Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Light blue touch paper and walk away quickly - I know, but....

Setting rents at a reasonable proportion of local income levels would release 'disposable income'. This will stimulate spending (surely not a bad thing). Landlords who refuse to go along with it will sell, increasing available housing supply which should bring down prices so properties become more affordable. Yes, I know we have been there before and it would take a government with b*lls. Be interested to hear views given the current news on unaffordabilty of rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light blue touch paper and walk away quickly - I know, but....

Setting rents at a reasonable proportion of local income levels would release 'disposable income'. This will stimulate spending (surely not a bad thing). Landlords who refuse to go along with it will sell, increasing available housing supply which should bring down prices so properties become more affordable. Yes, I know we have been there before and it would take a government with b*lls. Be interested to hear views given the current news on unaffordabilty of rents.

I've lived in countries with rent controls, it generally results in a lack of property to rent just like controlling the price of bread results in a shortage of bread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light blue touch paper and walk away quickly - I know, but....

Setting rents at a reasonable proportion of local income levels would release 'disposable income'. This will stimulate spending (surely not a bad thing). Landlords who refuse to go along with it will sell, increasing available housing supply which should bring down prices so properties become more affordable. Yes, I know we have been there before and it would take a government with b*lls. Be interested to hear views given the current news on unaffordabilty of rents.

yep, price fixing, always works a treat, just look at the last 30 years, its had superb results in various parts of the economy, most notably housing, i know most on here just want to buy a house without crippling themselves but really if the solutions are meted as more govt interference deciding on winners and losers in the economy then this site really is a failure. You might as well ramp Govt spending as a percentage of GDP up to 300% and be done with it, at least it will be a larf watching

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree.

I'm paying £490 a month for my 2 bedroomed flat in a private development. It is owned by a Housing Association and although it is a bit cheaper than other 2 bed flats (and even a few 1 bed flats!) advertised by Letting Agents, I still feel that it is a lot of money to shell out. £350-400 a month seems more reasonable for this place. Smaller places out to be on for £225-325 a month...

Maybe priced just a bit above what similar sized council properties cost to rent.

Not sure that MPs will be for Rent Control as some of them have rentals and it would affect the profitability of their very own rental incomes.:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light blue touch paper and walk away quickly - I know, but....

Setting rents at a reasonable proportion of local income levels would release 'disposable income'. This will stimulate spending (surely not a bad thing). Landlords who refuse to go along with it will sell, increasing available housing supply which should bring down prices so properties become more affordable. Yes, I know we have been there before and it would take a government with b*lls. Be interested to hear views given the current news on unaffordabilty of rents.

I thought rents were effectively already controlled to a degree by housing benefit regulations ?

oooh. And one other thing. You would be transfering money from landlords (middle class savers=good) to feckless poor people who would spend it all (=bad). Reconcile that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, price fixing, always works a treat, just look at the last 30 years, its had superb results in various parts of the economy, most notably housing, i know most on here just want to buy a house without crippling themselves but really if the solutions are meted as more govt interference deciding on winners and losers in the economy then this site really is a failure. You might as well ramp Govt spending as a percentage of GDP up to 300% and be done with it, at least it will be a larf watching

A totally free market in housing might work a dream, but given that the government have absolutely no intention of allowing a free market in housing to exist, a dream is all it is, and perhaps a totally fixed market would be better than what we have now.

At least then there could be some kind of debate about what our housing stock is actually for in this country (to house people?)

The spivs have had a good run of it for the last 15 years, perhaps it's time for the pendulum to swing in favour of those who work hard and save hard for a bit? Perhaps that's the best those that just want to buy a house to live in can hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lived in countries with rent controls, it generally results in a lack of property to rent just like controlling the price of bread results in a shortage of bread.

Like in Germany, where 56% (2006 figures) of households live in the private rented sector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem in housing is like most things, too much government (mainly planning regs but not just) not too little.

Price controls sound good to the economically illiterate, but they always backfire and make things worse. Massive amounts of history to back that up in everything from direct prices controls in tudor times, food price controls in soviet union and 70's Carter America.....and not least Central bank price controls (interest rates) in the modern world creating booms and busts like the utter crises we are in now.

