Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

[Psycho Sonny]

Many more people can afford to buy in a world where we cut out the millions of landlords pushing up the prices of property.

And we continue to offer social housing for those who can't afford to buy. Give them home security knowing they won't be kicked out if the landlord decides to sell, so they can build a life/family.

And have councils manage licencing for a limited number, and managed-quality portfolio, of rentals to allow those who need shorter term accommodation (contractors, students etc) to have that flexibility.

The problem isn't people can't afford to buy in this world. The problem is people can't afford to buy prime real estate in the best areas. A vast difference. You could buy a house for like £300 in vietnam.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/113738042#/?channel=RES_BUY

I picked a random listing but that is only £150K in cornwall for a 3 bed home. Too rich? Then how about £130K?

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/114182054#/?channel=RES_BUY

okay £70K?

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/116184341#/?channel=RES_BUY


I don't see what the issue is other than people spending their money on crap, not saving or investing it wisely and then expecting to be able to buy prime real estate which is in high demand.

 

[Jono8]

I'll be honest, this is why I actually clicked on it in the first place. Was disappointed..

Same

 

[potatolord]

I'd like to see consideration of increasing tax or regulation of short term lets (Airbnb and similar).

I wouldn't want to punish "standard" longer term rentals, as people do need somewhere to live.

I don't even want second homes punished (private use), though I do understand why some people are opposed to this.

 

[cheesyboy]

The problem isn't people can't afford to buy in this world. The problem is people can't afford to buy prime real estate in the best areas. A vast difference. You could buy a house for like £300 in vietnam.

I meant a conceptual Britain, when I said "world", using the movie trailer catchphrase "in a world where..."

I don't think £300 houses in vietnam really solve our problems with housing affordability.

Your £70k house is a holiday home, which you can't live in. The others are around 6x median salary.

 

[potatolord]

The problem isn't people can't afford to buy in this world. The problem is people can't afford to buy prime real estate in the best areas. A vast difference. You could buy a house for like £300 in vietnam.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/113738042#/?channel=RES_BUY

I picked a random listing but that is only £150K in cornwall for a 3 bed home. Too rich? Then how about £130K?

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/114182054#/?channel=RES_BUY

okay £70K?

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/116184341#/?channel=RES_BUY


I don't see what the issue is other than people spending their money on crap, not saving or investing it wisely and then expecting to be able to buy prime real estate which is in high demand.

Two of the three properties you listed look like auctions, so pretty much limited to cash buyers.

One of the two is on a holiday park, so might have restrictive covenants.

You may not see housing affordability as an issue for you, but that's not really the point, is it?

 

[dowie]

I know people who bought (or had parents buy) a house to live in whilst going through uni. And those houses made ridiculous gains in the 3-5 years those people were studying.

Only the paupers rent whilst they go to uni... You don't think the middle classes would have their kids renting in halls, do you? Not when there's money to be made in house price appreciation.

Well they clearly don't all buy houses, you're talking about a minority of students.

Also there are good reasons not to want corporations to buy residential property. As an example of that, you only need to look to the US.

We're not the US though are companies doing that over here? We already have disincentives in place re: ltd companies buying up residential property.

I really don't see what

is "revenge fantasy" about desiring residential property to be owned and lived in.

Well, no one claimed that desire is a revenge fantasy so you're attacking a straw man there. I'm referring to these unfeasible ideas that get posted without much consideration for impact nor a clear reason for why they're desirable - like 100% CGT on second homes by one poster or ban companies from owning residential properties as you've suggested etc..

You don't appear to have given an example of a country where that has happened either despite your claim that these "aren't radical ideas - they are actually a thing in other countries" perhaps that ought to be indicative of the fantasy nature of your suggestion.

And your only reason for banning company ownership of residential properties is to cite an issue that occurs in the US. So it still isn't clear what problem you're even trying to address with this rather drastic change to the law.

Is this a trick question?

By preventing a corporation from becoming the registered legal owner or having right of control over any residential property.

No, it's not a trick question, it's simply asking you to clarify what you mean here. So by banning companies from owning residential property you actually mean you want to stop them from buying residential property? They can hold onto the properties they already own?

It just doesn't seem clear what you're trying to achieve there? Surely plenty of residential properties are owned by individual landlords in the UK?

 

[Greebo]

They don't have dibs on the land or property. If someone has the money from outside town to buy a thing, they can buy it all they want? It brings further economic growth to Cornwall for starters with the number of Airbnb guests that stay over year round.

I've stayed in one myself for a week above St Ives Bay. Was brilliant!

It doesnt bring economic growth though. It kills communities. You see people pulling up for the weekend at their second home with their car loaded with shopping from Waitrose in London and they will barely spend any money in the local community.

We are seeing it in the village I live in Co Durham. 25% of the properties are holiday cottages now and full most weeks of the year. The local pubs gain some from this but thats it really.

 

[Greebo]

I know quite a lot of affluent people and none of them bought a house for their kid to go to uni in.

Do you have a source with verified statistics or is this just more made up nonsense?

I know several people who all did the same. One guy bought a house for his daughter in York as wasnt prepared to pay the high rents. Sold it three years later for double what he paid for it so the gain paid for all the money he gave her to live off at Uni so was well happy.

 

[dowie]

It doesnt bring economic growth though. It kills communities. You see people pulling up for the weekend at their second home with their car loaded with shopping from Waitrose in London and they will barely spend any money in the local community.

