wax lyrical about supply and demand completely ignore the fact that we've long lived in a consumer society, driven and manipulated by advertising wherein demand is frequently stimulated by the suppliers. We live in a world where the big Internet giants buy up amazing new startups promising important innovations for the consumer and then kill them. It's quite clear simplistic notions of supply and demand are naive pipe dreams that simply don't match with the real world " I agree with you but you should only worry about you can change! Societies is controlled because people allow it to happen. They enjoy the toys their captives let them play with. Can you back up your opinion a bit...If supply and demand is "rubbish" then how do you explain London house prices? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The law of supply and demand is the closest thing we have in economics to a physical law of nature.. it's not easy to surpress or control. Nonsense. Demand is utterly manufacturable and manipulatable. People who wax lyrical about supply and demand completely ignore the fact that we've long lived in a consumer society, driven and manipulated by advertising wherein demand is frequently stimulated by the suppliers. We live in a world where the big Internet giants buy up amazing new startups promising important innovations for the consumer and then kill them. It's quite clear simplistic notions of supply and demand are naive pipe dreams that simply don't match with the real world I agree with you but you should only worry about you can change! Societies is controlled because people allow it to happen. They enjoy the toys their captives let them play with. Can you back up your opinion a bit...If supply and demand is "rubbish" then how do you explain London house prices?" Well Russian oligarchs laundering filthy money plays a part in manipulating the prices. So many foreigners abroad using London property as a stock exchange. Inflate it so that no one who works there can afford to buy. Then sell and bugger off whilst it crashes and fucks up everyone who has to pick up the pieces. None of that is supply and demand That's the trouble with right wingers. So convinced of their paper theories that they're dogmatic. But just aren't aware of the dirty realities of real life. Supply and demand my arse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The law of supply and demand is the closest thing we have in economics to a physical law of nature.. it's not easy to surpress or control. Nonsense. Demand is utterly manufacturable and manipulatable. People who wax lyrical about supply and demand completely ignore the fact that we've long lived in a consumer society, driven and manipulated by advertising wherein demand is frequently stimulated by the suppliers. We live in a world where the big Internet giants buy up amazing new startups promising important innovations for the consumer and then kill them. It's quite clear simplistic notions of supply and demand are naive pipe dreams that simply don't match with the real world I agree with you but you should only worry about you can change! Societies is controlled because people allow it to happen. They enjoy the toys their captives let them play with. Can you back up your opinion a bit...If supply and demand is "rubbish" then how do you explain London house prices? Well Russian oligarchs laundering filthy money plays a part in manipulating the prices. So many foreigners abroad using London property as a stock exchange. Inflate it so that no one who works there can afford to buy. Then sell and bugger off whilst it crashes and fucks up everyone who has to pick up the pieces. None of that is supply and demand That's the trouble with right wingers. So convinced of their paper theories that they're dogmatic. But just aren't aware of the dirty realities of real life. Supply and demand my arse " But life is real and dirty? You are trying to outlaw gravity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is the problem with the right. They moan about left wing criticism. But it isn't criticism. It's correction. The right wing model of reality is simply a fantasy. Left wingers simply want to correct it. Why? Because policies based upon an unrealistic model of reality almost always end in disaster... just as most right wing policies do. I don't have an intrinsic problem with the right. Indeed, having somewhat anarchistic leanings, I have great sympathies for it. But damn me they've got to start improving their models of reality " I agree with you in principle...tempering is the key, borrow ideas from both sides, not being dogmatic and avoiding extremes and pushing for fairness. All that said, intervention in processes as strong as supply and demand is often if not generally harmful. In practice it is what it is, London as a multicultural supercity is an attractive place to be and its value as a place to live is accelerating. That's just how it is! You are just complaining because this is an inconvenience for you. You can't make the world work as you want it and people need to adapt to survive. It's sad when people are priced out of where they grew up but they also have the capacity to try to earn more to keep up with the rate of change. Adaptation is the essence of life, or are you against evolution too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree with you in principle...tempering is the key, borrow ideas from both sides, not being dogmatic and avoiding extremes and pushing for fairness. All that said, intervention in processes as strong as supply and demand is often if not generally harmful. " What do you make of the consumerist society then? There's no such thing as not intervening in supply and demand in such an advertising driven society. Heck, even the housing market is manipulated by psychological trickery. "In practice it is what it is, London as a multicultural supercity is an attractive place to be and its value as a place to live is accelerating. That's just how it is!" I agree. I'm just saying that's not the sole, nor perhaps even the main factor here. "You are just complaining because this is an inconvenience for you. " You're making the bold assumption that my views on these issues are driven by selfish concerns. You may be surprised to hear that many "lefties" as you lot call them believe what they believe for altruistic reasons. I'm quite comfortable thanks
