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

[matt100]

Completely wrong.

If builders aren't currently building like you say so all the time because it's unprofitable.

How would they build at all if every home cost £50k and prices never rose at all?

To encourage development and building of more houses the prices need to go up.

What your suggesting is a paradox where you don't want house prices to increase yet you want more development. Unfortunately inflation requires prices to go up and to make building them worthwhile.

But I imagine that your solution is developers should be building houses at a loss because they own too much land. Yeah I'm sure that will be implemented tomorrow.

So if prices don't rise. Nothing gets built and then even those that can afford to buy cannot buy new homes.

So it doesn't just benefit investors at all. They actually help homes be built for buyers who will live there.

That's just nonsense. If prices were stable for long enough they could just price in a margin as any normal business would and get on with it.

I suspect at some level speculating on the future value of a house once built is an unwelcome distraction.. like large scale FOMO, they have to do something otherwise they cease to be a developer so choosing when rather than just getting on with it at a manageable and plannable pace could even end up making them less margin as they're at the whims of labour and material prices more unpredictably.

Also this isn't a closed loop, the higher prices go the more wages go up the more general inflation is etc.. as I said, wooden dollars.

 

[Scam]

Yes, it's a pension, you can downsize when your children are older.

It's not a pension. It's a home to live in. By wanting your house valuation to rise constantly, it's to the detriment of your children and everyone else down the chain. It's plain greed without understanding the wider ramifications. Boomer parents can think it's great their house has tripled in value and gives them a great nest egg, but at the end of the day their children are going to need some of that to get on the ladder so it's not all as useful as they think.

As always there are legit reasons being abused. I am a British citizen, I own a house in Los Angeles and East Sussex. I can't be in my East Sussex house that often (especially with Covid) but I need it. If you think house prices are bad there, you should seem them around LA. Can I interest anyone in 500 sq/ft for $725k? https://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Monica/3101-3rd-St-90405/unit-4/home/6778482

Santa Monica is a nice place to live but it isn't zone 1 central LA, is it. Hardly a fair comparison. You may as well post a castle in Aberdeen for comparison.

I have family in LA and work over there a bit. That apartment is 4 blocks from the beach, right inbetween two of the most nice 'central' beach locations which are SM and Venice (well, touristy ones anyway). It's very close to Abbot Kinney which is Venice's own Notting Hill, Hoxton and Hampstead rolled into one. It's also just about commutable to Hollywood so it has that draw. Not a good example at all...

LA is so vast and everyone drives, so there's always affordable patches. A colleague of mine bought an apartment on his own in central Hollywood if that sort of thing floats your boat. I have no idea how much it was but he's pretty low ranking in the company. It's different from London where you have to (or rather pre COVID, had to) be near a tube station, within a 30min ride into zone 1 etc.

 

[neocon]

Could not be more wrong. The developed countries that have had the most building in recent decades (e.g. Japan, Singapore) are also the countries that have had the lowest level of price increases.

Major builders in the UK all have 25-40% profit margins. Your claim that it's unprofitable is just asinine.

I think what you actually meant is: "prices going up is in my interest, so they have to go up otherwise the world will end because I'm so special to the universe"

What people are rightly suggesting is to take that 25-40% profit margin and return it back to the people, by non-profit building which has proven to be very successful in every developed country that it's implemented.

A lot of people working in Tokyo are commuting from the suburbs, sometimes 1-2 hour commutes. The big difference is that your employer pays your train ticket.

We just need to get the trains back to sensible prices and then living outside London and commuting would be fine. More realistic to solve this issue. Re-nationalise railways of they can't be run profitably without ripping people off.

 

[HACO]

A lot of people working in Tokyo are commuting from the suburbs, sometimes 1-2 hour commutes. The big difference is that your employer pays your train ticket.

We just need to get the trains back to sensible prices and then living outside London and commuting would be fine. More realistic to solve this issue. Re-nationalise railways of they can't be run profitably without ripping people off.

We do need to fix our train system but not instead of developing sane housing policies, but in addition to it.

Our trains are state-owned... by governments of other countries who then use the profits to subsidise the train tickets for their own people. And we let it happen.

 

[Lartyconshayo]

We do need to fix our train system but not instead of developing sane housing policies, but in addition to it.

Our trains are state-owned... by governments of other countries who then use the profits to subsidise the train tickets for their own people. And we let it happen.

Could've voted for the other guy. Twice. But The UK and chiefly England loves to shoot itself in the foot. Then complain about it.

 

[mumihp]

I thought there had been movement on that? I know it was being discussed a couple of years ago and some (?) credit agencies had set up a scheme and were taking rent payments into account.

Has this not been accepted universally by now? Seems silly not to take your rental payment history into account.

Unfortunately not, lenders don't take into account your rental payment. Sure, they may request a letter from you landlord to see if you are renting but lenders rely on you income, deposit and credit rating. Santander, Barclays, Natwest, HSBC, Platform, ect don't take this into account.

 

[Scam]

We do need to fix our train system but not instead of developing sane housing policies, but in addition to it.

Yep exactly. I've long argued that our train system is a very real part of our housing issues. Taking my hometown as an example, it's only 60 miles away from London -- yet via Great Western train services that last fast train was at 19:45 which meant your journey home went from 1hr to 2hrs (local stopping train). Even on the fast trains they weren't that often, they were mostly delayed and you paid through the nose for the privilege. It's just not reliable. If you could cut that journey to 45mins, make it reliable with more frequent trains then I'm sure a lot of people would go for it. But as it stands, a lot of people like me just think **** it and would rather pay more to live on the tube network than deal with our train services every day. So they do have a lot to answer for. a lot of my colleagues live in Bracknell which is barely 35 miles away yet it takes over 1hr on the train. Practically the same as driving according to Google Maps right now. That train service is notoriously bad too... improve all these things and people wouldn't feel the need to live in the London suburbs.

Unfortunately not, lenders don't take into account your rental payment. Sure, they may request a letter from you landlord to see if you are renting but lenders rely on you income, deposit and credit rating. Santander, Barclays, Natwest, HSBC, Platform, ect don't take this into account.

Tenants are treated like second class citizens in this country. We're there to provide income for the wealthy and that's it. Insane that you could me gifted a large deposit and be looked upon more favourably by the bank than if you'd been paying £thousands to your landlord every month, without fail for 10+ years.

 

[D.P.]

My understanding is that the Malibu/Santa Monica/Hollywood/Beverly Hills area is the nicest part of LA, so akin to Chelsea & Kensington, but whatever.

Downtown LA (so close to the CBD like Holborn) gets you something like this for even cheaper:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/312-W-5th-St-APT-608-Los-Angeles-CA-90013/68993659_zpid/

Still nicer than the Holborn flat.

The nice areas of LA are $5-10m
https://public.tableau.com/profile/property.shark#!/vizhome/LATopNhoods2018/Dashboard1

 

[D.P.]

As always there are legit reasons being abused. I am a British citizen, I own a house in Los Angeles and East Sussex. I can't be in my East Sussex house that often (especially with Covid) but I need it. If you think house prices are bad there, you should seem them around LA. Can I interest anyone in 500 sq/ft for $725k? https://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Monica/3101-3rd-St-90405/unit-4/home/6778482

This is a good example.

Monthly ownership $2640
Monthly rental yield $2,124 - $2,427 / mo, without maintenance.

 

[dowie]

My understanding is that the Malibu/Santa Monica/Hollywood/Beverly Hills area is the nicest part of LA, so akin to Chelsea & Kensington, but whatever.

Downtown LA (so close to the CBD like Holborn) gets you something like this for even cheaper:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/312-W-5th-St-APT-608-Los-Angeles-CA-90013/68993659_zpid/

Still nicer than the Holborn flat.

Yeah, those areas are a fair bit cheaper than central London, only Malibu really comes close tbh...

 

[moon man]

Have Afew YouTube folk I watch in La like producer Michael who veiws high end property
This one highlights Afew problems, came up ramnomly on my suggestions like any big city I guess.

 

[dowie]

Seems like the right thread for this - the ultimate landlord, 1billion+ in property + you get secretive insight/influence on potential laws that might affect your property empire... and funnily enough said laws tend to include special exemptions tailor-made just for your estate:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

The royal family has used a secretive procedure to vet three parliamentary acts that have prevented residents on Prince Charles’ estate from buying their own homes for decades, the Guardian can reveal.

His £1bn Duchy of Cornwall estate was later given special exemptions in the acts that denied residents the legal right to buy their own homes outright.

Under the opaque procedure, the Queen and Prince of Wales were allowed to vet the contents of the bills by government ministers and approve them before they were passed by parliament.

The exemptions have left residents living in homes that have diminishing or no financial value. The residents say they cannot borrow against their homes to pay, for example, for social care fees for themselves and loved ones.

