Mortgage rates / interest etc

[Ozi]

No argument about building services and property management being useful/essential services which have to be paid for.
But we have housing problems and the system is not working for a large number of people, who may never get on the housing ladder, or be able to afford rents, especially in London and other places.
The cost of housing has been leveraged higher than incomes. The main responsibility for this is government policy, or absence thereof, particularly the sale of council housing and non replacement.
Private landlords are another feature. It's too easy. High rents are subsidised by housing benefit and house prices go up to match so they profit twice. Needs constraint by taxation, rent controls, minimum standards, licensing, more rights/security to tenants and so on.
2nd homes is another. This should not be possible when there is a desperate shortage.
Housing is a basic human right but house price to earnings ratio are at record high.
How would you suggest housing problem should be addressed, short or long term?

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

Only one solution - build more houses and build the correct houses. My first house was a two bed mid terrace house in Coventry. There are hundreds almost identical throughout the city. They were in their day the correct house for the people coming to work in the new industries growing in the city. Some were built speculatively some by building societies where groups of people paid in and drew lots for the houses as they were completed, some were built to let. The point is they were the correct house for the times. By modern standards solid walls single glazed no loft insulation and outside toilets plus built on a twelve foot pitch so less than one car parking space per house no longer the correct house. What we need (I think you will like this) is a peoples house in the same sense as the VW was a peoples car. This is my best guess at what it should be but others may know better. Two or three bed versions Terraced. Parking under the ground floor for one SMALL electric vehicle. Over pavement street parking ie inward facing for a second if needed. Modern levels of insulation both thermal and sound, battery storage probably community batteries and solar on the roofs, plus rainwater harvesting. Standard houses built on production lines delivered as modules to site. It's been done, you can half the build cost (not the land cost) but there is a lot less profit to be made.

Read this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63300680
combine that with the houses I was describing

Here is an article by someone actually trying to live a modern life with some sustainability

Guest Blog: Oakwood pt 2 - MyGridGB


The houses built in Coventry around 1903 like mine were not built in isolation, the sewage systems went in as did shops and schools, joined up thinking three years after the founding of the Labor party eleven before the first world war. Built with the Victorian attitude that they wee going to last, no house should be designed to last less than 100 years.

To do this we all need to pay tax and in the most efficient way possible.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Rents and house prices are driven by:

• demand increases - breakdown of traditional family units and population increases
• supply - limited due to strict planning constraints and local objections (Nimbys).

It makes little difference to supply and demand whether houses are owned or rented - a flexible market needs spare capacity which is largely absent in the UK property market.

Private rents are impacted by normal "commercial" pressures. Investment cost, regulatory framework, taxation policy, risk, alternative investment returns.

Social housing whilst not impacted by commercial pressures in quite the same way need a taxpayer subsidy to deliver social housing at below market rents.

There is a wealth of comparative data held by OECD. I have not read this in detail but there are a few points worth noting:

OECD data

The UK has:

• some of the highest cost housing
• is relatively uncrowded
• very high commuting times
• amongst the oldest and least efficient housing stock
• above average access to green spaces - a consequence of strict planning laws
• a fairly average/typical mix of rented/owned property
• very low levels of rent control
• very high levels of housing allowances - which may feed into rental costs

I am sure all will be able to find a statistic to support any preconceived notion - but one key element which I could not quickly find is that vacant property in the UK is very low by comparison to other developed countries.

The lack of supply drives high prices of both ownership and rents. We simply need to build a lot more property, accept that as much as 5-10% may be vacant at any time (similar to many other developed countries), and both rents and prices will fall.

 

[johna.clements]

The war finished in 1945, Britain needed to rebuild and ‘create housing for the return soldiers’. Resources were scarce, and the UK was not in financial good shape. There were large numbers of prefab houses built, which is where the UK aversion to prefabricated housing came from as they were only ever intended as temporary accommodation, and were not well built or insulated and suffered from damp and being cold……..a great number are still with us. The high rise social housing movement started in the late 60’s, and the big council house sell off started in the 80’s.

