Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Lepista

The Fallacy Of Home Ownership Rights

Recommended Posts

One statement that always seems to get trotted out in one form or another is that people on a low salary does not deserve to be able to buy their own house.

It would appear that they should be relying on the state to house them, or on the private rental sector.

Why? Should it not be an aspiration of society to have 100% owner occupancy?

After all, if somebody is renting, then they are ultimately paying for the house PLUS the overhead of having a landlord. Logically, long term, it should be cheaper to buy than to rent (although there has been a huge anomoly with this over the last few years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, if somebody is renting, then they are ultimately paying for the house PLUS the overhead of having a landlord.

And if somebody is mortgaged?

Or do you prefer paying bankers to LLs? Perhaps you think they come cheaper? Best watch out for the bonuses later this week! :lol:

PS : thought this thread was about the illusion of property "ownership". What you actually own is title. Yep, bits stored on a national register. No different from entries in a nominee share dealing account, or even a bank account. There are things you can actually own, but I won't bore the forum.

Edited by Sledgehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if somebody is mortgaged?

Or do you prefer paying bankers to LLs? Perhaps you think they come cheaper? Best watch out for the bonuses later this week! :lol:

sorry, perhaps I should have been more specific - ultimately, is a fully paid for owner occupied housing stock is something that society should aspire to?

edited to make it a question!

Edited by Lepista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One statement that always seems to get trotted out in one form or another is that people on a low salary does not deserve to be able to buy their own house.

I think it's more to do with the fact that something is clearly wrong when someone earning £30k can't get on the housing ladder because they were just a couple of years behind those earning £20k that are.

Low house prices will benefit everyone and make earnings/savings and not entry point to a rigged mark the meaningful measure. Low earners are also getting screwed by the low earners already in the property market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, perhaps I should have been more specific - ultimately, a fully paid for owner occupied housing stock is something that society should aspire to.

why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why?

That's what I'm asking (edited my previous post) - I think intuitively that it should be, as then incomes would not be spent on a basic asset, making our society much more productive. Alternatively, households would not be chasing that extra income so as to be able to pay for a roof over their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm asking (edited my previous post) - I think intuitively that it should be, as then incomes would not be spent on a basic asset, making our society much more productive. Alternatively, households would not be chasing that extra income so as to be able to pay for a roof over their heads.

There's a parallel argument for our means of exchange, the money supply.

The enormous cost to non-bankers of our present rent-a-currency system could be eliminated by having a publicly issued, debt-free, persistently circulating means of excxhange.

'Society' would then own (issue at no cost) something that it now rents (pays net interest on.)

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a parallel argument for our means of exchange, the money supply.

The enormous cost to non-bankers of our present rent-a-currency system could be eliminated by having a publicly issued, debt-free, persistently circulating means of excxhange.

'Society' would then own (issue at no cost) something that it now rents (pays net interest on.)

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/

So do you agree with the (modified) OP..?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, Spaniard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should it not be an aspiration of society to have 100% owner occupancy?

What if some people want the flexibility of renting?

Who should loan the money for house buying and under what terms?

Owner occupancy may be a personal aspiration, but not a societal aspiration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owner occupancy may be a personal aspiration, but not a societal aspiration.

I vaguely recall studies / hypotheses or something that suggests people tend to look after what they own better than what they rent, so there might indeed be a societal benefit,

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you agree with the (modified) OP..?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, Spaniard.

Ultimately, is a fully paid for owner occupied housing stock is something that society should aspire to?

There will always be competition for houses and, under any money system, some buyers will borrow to outbid others. So a completely debt-free housing stock is not feasible within a free market economy.

However, under a publicly issued, debt-free money system in which all lending is at the lender’s risk (no taxpayer bailouts) I expect that competitive, debt-fueled bidding for houses would be greatly subdued in comparison with present reality.

Because the money supply would not have to be continuously borrrowed into existence - lent largely against property assets, often speculatively - the current double bind on Joe Public of unaffordable house prices and unaffordable debt would not occur. Both the money-lending and housing markets would self-regulate and correct far more readily. Any waves of price fluctuations would tend to be gentle swells rather than destructive boom-bust tsunamis.

Overall, I would support a free market economy in which the proportion of home-buying to renting, and the aggregated outstanding LTV of the buyers, found their own levels. I would not expect the latter level to be zero, nor should a zero level be aspired to.

Having said that, I appreciate that the real estate market can be grossly distorted by rentier activity, and the views of Stars and other Georgists would be valuable here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One statement that always seems to get trotted out in one form or another is that people on a low salary does not deserve to be able to buy their own house.

It would appear that they should be relying on the state to house them, or on the private rental sector.

Why? Should it not be an aspiration of society to have 100% owner occupancy?

After all, if somebody is renting, then they are ultimately paying for the house PLUS the overhead of having a landlord. Logically, long term, it should be cheaper to buy than to rent (although there has been a huge anomoly with this over the last few years).