I'm not anti-monarchy or anything but I do think that takes the mickey a bit. Essentially this estate is his trust fund, but if a tenant were to exercise the right to buy the freehold to a property it's still going to be a transaction at market value, he can always invest it elsewhere, shouldn't need his "trust fund" to have any special advantages to pay him an income or pass on a large asset/income to the next heir.

 

[HACO]

Seems like the right thread for this - the ultimate landlord, 1billion+ in property + you get secretive insight/influence on potential laws that might affect your property empire... and funnily enough said laws tend to include special exemptions tailor-made just for your estate:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

I'm not anti-monarchy or anything but I do think that takes the mickey a bit. Essentially this estate is his trust fund, but if a tenant were to exercise the right to buy the freehold to a property it's still going to be a transaction at market value, he can always invest it elsewhere, shouldn't need his "trust fund" to have any special advantages to pay him an income or pass on a large asset/income to the next heir.

There should be a criminal investigation into this, clear case of corruption.

 

[dowie]

There should be a criminal investigation into this, clear case of corruption.

How can there be a criminal investigation into this? What laws do you supposed were broken here? You can't just declare stuff to be a crime because you don't like it.

 

[Allnamestaken]

How can there be a criminal investigation into this? What laws do you supposed were broken here? You can't just declare stuff to be a crime because you don't like it.

 

[dowie]

What are you querying exactly?

 

[mumihp]

Have Afew YouTube folk I watch in La like producer Michael who veiws high end property
This one highlights Afew problems, came up ramnomly on my suggestions like any big city I guess.

Wow, I didn't realise how bad it was in LA. I never seen such homeless in the UK, to see that in the US, is shocking.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Wow, I didn't realise how bad it was in LA. I never seen such homeless in the UK, to see that in the US, is shocking.

I've mentioned it several times already in this Very thread bit haco comes back with look at the statistics.

Apparently their homelessness is less than the UK's when compared on a per 100,000 basis according to the statistics.

I already explained that they don't mean anything because in the us you are less likely to be officially registered as homeless.

But statistics. He wants us to implement the same taxes as America has because it clearly works because the statistics say so.

I was in LA in 2019 and yeah it's a huge dump outwith the gated communities and homeless were everywhere including affluent areas. When you get to the more deprived areas you were literally tripping over them constantly.

It's got worse since I was there but it was already far worse than the uk

 

[HACO]

How can there be a criminal investigation into this? What laws do you supposed were broken here? You can't just declare stuff to be a crime because you don't like it.

During the investigation they actually gather evidence to see if any laws are broken, e.g. if MPs were threatened, bribed or somehow advantaged (personally, financially, career wise, etc) in order to do what was suggested, which are against the law. Those evidence are then handed over to the CPS to decide if they can being up charges or not. It could be that the investigation find out none of that happened and no laws were broken, or maybe the investigation ends up with evidence found and charges being filed by the CPS, but then the defendants will have their days in courts to determine if they're found guilty or not.

So I repeat, we need an investigation to determine if laws were broken. I think this was a very clear case of corruption, but it doesn't mean it was illegal, that's why we have a system to investigate and prosecute these things.

 

[dowie]

During the investigation they actually gather evidence to see if any laws are broken, e.g. if MPs were threatened, bribed or somehow advantaged (personally, financially, career wise, etc) in order to do what was suggested, which are against the law. Those evidence are then handed over to the CPS to decide if they can being up charges or not. It could be that the investigation find out none of that happened and no laws were broken, or maybe the investigation ends up with evidence found and charges being filed by the CPS, but then the defendants will have their days in courts to determine if they're found guilty or not.

So I repeat, we need an investigation to determine if laws were broken. I think this was a very clear case of corruption, but it doesn't mean it was illegal, that's why we have a system to investigate and prosecute these things.

You think it was a clear case of corruption but it "doesn't mean it was illegal" ??? That makes no sense. If there was a clear case of corruption then how would it not be illegal?

I'm just baffled that you think there is clear corruption here at all when he's legally entitled to get advanced notice of and personally object/veto this legislation - why does he need to "bribe" any ministers etc... ? That is complete fantasy, as if (over a period of several decades) multiple ministers from different parties have been accepting bribes every time the Duke interferes in legislation.

It isn't "corruption" for someone to legally exercise powers they've actually got and are allowed to exercise in their own interest, that's literally what those powers are there for in the first place. If you don't like it then the solution is to remove the powers - don't allow the Duke to be notified of legislation affecting the dutchy and don't allow for any vetoing of it.