How You Calculate The True Value Of A 'house'

[Stars]

If you think that those who built a house provided nothing at all you need your bumps felt.

Massively overpriced due to lunatic statist constraints, yes. Nothing provided at all, no.

Not that's not what i said

In as far as they charge for the land, they charge for providing nothing to anyone.

[XswampyX]

So the 'value' of a house is....

1. The cost of putting it up.

+

2. The price of the land.

+

3. The location in respect to services.

+

4. The likelihood of not getting beaten up.

Or is it just the amount a bank will lend to you to buy it, or the amount a bank will lend anybody to buy it?

I know if a house I liked came onto the market for say 50,000 some knob of a BTL'tter would offer 51,000 and then try to rent it to me.

So it also matters who you are and what you want the house for?

[Authoritarian]

so you want land owned by the state

the banks just add debt - it is the business owners who add the value

I don't want the physical land to be owned by the state, this has been tried many times and always ends up in disaster.

Its a tad more subtle than this, the economic benefits that add value to a particular location aren't created by the owner yet they are able to profit regardless.

Selling something you havn't provided is the antithesis of the free market.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

I don't want the physical land to be owned by the state, this has been tried many times and always ends up in disaster.

Its a tad more subtle than this, the economic benefits that add value to a particular location aren't created by the owner yet they are able to profit regardless.

Selling something you havn't provided is the antithesis of the free market.

so you want a land tax

[Authoritarian]

Of course the house / shed / water tower is valuable, and those who invested labour and capital in it should get something in return. I think (hope) that is a given on this thread - the land's the issue.

Unfortunately some have been brainwashed to believe the two are inextricably linked

Bingo!

To get an idea of what is really happening on a macro level then it has to be fair to seperate the value of the two.

[Stars]

No one charges anyone else for land.

Which is why bare land is free everywhere?

[Stars]

I don't want the physical land to be owned by the state, this has been tried many times and always ends up in disaster.

Its a tad more subtle than this, the economic benefits that add value to a particular location aren't created by the owner yet they are able to profit regardless.

Absolutely.

The landowner gets to charge users / producers for the economic activity around his site - this is value other people are providing, yet he gets to pocket it. The value of surrounding activity sticks to the price of land, because the land cannot be moved out the way and so its ownership serves as a monopoly on access to advantages provided by the work of third parties.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Stars

[Sunderthine]

No one charges anyone else for land.

Really? How so? I think some do for usage if nothing else.

My brother's just paid lots of money for some land, I don't think he did it voluntarily. He wanted to use it for an indefinite period, and the person who had pieces of paper etc. saying they owned it would only let him if he paid them a fee.

Is he a fool?

Edited June 2, 2009 by Sunderthine

[Injin]

Which is why bare land is free everywhere?

You pay for not being physically attacked.

Nothing to do with land, it isn't special in this regard.

You have to pay to not be physically attacked in order to work as a doctor, or to drive a car.

[Sunderthine]

You pay for not being physically attacked.

Nothing to do with land, it isn't special in this regard.

You have to pay to not be physically attacked in order to work as a doctor, or to drive a car.

True - but then you have to pay to not be physically attacked generally, in the UK at least - so the application of an additional fee to anything, including legally defensible land usage rights is effectively a surcharge.

You're factually correct, but the point made is impotent, isn't it?

[Injin]

True - but then you have to pay to not be physically attacked generally, in the UK at least - so the application of an additional fee to anything, including legally defensible land usage rights is effectively a surcharge.

You're factually correct, but the point made is impotent, isn't it?

Well if you see the general use of violence as the problem, the solutions that occur to you are a bit different than if you think that coercion is fine, just not on land use.

[Authoritarian]

Well if you see the general use of violence as the problem, the solutions that occur to you are a bit different than if you think that coercion is fine, just not on land use.

Everybody needs the use of land so everybody should pay for the amount they use. The only coercion required should be equal to the amount of financial damage land owners are inflicting on the rest of us by insisting that their rights trump those of others

Edited June 2, 2009 by chefdave

[abharrisson]

Imagine two towns. Both are of a similar size have a similar number of inhabitants and their buildings are made identically using the same materials. The only difference between these two locations is the level of economic activity that takes place. Towns number 1 has a thriving market economy a well maintained infrastructure and useful public services which among other things keeps the area clean and the population healthy, town two on the other hand a poor infractructure in comparison coupled with a depressed economy.

Depsite the fact that the buildings are identical the price of housing in town 1 is considerably higher that in town 2, this reflects the respective prosperity of both locations. Town number 1 has the ability to produce more and so on average their occupants are richer in a real material sense than their counterparts.

House prices in both locations will be based on their rental values which in turn is based on how productive a plot is likely to be.

So, if the average rental in the first town is �500pcm we can work out roughly what the house price is.

�500 pcm = �6000 per annum. To get a return like this based on a 5% yield would require �120,000 and this is where the mortgage comes from, its little to do with banks playing games with credit and more to do with the hard economic reality of the property market itself. If the house were sold for anything less than this price it would mean the seller would be selling himself short. We can also say that:

every �1 of extra rental value accrued per annum will transmit into a �20 capital gain for the home owner based on a 5% yield.