There are still around 8000 of the 156000 prefabs remaining. Not sure I would call that a great number. I assume they are owned privately for the most part.

There were some prefabs near where I lived as a child. But they had been knocked down around 1970.

 

[Jacob]

Rents and house prices are driven by:

• demand increases - breakdown of traditional family units and population increases
• supply - limited due to strict planning constraints and local objections (Nimbys).

It makes little difference to supply and demand whether houses are owned or rented - a flexible market needs spare capacity which is largely absent in the UK property market.

Private rents are impacted by normal "commercial" pressures. Investment cost, regulatory framework, taxation policy, risk, alternative investment returns.

Social housing whilst not impacted by commercial pressures in quite the same way need a taxpayer subsidy to deliver social housing at below market rents.

There is a wealth of comparative data held by OECD. I have not read this in detail but there are a few points worth noting:

OECD data

The UK has:

• some of the highest cost housing
• is relatively uncrowded
• very high commuting times
• amongst the oldest and least efficient housing stock
• above average access to green spaces - a consequence of strict planning laws
• a fairly average/typical mix of rented/owned property
• very low levels of rent control
• very high levels of housing allowances - which may feed into rental costs

What stands out are the last two items. They are what makes buying to let so attractive. They could be reversed and also bring prices down.

I am sure all will be able to find a statistic to support any preconceived notion - but one key element which I could not quickly find is that vacant property in the UK is very low by comparison to other developed countries.

https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/why-second-homes-are-a-problem-for-housing-in-the-uk/

The lack of supply drives high prices of both ownership and rents. We simply need to build a lot more property, accept that as much as 5-10% may be vacant at any time (similar to many other developed countries), and both rents and prices will fall.

And/or liberate empty property and second homes.

 

[Blackswanwood]

The fundamental problem with the housing market is that there are not enough houses and demand keeps outstripping supply. Successive governments have failed to address this as to do so needs a long term strategy and probably therefore cross party consensus.

One missed opportunity to fund more social housing has been allowing the major building firms to profit from the likes of the help to buy scheme. The construct of this could have been better thought through by either increasing the requirement on developers to build more affordable/social housing alongside other developments or an increased level of corporation tax. In itself it wouldn't have solved the problem but it would have helped.

 

[Jameshow]

Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!

 

[Jacob]

Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!

We don't need it if we liberate 2nd homes and empty property.

 

[johna.clements]

Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!

More people are living alone, therefore more households. We need more smaller houses and flats.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!

A number of factors leading to the population rising such as people living longer and then a higher divorce rate/change in how people want to live.

Not sure what "liberating" second homes means ... stealing?

 

[Jacob]

A number of factors leading to the population rising such as people living longer and then a higher divorce rate/change in how people want to live.

Not sure what "liberating" second homes means ... stealing?

Taxing is the most civilised way. In a time of severe affordable housing shortage they are obviously unacceptable and a property tax could be targeted to pay the cost of replacing them, or we would be building council houses merely to protect the rights of the better off to own two or more homes - a very silly idea!
It would work both ways and liberate some empty properties pretty quickly I imagine!
It's not that "property is theft" but neither is it sacrosanct.

 

[Dibs-h]

Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!

The population is aging and the ol' codgers ain't dead yet.

 

[monster]

This is obvious nonsense.

There are good and bad landlords, pretending otherwise is a bit silly.

Thinking that bad landlord will always act in there own financial interest is also not a realistic assumption.

I'm sorry you clearly didn't read and digest what I wrote - There are quite obviously bad landlords out there just as there are bad tenants - I even mentioned the fact there are both good and bad landlords in my post you are commenting on, so your reply is an odd one.

My point was that neither the good or bad landlords would want to evict good tenants without having a valid tenant unrelated reason such as wishing to sell etc - there is simply no realistic motive to do otherwise.

