Slightly bad example there: China has a massive enormous rental market, probably worse than here, they have entire new ghost cities owned by corporations
Should minions be the instrument of rich people?
- Thread starter tenofspades
- Start date
Do you think house prices drops improve accessibility of accomodation, or do they just move the goalposts as supply and demand adjusts?
In essence, do you think someone who can't afford a house at £200k would be able to buy at £150k in the event of major price drops, given the surrounding events that cause major price drops?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/housing_bubble.asp
In a similar vein, what impact do you think housing benefit has on rentals?
This is where it gets silly, we had a price drop after the financial crisis, I've seen people moan about property online for years, all through the 00s people were posting on forums adamant we were due a crash etc.. and then we had one and... well we still have people moaning.
Their "solutions" take the form of revenge fantasies - 100% CGT rates, companies banned from owning residential property (with no explanation re: how to achieve that, just an explanation of how to stop them buying more) but it's not clear what the goal is from this drastic action or whether it would really help.
The issue seems to be a lack of supply in areas where there is significant demand and that seems to be very much an issue local and national government can try to resolve both re: planning approval and/or requirements for affordable housing schemes etc..
Not everybody who rents want to be a renter.
The demand comes from people who don't want to be homeless
Landlords buy all the property knowing that everybody needs a house to live in. Also, you think renters would prefer to pay more in rent money to their landlord than they could get a mortgage on the same property for? That's a service they really want? To pay more and own nothing? Sure, sure.
Yep we all queueing up to pay expensive rents, no security, no right of repair, and little freedom to make it a home (decorating, free choice of broadband etc.), its all just market demand lol.
I mean I guess if you stop building enough social homes, and bump up the requirements to buy a property, you could call it that, but at best its manipulated demand.
Doing quick maths in my city, assuming the person works full time on average salary (no LHA) for area (for those on LHA its way worse).
Average one bed flat non slum landlord rent, vs average gross salary its about 38%. Very depressing when you consider that's gross. Its also only going to get worse, our average rent inflation is 9% (excluding housing associations, council properties and other associations which all push the official averages down). For people who live in houses with at least 2 wage earners the % improves a lot as 1 bed flats are about 80% the cost of a 2 bed house.
In a perfect world I think there is a little market for private landlords, however if we look at what we got now, it isnt people choosing as a first choice to live the way they do, the reason the private market is so big, is simply because of it been forced on people. For many people the alternative is living in a hotel or sleeping on the street.
Are 11 million people choosing to rent privately? 6 months security, rates above mortgage rates, and above social rents.
£23.4 billion of taxpayers money went to private landlords in 2018-2019. 21 billion a year earlier.
Last edited:
So landlords and 2nd home owners push local prices up, and you have no problem suggesting the solution is for the poorer locals to move away?
You're actually illustrating pretty well the moral bad of landlording.
The problem is many people think the mid to late 90s represented the norm, rather than the recovery from a massive property price crash, and even then property was still not that accessible (essentially they often compare price then to price now, and thinking they could afford it now if it was the same price as then, forgetting that access to funding and mortgage costs were very different then).
The populist othering of landlords is no different to any other populist nonsense.
Housing demand in a location isn't driven by landlords though, the accessibility of accomodation is driven by the attractiveness of the area regardless.
If nobody bought a second home or investment property, house purchase demand would be fueled only by owner-occupiers.
House prices would be whatever they may be, but it would certainly be lower than currently, where 1/5th of the country's housing stock is held by private landlords, and they continue to feed demand for property purchase.
I get that you're applying BNP style logic of boiling a complex issue down to blaming it on a group you have decided are scum, and that sort of thing is always a failure in thinking that the person doing always thinks their particular version is an exception to because their thinking is justified, but this is really quite desperate.
And do you think the lower prices would make house ownership more accessible?
And is so, why is now different from all of economic history?
Remember that very few owner occupiers buy outright.
Come on mate, "like the BNP" is a bit of a "like a Nazi" style arguing tactic. I.e. It's not a very constructive path.
Tbh, though, it's difficult to reason with someone who thinks removing demand from a market doesn't lower prices. I kind of think we're at an impasse if you're sticking with that view.
Occasionally I see a really moral landlord, one guy I met gives his tenancy agreement to match the renegotiation period on his mortgage, the most recent one been 6 years to his tenant, also fixed to inflation rate increases, tenant has wayleave authority, and he said on multiple occasions he waived rent when he couldnt do repairs quickly. The guy said he keeps the property in same condition as his own home. He said its about break even, which he is happy with as the mortgage gets paid.
Yes, of course.
History where the number of first time buyers was higher, and of younger age, and has been creeping adverse for 30 years?
If you don't like the comparison, stop behaving like a populist blaming a group of 'others'.
You aren't removing demand from the market though, because the housing ownership market and the housing rental market can't be decoupled as you are trying to pretend they can.
That's why I talk about accessibility of accomodation, rather than simple house prices or rents. It's accessibility to accomodation that really matters, and both house prices and rents are proxy's to that.
You seem to believe that house price reductions make properties more accessible. This isn't the case, for a whole variety of reasons. Generally if house prices are dropping it's because accessibility is dropping (for example, by interest rates increasing) rather than because demand is dropping.
That's without discussing the role that landlords play in increasing accessibility and movement in the market.
But in this proposed case, it's dropping because you're cutting away a swathe of buyers (landlords, to be clear). So the demand curve has shifted.
It's all fine until someone like ed sheridan moves into your village and starts buying up all the houses and chokes the life out of the place.
So poor people aren't allowed to live in the city, but they aren't allowed to live in a village either.
how long until we have slum zones for the poor to keep them out of way of society? it seems to be happening slowly
Reducing deposit requirements certainly would, as well as easing up on affordability metrics.
House prices themselves is a it depends, it would be the reason for the price fluctuation, if they dropped due to a shift in supply and demand, then yes it makes homes more accessible, but if they drop because no one cant get a mortgage, then the mortgage situation means homes are less accessible.
The average age of marriage or long term partnership has also risen over the same period, and housing as a single person has very rarely been affordable.
Are you sure?
My dad brought my childhood home on his own wage, by the time we got to the 90s he joked how much of a pittance the mortgage was vs wage increases etc. As typically debt value goes down overtime unlike rents.
I tried to find the figures for how many private rented in the UK in the 1970s but I cannot find anything at least not easily, although is of course reports that the figures have rised rapidly over the years.
Ok found this back to early 1990s to early 2010s, to me this is evidence enough of the shift.
Source https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2017.1401055
More fun facts 4.3% of London GDP is private rental market.
https://www.cityam.com/renters-retu...he UK, the average,of the country's total GDP.
Also this
Only a little over double of LHA subsidies, giving an idea of how many poor people are forced into this.
Last edited: