Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tired of Waiting

Members
  • Posts

    12,917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tired of Waiting

  1. It should go up quite a bit, of course, because infrastructure (roads, drainage, sports facilities, public transport) should be built to accompany new housing.

    The local authorities should raise money from selling land to private builders but would need to be responsible for the infrastructure and price this in.

    Oh sorry, I'm in la-la land again, I forgot I live in Switzerland not the UK.

    In the cantons of Vaud and Fribourg, it works like this. I can buy a 1000m2 plot for about 120kGBP. Geneva is like the UK times 10. :angry:

    I meant just the planning permit really, before any utility is brought to the land. The value goes up x100.

    Besides, for an acre bordering or near a village/town/city it doesn't cost much to link services to the existing infrastructure.

    We don't need to build huge estates in one go. We should allow a more organic growth, just a little, but everywhere, surrounding existing housing - probably like what you have over there in Switzerland, no?

  2. The £ devaluation was caused by the interest rate going from 6% to 0.5%. Nothing to do with house prices (which naturally also fell).

    I agree, i think, but IIRC the US also dropped their IRs around the same time, no?

    Back to the GBP/USD, it doesn't look too high on a 10 years chart: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GBPUSD%3DX#symbol=;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

    .

  3. The presenter was on Breakfast TV this morning. £100k for the house, £100k for the land, location had a bit of a view but still hemmed in.

    Very much like normalising extortionate housing costs. £200k (and the rest) is a lot of money and debt.

    Prescott had a £60k home scheme in London in the late 90s, then he gave up and decided to get on with his own career. ;)

    Let's keep in mind that rural land costs just £10k to £15k per acre, enough for 10 to 20 houses.

    It's our planning blockage that makes building plots so rare and consequently so extortionately expensive.

    That same acre with planning permission for those 10-20 houses would go up in value from those £10-15k to around £1 million - or double that in the SE.

  4. Yes.

    And the key point here is land that is rented out or has property on it that is rented out would be put in a specific business tax band with a higher rate than any others. Another band would exist for residential land with unoccupied property (ie second homes and speculative purchases). I find this sort of system a little cleaner and more direct. However it would require a govt with a particular ideology to even consider implementing it.

    The devil is always in the details with reforms of this scale. And there is more than one way to skin the rentier classes. It all depends on the intent behind new reforms. The intent on HPC is generally towards more of a meritocracy but we all have our own layers of ideology. Which is why I don't trust our morally bankrupt politicians with most policy choices. The current political structure encourages short term bribes and brown envelopes. It would ultimately be better to strip the govt down to the bare minimum, institute a basic moral constitution, and limit politicians scope to mostly administration. Something closer to the voluntary ideals of Traktion.

    The best thing about a LVT:

    I went to London a few months ago and, in very posh area, I saw derelict house, boarded up. If we had LVT the owner would be paying a fortune for that land, and would be hard pressed to use it, well, or sell it. Same thing across the whole country: use it, well, or sell it to someone who will use it properly. A LVT will reduces land waste to very low levels.

    I can imagine the difficulties of evaluating all land in Britain, but someone mentioned here that other countries manage that. A first step would be to research how they do it.

    .

  5. How many thousands or even hundreds of thousands of plots with planning does this company have banked?

    Putting council tax or even better business rates on should get a few houses built or plots sold to others.

    That would be a very good start.

    But we would still need more land allocated for housing in the SE, and IMPO preferably thinly spread, around all existing villages, towns and cities, instead of a few large estates.

  6. :lol: What a moron. If the planning system is liberalised his company goes bust in a few years.

    Only Britain has this absurd market concentration, with just a handful of building companies responsible for most of the market. In countries with liberal planning systems small builders and even individuals can easily out-compete big bureaucratic companies with huge over-heads. But here only these huge companies can break the planning block. Our planning system in effect protects these big builders from smaller, nimbler competition.

  7. I find the way that the BBC reports press releases from vested interests in ramping house prices - such as the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the property website Rightmove, Mortgage lenders, etc - with little or no journalistic questioning to be simply appalling.

    The BBC would not report press releases from other vested interest groups in this way so why does it do this with property and house prices?

    It is also scandalous that virtually every single time the BBC does an item on house prices that an estate agent - yet another vested interest in creating an impression of higher and higher house prices being good - is brought on to give an opinion about house prices. When the BBC does a programme on drugs you don't bring on a backstreet drug peddlar every time and ask him or her opinion about whether drugs are wonderful?

    In this regard I find the standard of journalism at the BBC has fallen considerably in recent years. Your journalists need to question, question, question everything and not simply be the dumb mouth-pieces for the housing market's vested interests and their constant house price ramping press releases.

    That's an email ready to be sent to the BBC.

    Very good one TMT.

  8. What I was asking is how driving people in social housing into despair greases the wheels of the free market in housing- for example this woman;

    Is it really necessary to do this to people in order to achieve affordable housing in the UK?

