Software engineer.
House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
- Status
Software engineer.
Awesome policy.
No ***** you do. Maybe a return of 100% LTV mortgages on top of that? Perhaps a government guarantee?
NIMBYism is a major major issue in this country, I see it in my neighborhood all the time. EVERY good proposal is flooded with people who disagree, usually with absurd reasons (e.g. the build changing bird migration patterns that negatively affect the quality of life for local bird watchers who might not be able to travel to watch birds). Always the actual concern is that new local developments might affect their property prices and they may grow by 3% next year instead of 5%.
Now if you plan to develop something that's seriously worse than what's there, some of those people will change their minds and will agree, because it will make their houses look better in comparison.
I would centralise the planning permission system and let a qualified office assess plans on their own merits rather than some local office singing to the tunes of local homeowners who only care about their own property prices.
Thanks to Help to Buy equity loan scheme. AKA let's put another 20% on top of property prices to increase builder margins and let the government guarantee that loan.
Very nicely done!
So far you've posted 138 times in 113 days (more than once a day!) to share your wisdom with the rest of us. I'd say you're gonna miss this thread
Generally when people believe that way about a thread, they stop reading/contributing and move on. Your ever-presence here would suggest otherwise.
When Sonny says he thinks it's time to shut this down what he really means that after 138 posts, he's said all he has to say, and obviously, nobody else has anything to say so everyone else should also just shut up.
A lot of it is survivorship bias. Old builds that continue to exist now are the ones that survived this long, and their issues were fixed. However, it means that buying them is quite safe, unlike new builds unless you know what to look for.
Where do you live?
Half a mil for 600 sq/ft? So £833 per sq/ft? Only a handful fo London boroughs are more expensive ***removed***
I was generally planning for £600 per sq/ft for my starter home.
Last edited by a moderator:
For everyone that says building more homes is key to solving the housing crisis, yeah righthttps://www.theguardian.com/artandd...s-battersea-london-luxury-housing-development
They're going to be building 15,000 homes there, absolutely none of them will be for 'normal' people. Well worth a read.
Surprise surprise. Building ultra luxury super expensive homes that less than 1% of the people can afford, sold at 75% margin, didn't help solve the housing crisis.
£5.4k per year season ticket though, so almost £11k for a working couple, almost £1000 per month just goes to transport.
Using Singapore as an example, 80% of the population live in public housing in Singapore.
Over the decades, Singapore centralised the planning permission system and nationalised land that wasn't actively being developed, to build housing for their population. Government used that land alongside non-profit building to build public housing for the people. This not only increased quality of housing in Singapore, but property prices did not increase for about 20 years, and is now only 15% higher than what it was in 1995. Over the same period, UK prices increased by over 150%.
And the entire thing was determined to be cost-neutral to the tax payer over the decades. I'd be thrilled if we did the same thing but if I suggested we do the same, people call me a communist!
Foreigners can still buy in private housing Singapore (but not public), but they have to pay a 20% stamp duty. Citizen or foreigner, have to pay about an extra 12% stamp duty on second properties. Companies have to pay 25% stamp duty.
Beautiful.
Last edited:
Yeah that's unfortunate but ethnic quotas in building isn't the reason they solved their housing crisis. Land nationalisation and non-profit building was the reason. Learning a thing or two from successful project doesn't mean we need to replicate the worst aspects of them.
To be honest, we shouldn't do that either. I know some people believe people have a right to live where they want on tax payer's dime in social housing, that's absurd.
The problem with shared ownership, at least in London, is that it's just a scam.
- The property itself is overpriced by at least 20%.
- The rented portion of it is 1-2% above the average rental yields of the neighbourhood, even after the overpriced valuation of the place.
- You are responsible for 100% of the maintenance and insurance of the property, despite owning only a part of it. So you have all the costs of being a home owner, but none of the flexibilities or lack of responsibilities of being a renter.
- When you want to staircase, the property is also overvalued. Sometimes, they don't even allow you to staircase.
- Selling it is very hard, so not only you don't have flexibilities of renting, but you're even less flexible than a home owner who can just easily sell.
It's a scam, on top of a scam, on top of a scam, on top of a scam. All so that some people can call themselves a homeowner in this country, when in fact, they're just paying overpriced rent and are responsible for all costs, while having none of the flexibilities.
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.
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.
There should be a criminal investigation into this, clear case of corruption.
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.
Changing legislation to advantage yourself is the definition of corruption. Now that could or could not have been legal depending on the exact details of what happened, which you and I don't know. Therefore, the need for an investigation. They may find nothing, or they may find something.
I agree, laws should also be changed, but not instead of investigating this, but in addition to it.
If they bought a property and can't afford to pay the mortgage, then they should sell the property or the lender should liquidate the asset to recover their loan. Simple as that.
- Status