And its possible to capture these increases simply by sitting back and letting others do the work.

The rental prices in town two and the corresponding house prices will be lower but as wages are lower too the length of the time required to repay mortgage debt will the same, if this location were to suddenly experience large levels of investment (think Ireland and EU funding) then it would almost certainly result in house price speculation.

Its also important make a distinction between the value of the location and the value of the building, in strict economic sense one is land and the other capital. If I were to put an extension onto my house which I then rented out technically speaking the return I recieve is interest and would be my earned reward for the capital improvement on the building. This is quite different from a general rise in propety values which is a result of the booming land market or the result of others' hard work and investment, i.e a new school or hospital which can be incorporated into the sale price due to convenient proximity.

Nice and logical but so removed from the real world its untrue.... this isn't how the market or doesn't depending on your point of view.... you can't apply a standard yield to all buildings, some towns have demand levels which bear absolutely no relation to employment or production or transport etc etc..... nice idea but no cigar.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Everybody needs the use of land so everybody should pay for the amount they use.

Everybody needs the use of air so everybody should pay for the amount they use.

[Dr Renter]

The true value of a house? Get 3 estate agents to value it and take an average

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And then halve it.

[Injin]

Everybody needs the use of land so everybody should pay for the amount they use. The only coercion required should be equal to the amount of financial damage land owners are inflicting on the rest of us by insisting that their rights trump those of others

No, because then you allow for the use of coercion and that just means that the current situation will continue.

There are ways to own property without owning land.

[Sunderthine]

Well if you see the general use of violence as the problem, the solutions that occur to you are a bit different than if you think that coercion is fine, just not on land use.

Definitely - is that at all relevant though?

Addressing the methodology gives insight into a state of affairs, but doesn't necessarily comment on it, which is the issue at hand - "No one charges anyone else for land"

Think this is another thread, potentially a fun one for the dialectically inclined

It's an important point and distinction to make in answering the OP though all the same

edit: just to put the deviation to bed - also me

Edited June 2, 2009 by Sunderthine

[Injin]

Definitely - is that at all relevant though?

Addressing the methodology gives insight into a state of affairs, but doesn't necessarily comment on it, which is the issue at hand.

Think this is another thread, potentially a fun one for the dialectically inclined

Well....

It's all about first principles.

As I said originally - to find the value of anything you sell it. The price you get is the only possible way to measure value.

There are other values but these are unmeasurable, having no objective criteria for them. Things like land monpolies, bribing the state, fiat money, credit based banking et al are nothing to do with value. They are imposed costs.

[three pint princess]

5% rental Yield ?

[Authoritarian]

No, because then you allow for the use of coercion and that just means that the current situation will continue.

There are ways to own property without owning land.

You need a certain amount of coercion to ensure that the participants in the economy receive what they are entitled to.

Without this mechanism someone could pinch all my work simply because they're bigger and stronger than me. If you can't back up whats rightfully yours with force then the ownership will always be under question.

Yes you can own property without owning land, but in order to store that property you're going to need to rent some land from somebody that owns some.

[Sunderthine]

Well....

It's all about first principles.

As I said originally - to find the value of anything you sell it. The price you get is the only possible way to measure value.

There are other values but these are unmeasurable, having no objective criteria for them. Things like land monpolies, bribing the state, fiat money, credit based banking et al are nothing to do with value. They are imposed costs.

Agreed, of course - Not everything is worth what you may pay for it, but that doesn't change how much it cost you.

There's no questioning the relevance of charges in calculating value, they should be disregarded.

My post required an edit...

[Stars]

You pay for not being physically attacked.

Nothing to do with land, it isn't special in this regard.

You have to pay to not be physically attacked in order to work as a doctor, or to drive a car.

That fine; the problem is landowners don't actually provide protection, so again the landowner is charging for something he doesn't provide. If the payment for land is exclusively a payment for security one would have thought it would go to some individual or organisation that provided security.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Stars

[Guest มร หล&#3]

You are all talking rhetoric as usual.

chefdave,

There are two resources for this I know of.

1st is the Valuation Office Agency residential land price data

http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/propert...residential.htm

2nd is the RICS re-building cost calculator

http://calculator.bcis.co.uk/index.cfm#calculation

Provides a rough estimate.

See this thread,

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...howtopic=115469

Edited June 3, 2009 by มร หลบเลี่ยง

[Injin]

That fine; the problem is landowners don't actually provide protection, so again the landowner is charging for something he doesn't provide. If the payment for land is exclusively a payment for security one would have thought it would go to some individual or organisation that provided security.

There you go then.

He's benefiting but not doing it - so why bother looking at him?

One guy is mugging you and then giving some o fthe proceeds to a shopkeeper. your complaint is with the shopkeeper getting rich on unearned income when the problem is only solved by stopping mugging.

[Stars]

No, because then you allow for the use of coercion and that just means that the current situation will continue.

There are ways to own property without owning land.

The fact that one person holds land in a usefull way (using whatever rationale) represents a loss of liberty for another. The best you can hope for in the case of land is to spread the coercion equitably in a compromise, so the inevitable liberty loss caused by landownership is spread evenly. One way to do this is to make people pay everyone else market prices for the coercion rights they hold.