    Using human beings as cannon fodder in an effort to reduce housing benefit costs is a pretty despicable policy in my view. Maybe if the government spent taxpayers money building more social housing rather than propping up house prices with Help to Buy it might get better outcomes.

    Very tragic story. I understand there is an inquest about it. There was probably other causes for her extreme behaviour. Until the inquest is published we can't know for sure, and until then I think you shouldn't use her personal tragedy to base your argument.

    But I do agree with your premise (if I understood you correctly), that the root cause is a housing shortage. As I wrote above, we shouldn't keep robbing Paul to house Peter, we should instead liberalise planning, allowing 100s of thousands of individuals and small local building companies to build more homes. IMHO we could solve the shortage in 3 years, building a million homes, mainly the SE, say some 300k/year.

    .

  9. Our views are welcome, apparently.

    Overview

    The BBC Trust works on behalf of licence fee payers to ensure that the BBC provides high quality services and good value for everyone in the UK. One of the ways we do this is by carrying out an in-depth review of each of the BBC's services at least once every 5 years, and part of the review is a public consultation so we can hear your views.

    http://consultations...bbc/news_review

    [/size]

    I understand the scepticism about it, but I think it's still worth a try.

    We must send our criticisms.

    This debt-asset bubble is obvious since at least 2002 or 2003, and the BBC still hasn't understood or explained that to the population. This is ... (I don't have words good enough to describe this sh!t, sorry).

    We MUST complain. It's not the BBC role just to tell the people what they want to hear. The BBC is supposed to research and tell the truth! (The fecking incompetent [email protected]! Sorry.)

    And we must include facts, data, and not only our opinions, and expletives... ( as tempting as it may be. :( ).

    Or, if/when we feel an irrepressible need to vent our anger, then perhaps we could send it on a separate email? :)

  10. Fingers cross the programme will highlight the possibilities of self-build rather than just another ramping of house prices.

    (...)

    I saw the BBC's advert for that show, and it "ain't" promising... Instead of the normal route, in a normal country (chose a plot amongst hundreds in your desired area, and hire an architect and a builder), the BBC goes instead for the "nutters" stereotype. The advert for the show starts with a series of hapless amateurs DIYing and blundering about, one crying, another running out of money (to the last few coins), others almost injuring themselves with a heavy machine, an older man obviously "eccentric", etc.

    Do not hope for too much.

    Besides, the main bottle neck is the planning system favouring big builders, in detriment of self and small local builders.

    I doubt the BBC will deal with that appropriately, if at all.

  11. (...)

    Any Leeds HPCers, who can give us inside knowledge on local land/house prices? or even better the self build house in question?

    (...)

    Building costs table (for a serviced plot): www.homebuilding.co.uk/system/files/Build_Cost_Table_August_2013.pdf

    It includes 5 variables:

    "Build route": (DIY + Subbies) , (Subbies) , (Builder/Subbies) , (Main Contractor)

    Standard: Standard, Good and Excellent

    Storeys: single or two

    Size: >90m2, 91-160m2, 161m2+

    Region of the country: Greater London / South-East / NW, SW, East & Scotland / Mids, Yorks, NE & Wales

    In my case I would have to go for: a small, standard, 2 storey, SE. I can only chose between main contractor = £1089/m2, and Builder/Subbies = £1034.

    But this is all pointless, as there are virtually no serviced plots for sale in this country, thanks to our fecking planning blockage.

  12. The real tragedy is the number of people in denial about this. To be honest I can understand why people respond to incentives - we should stop incentivising them.

    And these girls are victims too, perhaps the main victims, as many end up as single mothers, struggling to find partners, affection, ... it's a long story. I can't write more now. And it's too depressing.

  13. If you look at this chart Age - specific profiles of fertility rates , 1970 - 2009 you'll notice that the uk births profile is seriously out of step with most of the rest of Europe. (Thanks in advance if anyone can work out how to post this into the forum).

    The first thing to notice is that births to mothers aged 20 and under are something like 3 times as common as in most other countries.

    The second thing to notice is that the shape of the curve is all wrong. Most countries follow a normal symetrical bell curve around a peak fertility age of about 31, the UK's fertility curve is noticably distorted amongst mothers up to the age of about 25, there are clearly far more of them than there should be.

    Finally notice that up until age 25 things are virtually unchanged since 1995, the changes to the profile are amongst older women only, which kind of implies that only older women have been affected by the housing bubble (i.e. younger ones are unaffected due to their entitlement to state benefits).

    Something is clearly affecting the UK's profile, the obvious candidate is the benefits system.

    Great link Goat.

    I was going to comment on the same distortion, a bulge above the age 20. BTW, similar to Romania's!, but very different from France's!

    (...) perhaps that is because of our immigration (...)

    France has more immigrants than we do, and yet their birth/age chart is an almost perfect bell curve (page 4 on Goat's link).

    It is our benefits system and housing shortage that perversely incentivises some teenage girls (particularly those with fewer good options, such as going to uni, or a good job/career) to have babies too early.