"You can't make the world work as you want it and people need to adapt to survive. It's sad when people are priced out of where they grew up but they also have the capacity to try to earn more to keep up with the rate of change. Adaptation is the essence of life, or are you against evolution too?" As I mentioned on another thread, Darwin got his idea at least in part from Malthus and probably Adam Smith. With hindsight, however, it has become obvious that the markets need some guidance to effect beneficial results and it's increasingly obvious that so does nature | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Suppose the government proposed a law that decreed that the maximum you could sell a house for was the value you bought it for, plus the cost of certain additions such as extensions, conservatories, etc, recalculated in accord to inflation, plus 10% of that value... would you be for or against it? To be clear. A house bought for £40,000 in 1980 (the average house price at the time). Taking inflation into account £40,000 is equivalent to about £160,000 today. As such, the maximum value the owner of this property could put it on the market for would be £176,000" A better option is a Land Value Tax - that way any improvements that they have made to their home are not taxed and therefore not discouraged, but any unearned value their house has gained through no input from themselves is reflected in the tax they pay. So rent-seeking behaviour (in the economic sense, not actually looking for rent) is discouraged, but investment is not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In short, the rabid and heartless beliefs of right wingers and mistaken darwinists, that survival of the strongest mentality, is as wrong in nature as it is in society. It is an error as violent to humanity and nature as communism " You have your opinions and beliefs like everyone else and I actually respect them. The problem I’ve found recently is that the majority of lefties/socialists and the like seem to feel the need to shout very loud on social media and don’t seem to have the same respect for other people’s opinions. Whereas I find the people who lean more to the right tend to keep a lot quieter and get on with their lives without feeling the need to shout and rant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The answer is in the interest rate!. While we have very very low interest rates you will always get capital flow into housing. Return the interest rate to 9 or 10% and all this stops overnight." For someone who purports to understand economics, you have an incredibly simplistic view of things... Given the current economic fashion favours the monetarist approach, you surely know that the reason the interest rates were so low was to try and stimulate demand...as the aim was to cut back on public spending, it was up to the private sector to take up the slack, and unless people stopped saving and started spending then that wasn't happening... As it was, we still had the most prolonged recovery on record and anaemic levels of demand and growth...what do you think a 10% interest rate would have done to the economy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The goverment should build millions of state owned houses like they did after the war.We managed to build hundreds of thousands of prefabs in a few years .The of the flat pack home is the future. .Cheap affordable houses to rent, giving people opportunity to save and take pressure off the market. Rapid built prefabs Can go up in a few days .You can build a house for less than 20k. You can even see a robot builld one in 24hrs for $10k on YouTube .It doesn't have to be automated you train an army of young joiners to put them together . People are caught in a cycle of wages only covering rent and basic living .Halve the rent .Problem solved. "For about 30 years, from the 1940s until the 1970s, the Conservative and Labour manifestoes tried to outdo each other as to who would build the most council houses. The concept was very popular, if not necessarily always well delivered. But ideologically, both were wedded to the concept. Thatcher changed that. She believed ownership of property was a way to break trade union power, i.e. if people thought they could lose the roof over their head, they were less likely to act in a militant way that could result in loss of job. The 1980s Tory also saw council houses as a "breeding ground" for Labout voters and saw no benefit politically. So, as a country, we sold off a huge asset for a fraction of its worth. The councils who had built the houses and were still paying off the mortgage saw none of the receipts. So the cost of servicing the debt fell on an ever-diminishing number of tenants, i.e. rents went up every time a house was sold for tuppence ha'penny. Consequently, council house increasingly became the preserve of people on housing benefit. It's a scandal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no housing shortage, we've built millions and millions of houses in the last few decades, when I drive round the country there's housing sites bleeding everywhere." Despite the numerous reports SINCE THE 1970s that all agree we build around 100k-200k houses less than we need to, every year. But hey, you've seen some building sites around. I'm sure you're right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All I'm getting off this thread is how we need to educate people better on economics, monetary policy, fiscal policy, tax laws and interest rates." The irony is astounding... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In short, the rabid and heartless beliefs of right wingers and mistaken darwinists, that survival of the strongest mentality, is as wrong in nature as it is in society. It is an error as violent to humanity and nature as communism You have your opinions and beliefs like everyone else and I actually respect them. The problem I’ve found recently is that the majority of lefties/socialists and the like seem to feel the need to shout very loud on social media and don’t seem to have the same respect for other people’s opinions. Whereas I find the people who lean more to the right tend to keep a lot quieter and get on with their lives without feeling the need to shout and rant. " Agreed. It's one of the things I don't like about the left, especially the shouty student left. I personally believe in the right wing idea of setting up society to work beneficially via a set of incentives and disincentives. I work on similar stuff in my business. As I said earlier though, I'd rather take my model of how the world actually works from the left's warts and all outlook and develop incentives and disincentives to mitigate that. This particular thread isn't a good example of that because I was just throwing an idea out there to see what flaws there were in it (you'll find I do that from time to time)... and there were plenty haha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All I'm getting off this thread is how we need to educate people better on economics, monetary policy, fiscal policy, tax laws and interest rates. The irony is astounding..." . Go on. Or is that all you've got? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All I'm getting off this thread is how we need to educate people better on economics, monetary policy, fiscal policy, tax laws and interest rates. The irony is astounding.... Go on. Or is that all you've got?" Read the rest of them. You'll see where you're wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no housing shortage, we've built millions and millions of houses in the last few decades, when I drive round the country there's housing sites bleeding everywhere. Despite the numerous reports SINCE THE 1970s that all agree we build around 100k-200k houses less than we need to, every year. But hey, you've seen some building sites around. I'm sure you're right ". We built 215,000 houses last year, there is no housing shortage, I'll agree that there's lots of houses being bought by people who've already got houses as investments, that's market forces and it's easily corrected by returning interest rates to a proper market rate of around 10% as I stated earlier. If your correct then we need to be building 500,000 houses a year or 5 million every ten years or 35 million houses in a generation! Personally I think that's pie in the sky but hell you lefties go for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no housing shortage, we've built millions and millions of houses in the last few decades, when I drive round the country there's housing sites bleeding everywhere. Despite the numerous reports SINCE THE 1970s that all agree we build around 100k-200k houses less than we need to, every year. But hey, you've seen some building sites around. I'm sure you're right .
We built 215,000 houses last year, there is no housing shortage, I'll agree that there's lots of houses being bought by people who've already got houses as investments, that's market forces and it's easily corrected by returning interest rates to a proper market rate of around 10% as I stated earlier.
If your correct then we need to be building 500,000 houses a year or 5 million every ten years or 35 million houses in a generation!
Personally I think that's pie in the sky but hell you lefties go for it.
"There are various reports commissioned by governments from both sides of the floor, going back as far the 70s, that state we're building too few houses...the consensus seems to be around 100k something too few - so this isn't a 'lefty' thing - this is what the experts who have looked into the situation say; if memory serves, they think we need close to 300k houses per year. So last year was not too bad - but that's not enough to overcome the housing deficit for the preceding decades | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no housing shortage, we've built millions and millions of houses in the last few decades, when I drive round the country there's housing sites bleeding everywhere. Despite the numerous reports SINCE THE 1970s that all agree we build around 100k-200k houses less than we need to, every year. But hey, you've seen some building sites around. I'm sure you're right .
We built 215,000 houses last year, there is no housing shortage, I'll agree that there's lots of houses being bought by people who've already got houses as investments, that's market forces and it's easily corrected by returning interest rates to a proper market rate of around 10% as I stated earlier.
If your correct then we need to be building 500,000 houses a year or 5 million every ten years or 35 million houses in a generation!
Personally I think that's pie in the sky but hell you lefties go for it.
There are various reports commissioned by governments from both sides of the floor, going back as far the 70s, that state we're building too few houses...the consensus seems to be around 100k something too few - so this isn't a 'lefty' thing - this is what the experts who have looked into the situation say; if memory serves, they think we need close to 300k houses per year.