 

[johna.clements]

I'm sorry you clearly didn't read and digest what I wrote - There are quite obviously bad landlords out there just as there are bad tenants - I even mentioned the fact there are both good and bad landlords in my post you are commenting on, so your reply is an odd one.

My point was that neither the good or bad landlords would want to evict good tenants without having a valid tenant unrelated reason such as wishing to sell etc - there is simply no realistic motive to do otherwise.

Why do you think that bad landlords always act in their own financial interest.

People have other motives than money.

 

[monster]

We don't need it if we liberate 2nd homes and empty property.

'Liberate'.....

How would you feel about others suggesting we liberate some of your privately owned property?

 

[monster]

Why do you think that bad landlords always act in their own financial interest.

People have other motives than money.

I'm not sure what you are hinting at there.

What I am sure of is that there are very few landlords (good or bad) who would evict good tenants without a valid reason such as the need to sell. There is simply no good motive for them to so. Despite the pressure groups and the media which cry daily that such a thing is rife.

 

[Jacob]

'Liberate'.....

How would you feel about others suggesting we liberate some of your privately owned property?

Depends on the whys and wherefores. We all accept that taxation is the price of civilisation - except for Liz Truss and the Tufton Street Taliban of course, but they are not very bright.

 

[Jacob]

I'm not sure what you are hinting at there.

What I am sure of is that there are very few landlords (good or bad) who would evict good tenants without a valid reason such as the need to sell. There is simply no good motive for them to so. Despite the pressure groups and the media which cry daily that such a thing is rife.

The bigger issue is bad landlords who don't comply with their obligations and attempt to harass or evict their tenants if they complain. It's a very common story They are widespread. Complaints about private landlords - Shelter England
"Need to sell" isn't a very good reason as the need for somewhere to live is obviously much more important.

 

[deema]

The bigger issue is bad landlords who don't comply with their obligations and attempt to harass or evict their tenants if they complain. It's a very common story They are widespread. Complaints about private landlords - Shelter England
"Need to sell" isn't a very good reason as the need for somewhere to live is obviously much more important.

Lets put your perspective slightly differently, what in effect your saying is that somebody else’s housing needs trumps another’s need for the cash. I suggest that if your own house was suddenly made such that you are no longer able to sell it, all your bank accounts are frozen and any other assets you have are also frozen so that someone else could benefit you may have a different perspective.

Why not go the whole nine yards and suggest that a there are bedroom police, and anyone with a spare bedroom must take in people without accommodation? That would solve the housing crisis immediately. In fact, let’s go a step further and an assessment of your basic living needs is also made, and any excess money is given to those with a lower living standard? I understand that your retired, so all your tools and machines should be donated to those who are trying to work and can’t afford them.

A wardrobe police should check your wardrobe, and more than two pairs of anything is immediately seized and given to those who need it more.

Yep, the world has been there tried it, killed millions trying it to make it work and finally in almost every case started to move away from it. Only Kim Jong-un is I think the last sticking to that mantra……but at least everyone is equally starving.

 

[Jacob]

Yes. Radio 4 this morning; far more arrive by other means, far more prefer other EU countries not least because the processing of work permits is quicker.
There's a real sense that the immigration "crisis" is a construct as a vote winner for the right.

"09.17 GMT
Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said she imagines policymakers in France and Germany would look at the UK immigration numbers and “wondering what the fuss is about”.

She said the backlog had increased because as numbers have risen, capacity for decision-making not increased and there are fewer asylum claim decisions being made over the last year or so than before the pandemic.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
The UK experienced a period for most of the 2010s where there were actually very low numbers of asylum claims by historical standards."

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/

 

[johna.clements]

I'm not sure what you are hinting at there.

What I am sure of is that there are very few landlords (good or bad) who would evict good tenants without a valid reason such as the need to sell. There is simply no good motive for them to so. Despite the pressure groups and the media which cry daily that such a thing is rife.

As I said people are motivated by other things as well a money. *** would be the most likely motivation.