You could ask why anyone should have to buy a whole house in their own lifetime. Say they're in their 'purchased' house for 50 years - well most houses do (or should) last at least a hundred years with regular maintenance. So rationally people should only have to pay for half a house in their liefetime, and one way of doing that is possibly by renting. I f you only wanted to eat 1 ton of potatoes in your lifetime, it's a bit like the seller saying you can have 2 tons or nothing, and you have to give the rest away (inheritance to kids I s'pose)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Should it not be an aspiration of society to have 100% owner occupancy?

That is something that will never happen........joint ownership only means 50% owner occupancy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more to do with the fact that something is clearly wrong when someone earning £30k can't get on the housing ladder because they were just a couple of years behind those earning £20k that are.

Low house prices will benefit everyone and make earnings/savings and not entry point to a rigged mark the meaningful measure. Low earners are also getting screwed by the low earners already in the property market.

we should aspire to situation in which all people can easily avoid renting and landlords should they wish

Presently landlords are big systemic overhead

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should aspire to situation in which all people can easily avoid renting and landlords should they wish

Presently landlords are big systemic overhead

They have a right to charge for the actual property, but LVT\CD would ensure any location-based premium isn't retained and goes back to the community that gave rise to that value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should aspire to situation in which all people can avoid renting and landlords should they wish

.....it is not the renting that is the problem, it is the high cost of rent and the short-term rental tenancy laws that give little security to a good tenant that would like to put down roots in their community of choice........when property fails to be an investment, and the rental laws become more customer friendly and fit for purpose......more I am sure would rather rent than buy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....it is not the renting that is the problem, it is the high cost of rent and the short-term rental tenancy laws that give little security to a good tenant that would like to put down roots in their community of choice........when property fails to be an investment, and the rental laws become more customer friendly and fit for purpose......more I am sure would rather rent than buy. ;)

Surely that's the point of renting? To have flexibility? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be locked into a long agreement.

That said, with a reformed monetary system and LVT\CD, the economy would be much healthier - avoiding the need to uproot to search for work.

Edited by HPC001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....it is not the renting that is the problem, it is the high cost of rent and the short-term rental tenancy laws that give little security to a good tenant that would like to put down roots in their community of choice........when property fails to be an investment, and the rental laws become more customer friendly and fit for purpose......more I am sure would rather rent than buy. ;)

Presently renting is part of the problem. Without some fundamental changes to our tenure system it will remain a problem even if the price of property falls.

The price of property falling will not help tenants much if the economy is on its back at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely that's the point of renting? To have flexibility? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be locked into a long agreement.

That said, with a reformed monetary system and LVT\CD, the economy would be much healthier - avoiding the need to uproot to search for work.

No, not being locked into a long agreement......but if you pay your rent on time (rents protected), care for the home, settled into a job, kids into local school you can't be turfed out on six months notice on a landlords whim....the tenant should decide when they want to leave not a landlord........ ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not being locked into a long agreement......but if you pay your rent on time (rents protected), care for the home, settled into a job, kids into local school you can't be turfed out on six months notice on a landlords whim....the tenant should decide when they want to leave not a landlord........ ;)

In that case, negotiate a longer agreement? I do agree that the 12 month limit on ASTs should be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, negotiate a longer agreement? I do agree that the 12 month limit on ASTs should be removed.

No....that takes away the flexibility that renters want.....the tenant has to give six months notice...three year rent reviews (protected by fair rent via the rent tribunal) just in case they try it on and raise it so as to push you out. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....that takes away the flexibility that renters want.....the tenant has to give six months notice...three year rent reviews (protected by fair rent via the rent tribunal) just in case they try it on and raise it so as to push you out. ;)

I was wondering how would a revised rental agreement work? Would for instance a tenant have to rent the house for say 6 or 12 months before they can be taken on for a long term contract? Certain ppl would look for long term tenancies, but there are also some who like short term tenancies, and the current arrangement suits them...perhaps bring in staged tenancy agreements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering how would a revised rental agreement work? Would for instance a tenant have to rent the house for say 6 or 12 months before they can be taken on for a long term contract? Certain ppl would look for long term tenancies, but there are also some who like short term tenancies, and the current arrangement suits them...perhaps bring in staged tenancy agreements?

Sure bit like you rent a commercial property....buy a lease that suits with option to renew maybe. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....that takes away the flexibility that renters want.....the tenant has to give six months notice...

Well that could work, but im not really a fan of government intervention in private contracts between others. The whole point of me suggesting the land tax\citizens dividend reform is that it shifts the balance of power back towards to the renter\client as opposed to the landlord.

three year rent reviews (protected by fair rent via the rent tribunal) just in case they try it on and raise it so as to push you out. ;)

Increased usage of land due to the reform I suggest above would make this unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.