House Prices?

stickyfiddle

I get the "one house each" thing from one perspective, but that forgets that there are actually loads of people who need or want to rent. I completely agree the house market is getting stupid, but effectively banning landlords is not the answer. 

Just stopping the relentless policies designed to proper the market up would go a long way. 

VimFuego

as I hope is clear, I am all in favour of reforming the housing market, but can you imagine how popular a policy would be in a manifesto that would reduce house prices to a more sensible level? It'd be right up there with the killing of all 1st borns

JezWynd

Drew_TNBD said:

Axe_meister said:

Why do people want to own their home.
a) To make it theirs and not depend on a landlord
b) So you don't have to pay rent in your old age
c) To pass onto your kids

IE: They want it as a financial investment.

When I bought my first home it was simply because it was cheaper than renting (Brighton). Rental prices are even more ludicrous nowadays, esp. with with all the agency types suckling at the teat.

thomasross20

It's so weird that one person can buy a home to rent to another. It's a bit like a class system. I agree that folk need to rent but should it be from some random person who's scooped up a few houses to line his/her pockets more? 

Agree that it's a policy that would be disastrous for a political party - and I think you're not far off @VimFuego  with your description. Many times I've seen home loaners go quiet because of conflict of interest - they want high prices for themselves (for what purpose other than retirement cash-in, I don't know) but low prices for their kids (until they buy, then they want high prices again). 

Rents are silly, agreed!

Evilmags

Only 35% of Germans own property. The rest rent. I can think of a lot of places renting makes more financial sense. 

olafgarten

In Malaysia most people rent, no matter how much money they have, the CEO of the company my Dad works at owns a Mansion in the countryside, but rents his house close to the city. His company has a revenue of more than £30 million. 

TheBigDipper

olafgarten said:

<snip>

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft. 

That's your view. Tax revenues pay for public services and infrastructure. I happen to think using public services and not paying tax when your earnings mean you could contribute is theft. I'd apply that view to both companies and people who work the system - and I don't think too highly of the politicians that don't try and stop it, either. 

TheBigDipper

I'd be interested in peoples thoughts about some friends of mine and their recent purchase. Both are in their 50s and neither has ever had a job that delivers a pension - so the state pension is what they've got to look forward to.  He is a freelance photographer (and a good one). She is an alternative therapist (Reiki and similar). They have never earned enough money to put into a pension scheme. They have lived in their main home for 25+ years, have no children and have paid the mortgage off. Her mother died recently and she shared the proceeds from the house sale with her sister. Using that money, they've bought a small flat to rent out and provide an income to supplement their pension. 

Is this OK or unacceptable? Anyone got a view? 

guitarfishbay

thomasross20 said:

It's funny how pretentious people can get taking about homes, and also how many folk have had the same opinion as me up until they buy a home

I don't think this is an area where many are objective.

I've met extremely few people who either are high earners, or stand to inherit a significant amount, that are pro taxation increases. The reverse is also often true in the UK. The US has a different attitude to wealth and taxes, I'm less familiar with general EU attitudes.

thomasross20

Evilmags said:

Only 35% of Germans own property. The rest rent. I can think of a lot of places renting makes more financial sense. 

Totally agree! Rent is messed up here, though.

@TheBigDipper I don't agree with what they're doing TBH. 

Right, that's my forum allotment for this week - the less I say on this topic the better

VimFuego

back in the days before inheritance tax, most farmers rented land (not a lot of people knew that the NFU campaigned for a tax to break up landed estates so they could buy land rather than rent it) on a year by year basis, starting in september. However, they were reluctant to make any improvments (drainage, fencing etc), as the landlord would use that as a justitfication to put up the rent next year. One of the early, pre inheritance tax, reforms brought in was that a tenant could claim back any profits a landlord made from improvments made by a tenant (unearned income it's called, something John Smith railed against). Perhaps something similar could be introduced for renters today, a % of the capital increase that the landlord gains could go to the renter. Might be worth investigating.

Nitefly

Evilmags said:

Only 35% of Germans own property. The rest rent. I can think of a lot of places renting makes more financial sense. 

I've heard this before, but I've always wondered what happens when they retire and stop earning - are rents more affordable there?  Are pensions sufficient to pay rent?  Do they all go on the German equivalent of Housing Benefit?

Axe_meister

TheBigDipper said:

I'd be interested in peoples thoughts about some friends of mine and their recent purchase. Both are in their 50s and neither has ever had a job that delivers a pension - so the state pension is what they've got to look forward to.  He is a freelance photographer (and a good one). She is an alternative therapist (Reiki and similar). They have never earned enough money to put into a pension scheme. They have lived in their main home for 25+ years, have no children and have paid the mortgage off. Her mother died recently and she shared the proceeds from the house sale with her sister. Using that money, they've bought a small flat to rent out and provide an income to supplement their pension. 

Is this OK or unacceptable? Anyone got a view? 

I see it as 
a) Making up for not having a pension
b) Providing a service
If they don't stump up the cash for a rental property somebody else will. Do people think the state should buy up all the properties and rent them out?

ThePrettyDamned

TheBigDipper said:

I'd be interested in peoples thoughts about some friends of mine and their recent purchase. Both are in their 50s and neither has ever had a job that delivers a pension - so the state pension is what they've got to look forward to.  He is a freelance photographer (and a good one). She is an alternative therapist (Reiki and similar). They have never earned enough money to put into a pension scheme. They have lived in their main home for 25+ years, have no children and have paid the mortgage off. Her mother died recently and she shared the proceeds from the house sale with her sister. Using that money, they've bought a small flat to rent out and provide an income to supplement their pension. 

Is this OK or unacceptable? Anyone got a view? 

*former NHS employee sees reiki being referred to as therapy*

Err...  

Re renting out, no problems at all. My main beef is with investors purchasing entire streets and new builds solely to rent out. It happens a lot in Cambridge. It prevents home ownership to those who would like to buy. 

Actually, that's not even my main issue. My main issue is that I e highlighted above - second home ownership. It actively damages the economy. 

Edit: added wink as it sounded like I was being really horrible. Hard to convey anything beyond plain words over t'Internet. 

Evilmags

Most second homes are in places (like the countryside) that hardly have a shortage you might get a few areas (Cornwall, Perthshire) that have posh enclaves, but that is about it. If it was easier to actually build houses (Councils don´t want you to) there would be more houses. Try getting planning for one, even if you are doing up what was an original house. It is a nightmare. a three flat conversion and bob´s your uncle though. The cost makes small projects less economical so big anodyne flats get built instead.  

Garthy

VimFuego said:

back in the days before inheritance tax, most farmers rented land (not a lot of people knew that the NFU campaigned for a tax to break up landed estates so they could buy land rather than rent it) on a year by year basis, starting in september. However, they were reluctant to make any improvments (drainage, fencing etc), as the landlord would use that as a justitfication to put up the rent next year. One of the early, pre inheritance tax, reforms brought in was that a tenant could claim back any profits a landlord made from improvments made by a tenant (unearned income it's called, something John Smith railed against). Perhaps something similar could be introduced for renters today, a % of the capital increase that the landlord gains could go to the renter. Might be worth investigating.

Every single measure introduced so far since the 08 crash has pushed rents up. Rents in Bucks have gone up three fold in ten years. Around here there is a massive shortage of both sales and rentals, pushing the costs up for everyone. When there is limited supply, those with the deepest pockets always win.

How do you judge what is the value gained, if the landlord isn't selling and how do you differentiate the improvement from other market forces like limited supply, a better OFSTED report, a new road link...

On the other hand, if you're going to give the renter a cut in the capital increase, then the same mechanism would make them liable for any losses?

Stevepage

Got my flat on the market at the moment. Not getting a lot of viewings and neither is any one else I know who's currently selling. In short, no one is fucking buying 

ThePrettyDamned

Evilmags said:

Most second homes are in places (like the countryside) that hardly have a shortage you might get a few areas (Cornwall, Perthshire) that have posh enclaves, but that is about it. If it was easier to actually build houses (Councils don´t want you to) there would be more houses. Try getting planning for one, even if you are doing up what was an original house. It is a nightmare. a three flat conversion and bob´s your uncle though. The cost makes small projects less economical so big anodyne flats get built instead.  

Cornwall certainly has a very big problem, as does the lake district, but it even affects London. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-one-figure-that-shows-the-scale-of-londons-housing-crisis-10252878.html

Okay, it's a newspaper report from a couple of years ago, but it's something that's not talked about a lot. 

stickyfiddle

Stevepage said:

Got my flat on the market at the moment. Not getting a lot of viewings and neither is any one else I know who's currently selling. In short, no one is fucking buying 

Which could arguably be described as "seller speak" for "my price is too high"

VimFuego

Evilmags said:

Most second homes are in places (like the countryside) that hardly have a shortage you might get a few areas (Cornwall, Perthshire) that have posh enclaves, but that is about it. If it was easier to actually build houses (Councils don´t want you to) there would be more houses. Try getting planning for one, even if you are doing up what was an original house. It is a nightmare. a three flat conversion and bob´s your uncle though. The cost makes small projects less economical so big anodyne flats get built instead.  

there is a very strong argument to make housebuilding easier for individuals and for small groups of individuals. Down here it's almost impossible to get permission, unless you're a big developer then it's easy.