Well, comrade, looking at it objectively rather that emotively....
Money is simply a form of exchange - nothing more.
The important point is what does a person have to do (be it hours worked, objective achieved etc) in order to obtain item or service X.
Multiple choice question?
Thing is, when people invest in the stockmarket, I have the option to stay out of it, at least directly. If they in invest in housing stock for reasons of making money rather than living, it buggers things up for the rest of us who just want to buy a house to live in!
You're in favour of deregulation in such matters, Andy?
OK - then let's get rid of planning permission and building control, then I have the means to buy a plot of land. Building a house is withing my means, currently inflated land prices are not. Which is totally artificial considering I have enough cash in the bank to get me an acre or two of woodland in the SE.
Housing is too important to be left as a play thing for people to intentionally milk for profit. It's not like there aren't lots of other opportunities for speculating.
Let's have a level playing field here - invest in housing AND release
*all* the land for building so that supply is not artificially restricted; or cut out buggering up the house prices for people like me and the 1000's of others who can't afford anything despite earning a wage.Tim
John Cartmell wrote: " have a reasonably secure job (normal pre-Thatcher).
Oh, the joys of rose tinted spectacles and a poor memory! Between 1963 and 1973, the factory I was associated with, went from 2000 employees to
200. GEC, etc, went down by about 70% IIRC over the same time span. British light steel pressings factory closed due to union activity( Rootes group) and numerous others shed their workforces as production efficiency improved so slowly, that the overseas competitors simply priced them out of the British market.Regards Capitol
Not really. What else is it? Certainly not an end objective.....
I'm in favour of natural market adjustment.
The reality is that people have and do use property as various kinds of investment. Keep in mind that one is always looking at a 20-30 year window. It is relatively recent that the range of financial products for financing house purchase has grown and continues to grow.
Unfortunately this is not creating a level playing field. The issue is that the range of ownership options and financing products do not cover these situations. The effective solution would not be to try to distort the market by compressing price ranges, but to find ways and new methods of ownership that make quality housing affordable while not depressing the value for those who have invested.
Legislation and regulation is seldom an effective answer. In this area it would be difficult to differentiate between those who you say are speculating and those who are using purchase and sale of a property to fund their retirement.
Whilst I agree that £20k's work is unlikely to be required. The circumstances that lead to the reposession will have left the place, at least in principle, less well maintained (even if only minor things). Together with the fact that in these cases a lot of junk/rubbish is often left lying around. These factors can be off putting to a new buyer who is perhaps less able to see what a skip and some work would do.
IME a newish house can have as large a list of defects as an old one in average condition. Obviously major things are covered by the NHBC but there can be a score of minor things wrong/ omissions.
I have personally known a case where poor decoration has knocked 15k of a 2 bed, 150k flat.
But if you just want a place to live in you can rent. People buying houses as a speculative investment have taken a prospective capital gain into account when purchasing. As a significant part of their anticipated return is the capital gain they can rationaly accept a lower rental income than would otherwise be the case if there were no capital gain. The more speculative investment, the more second, (third, fourth etc) homes there are for which a rental income is required. A market demand for houses as investments does no necessarily mean a shortage of houses as places to live.
Typical. This Matt wants state control of land, planning and housing.
Agricultural land can be bought for £3,000 per acre, a superb Canadian or Scandinavian eco kit house for £25,000, add £5 for sundries and that is £33,000 for a house and land. Yet the average house price is pushing £200,000. Supply and demand my botty.
Well said.
As if we have one now!!
What crap! The only effective solution is to get a level playing field in a free market, then the private sector supplies most of the housing. That is done by getting the land owned broadly by the population instead of a few thousand families and relaxing planning so we can build on most land. Only then will we see the housing problem disappear.
No one is advocating that. No regulation, or little of it, and the free market takes over and solves the housing problem.
The only way to vastly reduce housing speculation is free up land and relax planning eliminating the artificial land shortage, which acts against the majority of the people.
In theory correct. But we have artificial land shortage which distorts the market raising house prices to silly levels and creating a housing shortage. The knock on effect is that houses are poor quality and far too small. Try using a bit of realism based on how the system actually is.
In message , Tim S writes
People have been investing in property, (and everything else), since time began, (you know what I mean ). Why should it be stopped now, or
5 years ago, or 20 years ago etc..Complaints like this dont exist in times of housing bust. Comments are more likely to be cheers as the investors lose money and/or go bust leaving some pickings for those who just want to buy a house to live in.
In message , Doctor Drivel writes
How much do you think agricultural land would increase to if it were released for building houses?
Clearly, the current price of building land would fall aswell...
In fact, they would reach equilibrium at the point where supply and demand decides.
You have also got to take into account that Matt here is a total narrow minded fool.
Also the one that are "more equal" are generally more "cunning" than intelligent. That large landowners who have guaranteed massive incomes, and have made laws to suit themselves. Orwell described them as tapeworms.
This would assume suitability of a Canadian or Scandinavian kit house to the location and the customer wanting one.
£5 might be a little light for sundries....I can't imagine any supplier demanding your botty....
The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:
Nothing to stop you buying a building plot and putting up a house to your preferred design. That "Canadian or Scandinavian eco kit house" are extremely rare would suggest that there is little demand for them. As I mentioned earlier there is a building plot going locally to me for £65000 (or most probably less). With you kit of parts that would even satisfy your criterion that the land is two thirds the price of the house.
BTW is your "Canadian or Scandinavian eco kit house for £25,000" the cost of the kit or the price fully assembled including foundations and services?
You have missed Tims point. Not long ago some Hungarian man played about with the money markets and there was a run on the pound. One man screwed up the business of many millions of people. Rightly there were cries that our currency, which is essential to us, should not be open for manipulation by money rakers, especially when one man can near ruin matters. A claim I agree with.
It is difficult to prevent people "investing" in housing. What Tim is saying the situation in housing, which is ultra important to people, should be so that anyone (individual or companies) playing in housing cannot upset the situation so much that affects the average man. That is what we have right now.
Tim is clearly saying let's have a level playing in this housing free market, which it clearly is not. How do you get a level field? Release most of the land and deregulate planning so housing is not silly prices and artificial pricing is difficult to achieve by anyone. The benefits to the population of that are abundantly clear to see.
If we didn't manipulate the land market, and house price market, by ramming us all into 7.5% of the land mass and opened up immediately all land, except special areas like parks, etc, the average price in 10 years would be a hellof a lot less than £200,000.
In answer to your question. BTW, my example is real and to real prices. Open up all land and the free market will take hold and the price will be what the seller sells it for and the is willing to buy. Which will not mean average homes to the tune of £200,000. What price will the average be? Supply and demand will dictate that. But decent spacious, cheap to run, homes will be within the reach of everyone.
Yep. The free market taking hold, which we clearly don't have in spades.
Matt, stop being stupid. You obviously don't think you are being stupid. You actually think you are sensible.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.