Ed's rent controls idea

FISHGUTS said:
Stupid idea, it's just supply and demand.
Click to expand...

When supply can't meet demand, or vice versa that's when the market ceases to function rationally and regulators need to step in. A good example is food during WW2 - supply could not meet demand so rationing was introduced to ensure prices did not rise exorbitantly and everyone could eat something.
 
The housing market is out of control as it is, there will be losers whatever happens, but only two things can happen,

Cut the guts out of the market to allow more people to buy, (lots of ****ed off buy to let landlords and over subscribed mortgage holders lose a shed load of money).


Carry on as we are, only few can get on the property ladder, and trap millions in private and social rentals at over inflated prices.

I'm more Tory than Labour, and I generally think Milliband is rubbish, but the labour party might just have the makings of an actual policy here, ('Tories are nasty' is not a policy) That's got to be a first, at least in my 34 year lifetime.
 
scorza said:
When supply can't meet demand, or vice versa that's when the market ceases to function rationally and regulators need to step in. A good example is food during WW2 - supply could not meet demand so rationing was introduced to ensure prices did not rise exorbitantly and everyone could eat something.
Click to expand...

but this is proposing controlling price not supply... which is silly IMO... relaxing controls on supply (planning controls) would be better
 
dowie said:
but this is proposing controlling price not supply... which is silly IMO... relaxing controls on supply (planning controls) would be better
Click to expand...

Which is being done. My contention is that there'd be a greater supply of housing available to buy, which is what you're encouraged to do in the UK, if buy-to-let was discouraged.
 
scorza said:
When supply can't meet demand, or vice versa that's when the market ceases to function rationally and regulators need to step in. A good example is food during WW2 - supply could not meet demand so rationing was introduced to ensure prices did not rise exorbitantly and everyone could eat something.
Click to expand...

There is no reason supply can't meet demand.

I own farmland that's worth 12k an acre and yet my last self build plot cost me 190k for around 1/3 acre and that was hugely cheap for a single plot and where I live is grossly cheap compared to the SW.
Most countries do not have such a massive difference between agricultural land and development land.
The cost of bricks and morter or timber is cheap compared to land.
 
At the end of the day the government don't really want house prices to come down. The economy depends on house price inflation to keep things going.
 
Jokester said:
At the end of the day the government don't really want house prices to come down. The economy depends on house price inflation to keep things going.
Click to expand...

Exactly which is why they created all the help for new buyers and made sure that it wouldn't be unusable by people wealthy enough to use the scheme as an investment.

There are only two ways I can see house prices coming down: mass house building or mass death. Of the two I think the later is more likely.

More protection for renters is good - I am not sure this is the way to do it though. Longer lets are good idea - giving people security that makes sense.
 
scorza said:
When supply can't meet demand, or vice versa that's when the market ceases to function rationally and regulators need to step in. A good example is food during WW2 - supply could not meet demand so rationing was introduced to ensure prices did not rise exorbitantly and everyone could eat something.
Click to expand...

Demand for housing is virtually limitless. Everyone wants a bigger one in a better location. It's increased wealth chasing the same housing stock which create house price inflation.

There's nothing wrong with the market, it's people's expectation which have changed.

Price capping is not the same rationing. Without more housing, the same number of people will be left without the house they desire.
 
Last edited:
Britain should go back to expensive credit and cheap houses, put the interest rates up to 10% minimum. 50% deposit for the purpose of buying property to let out as with the old commercial mortgage lending.

80% of first time buyers in 1996 did so without needing additional financial assistance i.e. BOMAD or help to buy.
 
scorza said:
Which is being done. My contention is that there'd be a greater supply of housing available to buy, which is what you're encouraged to do in the UK, if buy-to-let was discouraged.
Click to expand...

Buy to let landlords aren't going to vanish overnight and there would still be a requirement for rental property to be available even with price controls.
 
MatteH Oxford said:
Britain should go back to expensive credit and cheap houses, put the interest rates up to 10% minimum. 50% deposit for the purpose of buying property to let out as with the old commercial mortgage lending.

80% of first time buyers in 1996 did so without needing additional financial assistance i.e. BOMAD or help to buy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we'd never seen a housing boom before 1996.
 
Stretch said:
Supply will never meet demand.

Demand for housing is virtually limitless. Everyone wants a bigger one in a better location. It's increased wealth chasing the same housing stock which create house price inflation.

Price capping is not the same rationing. Without more housing, the same number of people will be left without the house they desire.
Click to expand...

Think you fail at supply and demand.
Housing is not limitless.

No point owning multiple houses if you can't rent them as there's no one without a house.

Even if you take into account people wanting more than one house. Empty houses cost a lot to keep up, so you won't have everyone buying Holliday houses.
 
Glaucus said:
Think you fail at supply and demand.
Housing is not limitless.

No point owning multiple houses if you can't rent them as there's no one without a house.

Even if you take into account people wanting more than one house. Empty houses cost a lot to keep up, so you won't have everyone buying Holliday houses.
Click to expand...

The economic problem is "unlimited wants". People's desire for housing is limitless.

I'd have a house in every city if they were free.

The thing that prevents this is money. Wealth increases, prices go up.

The same mount of housing exists as it did 40 years ago. In fact, there's significantly more. Yet their's a housing crisis.

Why?
 
Stretch said:
The economic problem is "unlimited wants". People's desire for housing is limitless.

I'd have a house in every city if they were free.

The thing that prevents this is money. Wealth increases, prices go up.

The same mount of housing exists as it did 40 years ago. In fact, there's significantly more. Yet their's a housing crisis.

Why?
Click to expand...

Oh god really, have you thought about this.

No you wouldn't. Do you know how much a house costs to jeep up. even if they were free, you couldn't afford. Not that they would be free, and mortgagee could become harder to get like they were before.

So just lol. Demand is in no way limitless.


Population has increased faster than property building. As well as more single occupancy.


So yeah just an utter rubbish opinion.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much all the of the south, the mortgage and a few bill like council tax in place like london and and the SE would be as much as what one person takes home a month
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom