House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k

[Psycho Sonny]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth

UK are fifth, after the US, China, Japan and Germany. If you go by GDP, results are similar.



You added the "wherever they want it" to make it sound unreasonable, as if anyone has ever suggested that anyone should be entitled to anything they want.



Keeping housing affordable isn't communism. Just look at what other western countries who doesn't have a housing crisis have achieved. Policies like land value taxes (which even the US has), ignoring NIMBYsm, taxing or banning foreign ownership of properties (which is mostly why London has become so unaffordable), expanding social housing by major non-profit building projects, etc will make the housing situation a lot better.

You're pretending like any policy towards making this situation better for people = communism. There are reasonable policies out there that we can implement.

India is 7th on that list 2 places behind the UK.

I can assure you that people here have it far easier than if they were born there.

So using your yardstick everyone there should also be able to afford homes easily yet they don't even have access to clean drinking water.

I added wherever they want it because affordable housing is available in the UK.

I can show you homes even minimum wage workers can afford to buy just that it's not where they want it.

So yeah people want affordable housing in specific areas.

You use America as an example yet they have a far bigger homeless population than we do here in fact when I was in America last year they were literally everywhere in Los Angeles and las Vegas.

London hasn't become unaffordable due to foreign ownership at all. It's become unaffordable due to overpopulation in that area. Too many people in such a small area.

It's the same in any major city. Vancouver, LA, Delhi, Bangkok, New York. People flock to major cities because more money is available there. They don't live there because it's a great life. They can earn more there however because there is more money there is more demand and therefore less supply.

London has more people working in it than Scotland combined.

So do you believe everyone in the 7th richest country in the world should also have affordable housing? If so how do you make that happen for people earning less than 10 dollars per day?

The only thing that would work is if you literally started demolishing single occupancy homes in London and started building towers as high as you can. Where there once was a detached home is now a 25 storey building of apartments. Do that everywhere in London and yeah you have your affordable housing.

Proposing taxes and bans on foreign ownership won't achieve anything.

 

[FoxEye]

Proposing taxes and bans on foreign ownership won't achieve anything.

It would, perhaps just not in the way you want. A few countries have banned foreign ownership of residential property.

But that's just one of a whole raft of "communist" policies we would need, such as greatly enhanced rights for tenants. Guaranteed long-term tenancies, etc, etc. See Germany et al.

We've discussed this before and although you keep saying you're a great landlord who looks after your tenants, you seem to be really anti putting any of that into law that landlords would be obliged to obey...?

Also why even bring "communism" into this? I guess anything left of the Tories is communist?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

It would, perhaps just not in the way you want. A few countries have banned foreign ownership of residential property.

But that's just one of a whole raft of "communist" policies we would need, such as greatly enhanced rights for tenants. Guaranteed long-term tenancies, etc, etc. See Germany et al.

We've discussed this before and although you keep saying you're a great landlord who looks after your tenants, you seem to be really anti putting any of that into law that landlords would be obliged to obey...?

Also why even bring "communism" into this? I guess anything left of the Tories is communist?

It already is in law up here.

You could also argue that landlords rights should be put into law too for bad tenants. I know people who have had the police turn up to their door because of ongoing disputes with a tenant saying that they have to rectify the issue or face jail. However if the tenant hasn't paid rent in 9 months you can see how they would be reluctant to fix things with no money coming in and no sign of that changing. If anything tenants hold the upper hand they can refuse to pay rent, report landlords and it costs them more money to get their property back and then rectify the damage done. You are only seeing it from one side.

Do you think I want a hard life? No. I want an easy life with less hassle and treat the tenant like a client / customer that I want repeat business from.

Unfortunately there are bad eggs on both sides and protection is always on the tenants side not the landlords.

 

[Scam]

you seem to be really anti putting any of that into law that landlords would be obliged to obey...?

lol everyone is a "great landlord" until there's talk of closing the loopholes that make them money.

Also, central London has always been a haven for money laundering through property. This has to be the first step in correcting the market. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ill-used-to-launder-illicit-funds-says-report

 

[ultralaser]

It's difficult, on the one hand we have the younger generation who perhaps think they are entitled to property at age 12, and the older generation who don't seem to understand that the young'ens need somewhere to live without paying so much they'll never be able to set roots of their own. The balance is probably in the middle somewhere.

I do think we need to use the tax system to try and transfer money from home owners to renters. Maybe:
Any second home purchase being subject to 35% tax that goes directly to the building of subsidised housing.
Rent increases should be capped inline with inflation based on council tax bands.
10% of any rent payment must be put into a savings account controlled by the govt and made available to people when they decide to buy. 5% from the renter and 5% from the landlord.
Purchasing of BTL properties should be limited based on postcode.

Just some thoughts.

 

[stuman]

Believe it not but the government does seem interested in building lots of homes. Most Local Authorities do not. I’ve worked on dozens of the largest new housing schemes across the country in the last 10 years. They almost all were rejected by the Local Authority and a planning appeal was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate who overturns the Local authority decision.

People don’t want new homes built near them.

i would hazard that people don’t want boring copy/paste crap estates built near them. The government “help” schemes only help the biggest copy/paste developers as they are unavailable to riskier smaller developers.

if I owned a home I would fight proposals for a large stale development.

what is needed is a housing innovator in the same style as Tesla/Apple. Super modern build methods and materials, clever designs and a massive shove towards greener housing.

edit: and a government interested in making planning and financing innovative builds easier.

 

[stuman]

It's difficult, on the one hand we have the younger generation who perhaps think they are entitled to property at age 12, and the older generation who don't seem to understand that the young'ens need somewhere to live without paying so much they'll never be able to set roots of their own. The balance is probably in the middle somewhere.

I do think we need to use the tax system to try and transfer money from home owners to renters. Maybe:
Any second home purchase being subject to 35% tax that goes directly to the building of subsidised housing.
Rent increases should be capped inline with inflation based on council tax bands.
10% of any rent payment must be put into a savings account controlled by the govt and made available to people when they decide to buy. 5% from the renter and 5% from the landlord.
Purchasing of BTL properties should be limited based on postcode.

Just some thoughts.

the increases would just raise the rental cost.

 

[HACO]

i would hazard that people don’t want boring copy/paste crap estates built near them. The government “help” schemes only help the biggest copy/paste developers as they are unavailable to riskier smaller developers.

if I owned a home I would fight proposals for a large stale development.

what is needed is a housing innovator in the same style as Tesla/Apple. Super modern build methods and materials, clever designs and a massive shove towards greener housing.

We just need to nationalise the building/developing industry, and build houses to sell them at no profit. The current margins of 35-40% for the larger builders is insane.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I did. It looks like they don't count farmland as developed. I personally do not consider that green space.

Wildlife decline is massive.


This is best info I could from from bbc

England.. 14 percent wild
Wales 35
Scotland 70.

And the difference is apparent.moving to Wales you can really see how much more wild and unspoilt it is vs England

I can see the issue.

Scotland population 5 million and 2% is housing.

England population is circa 80 million last time I checked a long time ago and 9% housing.

So you have 16 times as many people living on 5 times as much space so density is the real issue where people are saying build more houses. The reality is they cannot just build wherever they want. They can only build where they allow them to do so and that amount of land available for that purpose is highly restricted in areas with large populations.

The op is saying build more houses. Well if we build more houses in Scotland. That isn't going to help out all the peasants in London struggling to buy a house.

You can't just magic more land to build on from nowhere in London. Unless you close all the shops and offices. Force everyone to shop online and work from home then use the retail space and office space for housing instead. To me that doesn't sound like a solution because then nobody would want to live in London with all of its current issues on top of that too.

Go look at the same issue in every major city in the world it's the exact same. Are you telling me that in Paris, Berlin, etc housing is cheap? Space is a premium and the more if a premium it is the more expensive housing will be.

Move to Falkirk, Inverness, Dundee where space isn't as much of a premium and house prices are cheap.

People need to realise London isn't the be all and end all. You can be a toilet cleaner in a different place and live a much better life.

 

[413x]

I can see the issue.

Scotland population 5 million and 2% is housing.

England population is circa 80 million last time I checked a long time ago and 9% housing.

So you have 16 times as many people living on 5 times as much space so density is the real issue where people are saying build more houses. The reality is they cannot just build wherever they want. They can only build where they allow them to do so and that amount of land available for that purpose is highly restricted in areas with large populations.

The op is saying build more houses. Well if we build more houses in Scotland. That isn't going to help out all the peasants in London struggling to buy a house.

You can't just magic more land to build on from nowhere in London. Unless you close all the shops and offices. Force everyone to shop online and work from home then use the retail space and office space for housing instead. To me that doesn't sound like a solution because then nobody would want to live in London with all of its current issues on top of that too.

Go look at the same issue in every major city in the world it's the exact same. Are you telling me that in Paris, Berlin, etc housing is cheap? Space is a premium and the more if a premium it is the more expensive housing will be.

Move to Falkirk, Inverness, Dundee where space isn't as much of a premium and house prices are cheap.

People need to realise London isn't the be all and end all. You can be a toilet cleaner in a different place and live a much better life.

Only thing I know is I will never again live in England. Its a concrete jungle bar a few special places.


If I end up staying in the UK I'm hoping next house can be 'the house'.
I'm kind of lucky that my job looks like it may be a remote job going forward (I have covid to thank for that) and I hate cities.


But most don't have that. They have to live/work in the city. But yes. There are much cheaper cities than London.

Sometimes you do have to uproot. But it's hard for parents if they rely on their families.

I do partially agree that sometimes you have to move for a better life rather than saying its unfair. It is **** that's the case.

But getting a better job or.moving somewhere cheaper are about the only things individuals can control.

Good tenants rights do need an increase. Easier to stay or move if you're a good tenant

I still think (hope) house price rises are a thing of the past. Obviously now an owner it's in my. Interests for the rise to continue, but it's not fair, and it's a ticking time bomb if people are hitting 60 with zero assets. They just become a burden on the state anyway.

 

[touch]

Scotland population 5 million and 2% is housing.

England population is circa 80 million last time I checked a long time ago and 9% housing.

So you have 16 times as many people living on 5 times as much space

You can't compare percentages like that when they are percentages of different things. The total land area of Scotland is around half of the total of the area of England so 2% of Scottish land is a much smaller area then 2% of English land.

Your general point is correct that housing is compressed into a smaller space in England but the way you've compared the numbers makes it seem much worse than reality.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

You can't compare percentages like that when they are percentages of different things. The total land area of Scotland is around half of the total of the area of England so 2% of Scottish land is a much smaller area then 2% of English land.

Your general point is correct that housing is compressed into a smaller space in England but the way you've compared the numbers makes it seem much worse than reality.

Partially correct last time I checked 30K square miles isn't half of 50k square miles.

Again the point still stands. You have 16 times the population on only 8 times as much space (instead of 5). My post was hardly hugely inaccurate I used rough numbers and I felt Scotlands land mass was maybe larger than it is in reality I thought they were much closer in terms of size just that Scotland has more mountains and unused land like the Highlands.

My point is that you cannot just magic more land in London for houses to be built on.

You cannot lower prices as the demand is so high. You want to build social housing on land worth billions? So you can house how many people a few hundred whereas that money spent elsewhere could house thousands instead.

So do you pump billions to solve a small amount of the problem or do you tell people if they cannot afford to live there to move where it's less populated?

The problem is nobody wants to accept that is the reality. You need to move to where you can afford to live. Rather than move to where the bigger wages and more work is that is unaffordable to live.

Otherwise why is it fair that X gets to live in social housing worth £750k when others only get a flat in springburn worth £45k?

Social housing isn't a solution either unless you want to build that social housing in the middle of nowhere for as cheap as possible.

 

[touch]

My point is that you cannot just magic more land in London for houses to be built on.

Yes, as I said, your point is correct.

My point was simply that you can't compare percentages of things when those things are not equal - which is also correct.

 

[HACO]

in London, we need to build higher, much much higher, allowing us to get more housing per a square foot of land. There's an optimal point where the cost of building and square footage floor space are their most efficient, and currently most buildings in London are way below that. Within 1h of London, we need to expand transport links, and expand and build commuter towns. This requires a country-wide mobilisation effort, similar in scale to those of World Wars, to solve this crisis for the long-term health of the country and future generations.

In the longer term, we need to diversify a bit out of London and the south east, it's a political, financial and tech centre at the same time, which has its economic benefits, but also problems.

As for "just move to Dundee", you can't tell skilled professionals to go where there's no fulfilling job and career prospects for them. And people in Dundee or Falkirk won't be having their current standard of life if there wasn't the economic activities of London subsidising it, so suggesting mass exodus out of London as a solution for the housing crisis is quite short sighted.

England's population density is among the highest in Europe, and very similar to Japan. You can't kick people out of England, you need to just view development and housing differently, and maybe take a clue from countries like Japan and South Korea.

 

[Eurofighter]

I think you should find the balance of location/wage. It isnt as simple as thinking I'll go to london as wages are higher so I will earn more money. Because you wont own a house unless you have a decent job. And then when you cant afford one. Then expect others to pay for it.

If London isnt offering you what you want then move out. Most jobs could probably be done in Manchester.

I do think the government should get more houses built. And better transport links. ncluding more council houses, but it will only make so much difference.

Maybe when all the boomers die we will live like kings.

 

[HACO]

Maybe when all the boomers die we will live like kings.

Interesting you say that, According to FT:

• % of UK's property wealth owned by people over 65: 46%
• % of UK's property wealth owned by people under 35: 5%

The first one is the highest we've ever had, and the second one is the lowest we've ever had.

On the other hand, when it comes to how much of the total UK tax revenue comes from people of certain age groups:

• People over 65: 12%
• People under 35: 15%

You can't keep on milking young people while leaving scraps for them while the richest demographics keep on getting richer and richer. This pandemic, on average, made young people much poorer, and people over 65 become richer.

A mass transfer of wealth is coming, whether it's when the boomers die off, or by sensible housing and wealth policies, or if all else fails, by concessions after mass uprising and riots, or even if that fails, by revolution. This level of wealth disparity and disproportionate milking of young people is how political/economic dynasties collapse.

Are our politicians sensible enough to make sure that it comes from sensible policies to avoid disaster later on? You only need to look at history to see what happens when you screw over a generation for such a long time.

 

[Eurofighter]

Well. Yeah they will just die and thier kids will be better off. Sorted. Unless your parents dont own a house.

 

[HACO]

Well. Yeah they will just die and thier kids will be better off. Sorted. Unless your parents dont own a house.

Mine don't (they don't live here), and yeah, we need an inheritance cap and all loopholes closed.

 

[Bluecube]

A small correction regarding the population figures.

UK as a whole - 67m

England - 56m
Scotland - 5.5m
Wales - 3.15m
NI - 1.9m

Sources - various, all figures approx as at around 2019

 

[englishpremier]

We need to allow people to actually build more houses, the government is directly causing the increase in house prices and rent by impeding the ability to build new homes.

One of the problems is farmland. Another is building regs. We need to build higher. And yet another, and a big one, is the broken lease system