    Tragically the opening scenes of Idiocracy does reflect reality, if exaggerated (a bit) for comic purposes.

    .

  14. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421033/Money-worries-cause-25-couples-having-children-40s.html

    No details of the incomes of these people being put off, I wonder if these are those just out of the tax credit system? Could we be entering a time point where only the "poor" and wealthy can have children and if you fall out of the state tax subsidy you can't afford to have children as your income is getting eaten up in housing / travel costs?

    I'd like to see the data behind this.

    + 1

    Same thoughts here.

  15. People need to email the BBC (and other places) on this. Debt is growing at record levels. Spending is due to rise continuously. There is no austerity.

    + 1

    We should focus on the fact that "paying down the debt" is factually untrue.

    If we are very precise, focusing on the factual mistake/lie of this phrase (which they use A LOT!), and pointing out that lying to (or "misinforming"? :rolleyes: ), the viewers contravenes the BBC's charter, then just a few emails may suffice. Who knows. Besides, it will take just a few minutes.

  16. Just watching bbc news and they talked about paying down the debt in this time of austerity.

    Remind me again how much of the national debt has so far been paid off since this crisis began.

    I heard it too. Unbelievable. Susanna Reid said it, but she was reading from the autocue. The question becomes, was it a mistake by some backstage stupid rookie, or was it written by the editor? <_<

    But then, less than a minute later, a surprise in the opposite direction, Danny Alexander makes clear that they are reducing the deficit, and even explain that it is the difference between what the government earns and spends! :o

    I'm confused now. :blink:

  17. So how does a disabled man cutting his own throat due to the fact that he can no longer afford to rent the only house he can live in advance this process?

    If the Tories wanted the 'market' to correct house prices they would not be trying to artificially increase demand.

    Regarding "artificially increase demand", of course this is also a problem (see under my avatar), but Labour did that too, the root cause being the fact that the majority of voters are older and property owners, and do want their houses "value" to keep going up, sadly.

    Regarding your 1st paragraph, really very strange language there, and I really don't know what you meant, sorry.

  18. The problem with council tax bands as you rightly point out is that they are set on valuations. I'm talking abut banding on land usage only. The biggest group of which would be residential. The main reason for this is to provide some protection for residential rates, as shelter is a necessity. So politicians won't be able to change anything based on value.

    My proposition is that all land of the same usage, eg residential, is the same rate everywhere. Whether it's central London or a hill in Cumbria. I know some people think that won't work but I disagree. And because I am not keen on going down the route of valuations, which I believe has risks, it's the only fair way to do it.

    When I mentioned regions setting land tax rates it would only be down to county level at most, because I have an interest in seeing counties have more control over their budgets and would like to explore the idea of regions competing on economic and political structure. A move towards more localised govt. But that's a separate issue for now.

    You mean 100 m2 of residential land in Chelsea should be taxed the same amount as 100 m2 in a council estate in Northern England?

  19. By flat rate (...)

    At first I thought your suggestion was good, as it would simplify the valuation issue. But Council Tax bands were set on a similar way, and the main problem will surely repeat iself if we allow politicians to set the bands: regressive tax, with lower percentage rates for more expensive properties, like Council Tax now. I would bet anything the same problem would occur if we let politicians set the bands.

    I think it is better if market values were used and the same rate, same percentage (say 1%/year?) applied across the country.

    I'm not even sure if agricultural land or pastures should receive distortive "protections".

    .

  20. By flat rate I mean take the valuation part away and have the rate set centrally or perhaps better regionally.

    By tiered (or banded) I mean the rate is different based on the land use - residential, business, etc.

    My thinking is based on the issues of trust and competence. Whilst an LVT has a lot of theoretical merit there is also plenty of room to create an overcomplicated mess of a system if put into the wrong hands. There's even room for corruption and other revenue boosting tactics - how often are council tax valuations? I would rather eliminate that risk from the outset as I have no faith in any govt of the last 30 years (and no indication of change in future) to implement LVT without creating a highly bureaucratic system full of arbitrary exemptions and unexpected consequences. Having flat rates makes their decisions directly answerable to the electorate.

    I guess you don't mean the same the same tax/area (say per acre) in London and in Northern rural England, right? But instead the same (v high) rate across central London, then a cheaper rate for outer London boroughs, and cheaper still farther out, etc? Similar process for towns, villages, cities, land, etc?

  21. I hope it does, then if successful move on to VAT and a reduction of income tax. The outrage on that express article is down to the expectation it will be an additional tax, which I would also be angry about.

    Although I've said it before I am more in favour of a flat rate tiered land tax, LVT is still better than the status quo.

    Yes, the VI media will spin against it as much as possible, of course. It's not even an official policy proposal, not even for this parliament, and from the LibDems!, and the Telegraph and Express are already reacting v strongly against it!

    What do you mean by a "flat rate tiered land tax"?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.