We are seeing it in the village I live in Co Durham. 25% of the properties are holiday cottages now and full most weeks of the year. The local pubs gain some from this but thats it really.

But to be fair whether they go to Tesco or Waitrose in London or Tesco/Waitrose locally doesn't really matter too much.

 

[Greebo]

But to be fair whether they go to Tesco or Waitrose in London or Tesco/Waitrose locally doesn't really matter too much.

It does. The argument was put across that people having second homes/holiday cottages in a regions bring in economic benefits. It doesnt if they bring everything with them

 

[Terminal_Boy]

It does. The argument was put across that people having second homes/holiday cottages in a regions bring in economic benefits. It doesnt if they bring everything with them

A reason why the Dutch often get a lukewarm welcome in SW France. They bring all their food and drink for their holiday from home, so even the French supermarket chains don’t see any money from them.

 

[Kronos]

What the locals wanting buy somewhere to live?
Are there not work houses for you peasants?

 

[FoxEye]

OK, so how do landlords increase demand for property?

They take property off the market and turn a potential home owner into a renter. It's pretty straight-forward. The rate of house building being lower than the increase in demand, for many years now. In fact the reality is we cannot meet demand with house building alone.

How many people here are happy with the £billions of tax revenue that gets paid by the govt directly to private landlords? Or the Tory idea that local councils must not increase their housing stock, so if a council builds a house it has to sell one off?

The % of our tax that gets paid in housing benefit directly to private landlords is obscene. I'm assuming that the pro-landlords here actually do pay their tax and don't avoid it, thus making the issue a moot point

 

[FoxEye]

No, it's not a trick question, it's simply asking you to clarify what you mean here. So by banning companies from owning residential property you actually mean you want to stop them from buying residential property? They can hold onto the properties they already own?

It just doesn't seem clear what you're trying to achieve there? Surely plenty of residential properties are owned by individual landlords in the UK?

It's fairly obvious why you would need to ban corporate ownership as part of a wider package of measures.

You already mentioned it I believe. If you want to restrict 2nd ownership and people owning multiple properties then you are forced to stop corporate ownership, otherwise as you already said people will just form companies to buy 2nd / multiple homes.

No one single measure is the silver bullet. This would require a significant rethink of the role of housing in society.

It's not just me and my "revenge fantasy" either, there are economists and think tanks and various voices saying that we've screwed up royally and need to rethink.

The trouble is that we've created a bubble that so many people are deeply invested into, and bursting that bubble would also have consequences. But we can't go on ignoring the problem and indeed watching as it gets worse.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you of current trends. That rent as a % of income is ever increasing. That private landlords make a growing share of the housing ownership. That ownership is falling and rental is growing.

We can all see the trends.

 

[dowie]

It's fairly obvious why you would need to ban corporate ownership as part of a wider package of measures.

It isn't though and you've not really given a reason why other than citing some issue in the US.

Also you're again saying you want to ban corporate ownership - not just ban them from buying new properties? If so how do you achieve that?

You already mentioned it I believe. If you want to restrict 2nd ownership and people owning multiple properties then you are forced to stop corporate ownership, otherwise as you already said people will just form companies to buy 2nd / multiple homes.

[...]

It's not just me and my "revenge fantasy" either, there are economists and think tanks and various voices saying that we've screwed up royally and need to rethink.

So do you want to ban all (private) landlords then?

Also, you made a similar claim re: other countries then when asked couldn't come up with anything. Have you got any examples of economists who want to ban companies from owning residential property AND ban (or restrict? - not sure what you desire on that topic as you've not said) anyone from owning a second home?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I know several people who all did the same. One guy bought a house for his daughter in York as wasnt prepared to pay the high rents. Sold it three years later for double what he paid for it so the gain paid for all the money he gave her to live off at Uni so was well happy.

Makes you wonder why he didn't just keep it if the gains are that good and rent it out especially as you say he thought rents were high with double the value surely they would be even higher therefore no brainer to keep it long term.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

The others are around 6x median salary.

The others are also 3 bed homes. Therefore usually a couple, therefore 2 incomes so 3 x median salary.

Otherwise there are 2 and even 1 bed places available for cheaper.

 

[Greebo]

Makes you wonder why he didn't just keep it if the gains are that good and rent it out especially as you say he thought rents were high with double the value surely they would be even higher therefore no brainer to keep it long term.

I guess he wanted some of the money back from her spends at Uni? Who knows. Perhaps he though property had hit a peak and wanted to cash in? Perhaps he had other property he wanted to buy?

 

[cheesyboy]

The others are also 3 bed homes. Therefore usually a couple, therefore 2 incomes so 3 x median salary.

Otherwise there are 2 and even 1 bed places available for cheaper.

You don't think the 50% who earn less than the median should be able to afford the tiniest, worst 3 bed you could find?

Single parents on more than median salary can't get a terrible little 3-bed for their family either.

 

[Hades]

I know several people who all did the same. One guy bought a house for his daughter in York as wasnt prepared to pay the high rents. Sold it three years later for double what he paid for it so the gain paid for all the money he gave her to live off at Uni so was well happy.

Funny enough we are considering the same... also at York if my daughter goes there. Don't know yet how we would raise capital to buy it. But it's something we are looking at.