So last year was not too bad - but that's not enough to overcome the housing deficit for the preceding decades". We were building 300,000 homes a year in the early 70s we over built and there was a crash in the late 70s, we did the same thing in the 80s. Contrary to what's wrote on here the public sector has ALWAYS built more houses than the state sector since the 60s. Big house building companies will find away to say there's a housing shortage so they can build more houses, I wouldn't put my house on any of the reports you've read | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Suppose the government proposed a law that decreed that the maximum you could sell a house for was the value you bought it for, plus the cost of certain additions such as extensions, conservatories, etc, recalculated in accord to inflation, plus 10% of that value... would you be for or against it? To be clear. A house bought for £40,000 in 1980 (the average house price at the time). Taking inflation into account £40,000 is equivalent to about £160,000 today. As such, the maximum value the owner of this property could put it on the market for would be £176,000" No as a 200k house actually costs around double with the interest after 20 years so you would be taking a massive loss. Plus when we sell , this homes values will be our pension fund | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Suppose the government proposed a law that decreed that the maximum you could sell a house for was the value you bought it for, plus the cost of certain additions such as extensions, conservatories, etc, recalculated in accord to inflation, plus 10% of that value... would you be for or against it? To be clear. A house bought for £40,000 in 1980 (the average house price at the time). Taking inflation into account £40,000 is equivalent to about £160,000 today. As such, the maximum value the owner of this property could put it on the market for would be £176,000 No as a 200k house actually costs around double with the interest after 20 years so you would be taking a massive loss. Plus when we sell , this homes values will be our pension fund " exactly people tend to forget how much interest rates were in the 80s and 90s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't see what Cornyn is going to do about it apart from bankrupt the country." People who don't have capital will tend to be attracted to an anti capitalist party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. " . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice." Students also weren't saddled with massive debts when they left university. House prices have increased massively more than wages over the last thirty years. That's what's driven the house owning proportion of young people down. The idea it's because of excessive youthful consumerism would be hilarious if a lot of people didn't really believe it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice. Students also weren't saddled with massive debts when they left university. House prices have increased massively more than wages over the last thirty years. That's what's driven the house owning proportion of young people down. The idea it's because of excessive youthful consumerism would be hilarious if a lot of people didn't really believe it. " . I agree student debt is another reason, but again that's a payback choice there making, unless they get shit degrees that don't really pay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice. Students also weren't saddled with massive debts when they left university. House prices have increased massively more than wages over the last thirty years. That's what's driven the house owning proportion of young people down. The idea it's because of excessive youthful consumerism would be hilarious if a lot of people didn't really believe it. . I agree student debt is another reason, but again that's a payback choice there making, unless they get shit degrees that don't really pay." In the last 30 years house prices have gone up 125% in real terms, whilst wages have only gone up 57%". That means lots of people who could have bought a house in 1996 now can't. That's bleeding obvious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice." Also kids started work at 16 which is a lot earlier than they do now so therefore had a few years head start to earn more money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice.Also kids started work at 16 which is a lot earlier than they do now so therefore had a few years head start to earn more money." Nonsense. 70% of 16. Year old were in full time education in 1996. Compared to 80% now. And obviously those who leave at 16 will have the least qualifications and thus the lowest wages and be least likely to be home owners. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice. Students also weren't saddled with massive debts when they left university. House prices have increased massively more than wages over the last thirty years. That's what's driven the house owning proportion of young people down. The idea it's because of excessive youthful consumerism would be hilarious if a lot of people didn't really believe it. . I agree student debt is another reason, but again that's a payback choice there making, unless they get shit degrees that don't really pay. In the last 30 years house prices have gone up 125% in real terms, whilst wages have only gone up 57%". That means lots of people who could have bought a house in 1996 now can't. That's bleeding obvious. " . I'm not in disagreement with you that houses have exceeded wages, however during that time, food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, consumables are cheaper, holidays are cheaper, flights are cheaper, cars are cheaper. I didn't have even 20% of things that millennials have to spend on. Wages only really stagnanted significantly after 1998 they rose from 5k in 1980 to 18k in that period while houses rose from 18k to 68k. Yes I'll agree it went a bit tits up once labour got into power but it will correct itself very soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice." This is it...a matter of choice | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice.Also kids started work at 16 which is a lot earlier than they do now so therefore had a few years head start to earn more money. Nonsense. 70% of 16. Year old were in full time education in 1996. Compared to 80% now. And obviously those who leave at 16 will have the least qualifications and thus the lowest wages and be least likely to be home owners. " It depends...degree inflation for paper pushing monkey work plus the opportunity cost of the time spent plus student debt will bring a tipping point where working and training in a trade might well be a better bet for many. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice.Also kids started work at 16 which is a lot earlier than they do now so therefore had a few years head start to earn more money. Nonsense. 70% of 16. Year old were in full time education in 1996. Compared to 80% now. And obviously those who leave at 16 will have the least qualifications and thus the lowest wages and be least likely to be home owners. " nope left school at 16 qualified tradesman by 21 just because you leave school with no qualifications doesn't mean you can't get on.A good work ethic don't buy anything you can't afford and don't borrow money got me by thank you very much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 1996 60% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their home. The figure in 2016 was 39%. No wonder young people like Corbyn. . No mobile phones, no computers, no Netflix, no 3d surround system TVs or cinemas, no iPods, no broadband payments, no foreign holidays, no new car ever? They could afford it today if they just lived like I did in 1996, they just choose not to and I respect there choice.Also kids started work at 16 which is a lot earlier than they do now so therefore had a few years head start to earn more money. Nonsense. 70% of 16. Year old were in full time education in 1996. Compared to 80% now. And obviously those who leave at 16 will have the least qualifications and thus the lowest wages and be least likely to be home owners. nope left school at 16 qualified tradesman by 21 just because you leave school with no qualifications doesn't mean you can't get on.A good work ethic don't buy anything you can't afford and don't borrow money got me by thank you very much. " The average wage of someone with a degree is around twice that of someone who left school at 16. Obviously not all people who left school at 16 are low paid, but most are and thus, as a group, they are less likely to be home owners than those who left school later. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not necessarily. I left school at 16 and went straight into a London bank and worked my way up. My sister went to uni got a degree and struggled to get a job as she was overqualified. Ended up repping in Portugal for a few years, met a man and stayed out there. " Yes the old too qualified line that the potential boss spins because he is shit at his job and is worrisome that you will take his place  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". We were building 300,000 homes a year in the early 70s we over built and there was a crash in the late 70s, we did the same thing in the 80s. Contrary to what's wrote on here the public sector has ALWAYS built more houses than the state sector since the 60s. Big house building companies will find away to say there's a housing shortage so they can build more houses, I wouldn't put my house on any of the reports you've read "We were building over 300k houses in the 50s, not the 70s, and last time I looked the (actually) affordable social housing being built (virtually all by housing associations, hardly any by councils) was circa 20-25k, so you're talking out of your arse I'm afraid. If you absolutely insist, I can go digging around and find the Excel datasets that prove this, but it's gonna be easier for both of us if I don't have to go to the effort of handing your arse to you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not necessarily. I left school at 16 and went straight into a London bank and worked my way up. My sister went to uni got a degree and struggled to get a job as she was overqualified. Ended up repping in Portugal for a few years, met a man and stayed out there. Yes the old too qualified line that the potential boss spins because he is shit at his job and is worrisome that you will take his place "Yes exactly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". We were building 300,000 homes a year in the early 70s we over built and there was a crash in the late 70s, we did the same thing in the 80s. Contrary to what's wrote on here the public sector has ALWAYS built more houses than the state sector since the 60s. Big house building companies will find away to say there's a housing shortage so they can build more houses, I wouldn't put my house on any of the reports you've read
We were building over 300k houses in the 50s, not the 70s, and last time I looked the (actually) affordable social housing being built (virtually all by housing associations, hardly any by councils) was circa 20-25k, so you're talking out of your arse I'm afraid.
If you absolutely insist, I can go digging around and find the Excel datasets that prove this, but it's gonna be easier for both of us if I don't have to go to the effort of handing your arse to you ". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_the_United_Kingdom. I seriously think you lefties struggle with reading .
Scroll down to the construction history chart.
Or maybe you want to try handing me my bottom | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_the_United_Kingdom. I seriously think you lefties struggle with reading .
Scroll down to the construction history chart.
Or maybe you want to try handing me my bottom "Ahhh...furry muff, shoulda known better than to wade in with strident opinions without checking my figures first, my memory fails me - as I recalled we hadn't built 300k+ since the 50s 
That said, in fairness to me I was right about the social vs private housing...the last time local authorities built more than private was 1958
Call it a score-draw, eh?
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Briefcase wanker! Underneath the housing construction chart on the link I provided you'll see a housing affordability chart based on the average price to the average mean take home pay. You'll notice that in the early 80s it was ok but from 82-90 it was awful, in fact it was worse than today!!. Then it went back to being ok in the 90s before being awful in the early 2000s and today, well around about just over average!. Those bloody 50 year olds with their unaffordable housing lecturing the youth of today!. " Mean take home pay is a shit metric, as it can be skewed by the stratospheric incomes of a minority of individuals, median income is better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_the_United_Kingdom. I seriously think you lefties struggle with reading .
Scroll down to the construction history chart.
Or maybe you want to try handing me my bottom
Ahhh...furry muff, shoulda known better than to wade in with strident opinions without checking my figures first, my memory fails me - as I recalled we hadn't built 300k+ since the 50s
That said, in fairness to me I was right about the social vs private housing...the last time local authorities built more than private was 1958
Call it a score-draw, eh?
". I don't mind, I'm not really competitive about this type of stuff, I'm openly saying the first place I check for facts and figures is Wikipedia, if its wrong I'll gladly admit it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