Very very bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light blue touch paper and walk away quickly - I know, but....

Setting rents at a reasonable proportion of local income levels would release 'disposable income'. This will stimulate spending (surely not a bad thing). Landlords who refuse to go along with it will sell, increasing available housing supply which should bring down prices so properties become more affordable. Yes, I know we have been there before and it would take a government with b*lls. Be interested to hear views given the current news on unaffordabilty of rents.

it would and it should and it probably will.

HM cant afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree.

I'm paying £490 a month for my 2 bedroomed flat in a private development. It is owned by a Housing Association and although it is a bit cheaper than other 2 bed flats (and even a few 1 bed flats!) advertised by Letting Agents, I still feel that it is a lot of money to shell out. £350-400 a month seems more reasonable for this place. Smaller places out to be on for £225-325 a month...

Maybe priced just a bit above what similar sized council properties cost to rent.

Not sure that MPs will be for Rent Control as some of them have rentals and it would affect the profitability of their very own rental incomes.:unsure:

£490 a month seems quite cheap to me. Up here (Edinburgh) a 2 bedroom flat costs £700 to £900 a month.

People can achieve a lower cost for their flat over time by saving up, buying a place with a fixed iterest rate mortgage and let inflation work it's magic on the real cost of the interest over time. Is it really so hard to save up?

There's a couple down the road from us who have been here since 2006 or so (they're Polish) who worked mimimum wage jobs, saved like squirrels and have just bought their first flat. Another guy, also Polish (he's a mechanic and seems to have been here all of two minutes, certainly not as long as the first couple) is also just about to buy his own place. Meanwhile, the local people seem to have lost the art of saving up for something. It is of course possible that immigrants live on air rather than fine sustenance, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lived in countries with rent controls, it generally results in a lack of property to rent just like controlling the price of bread results in a shortage of bread.

Wow, that is some rubbish! France, Germany (and probably many others but I don't know) control rent. For France I know first hand because I have 2 BTL, and there is absolutely no issue whatsoever with supply, quite the opposite. Your bread analogy is pi** poor as well, bread is consumed unlike houses, so maybe that controlling the price of bread would lead to bread making being uneconomically viable and therefore reduce supply as the bread already made would have been eaten. Doesn't apply at all to housing does it? What will happen to the housing stock if rent was to become too low? The landlord won't let it because he can't get enough rent? No, what will happen is that house prices will have to stop rising more than rent inflation (once an unsustainably low yield is reached). The house is still there, if it is not rented it is bought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£490 a month seems quite cheap to me. Up here (Edinburgh) a 2 bedroom flat costs £700 to £900 a month.

People can achieve a lower cost for their flat over time by saving up, buying a place with a fixed iterest rate mortgage and let inflation work it's magic on the real cost of the interest over time. Is it really so hard to save up?

There's a couple down the road from us who have been here since 2006 or so (they're Polish) who worked mimimum wage jobs, saved like squirrels and have just bought their first flat. Another guy, also Polish (he's a mechanic and seems to have been here all of two minutes, certainly not as long as the first couple) is also just about to buy his own place. Meanwhile, the local people seem to have lost the art of saving up for something. It is of course possible that immigrants live on air rather than fine sustenance, but still.

its double digit wage inflation that is magic, wake me up when it arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not completely 100% for this idea but I think there is a wider case to be answered here. If you take the view that the gov's job is to foster an environment in which business can grow and prosper on the World stage, many would agree that housing the workforce at reasonable cost would be part of that infrustructure. So the question is how that is made/allowed to happen.

Now I would always look to a free market solution first, but to be honest I don't see one. De-regulating finance controls led to disaster. You could deregulate planning laws, but without regulation of BTL mortgages and property speculation in general, the new houses built will just end up with them being bought by investors and rented back to us.

So my point is that whichever way I look at it, there's got to be some form of gov regulation at some point in the chain.

What would those who champion absolute free market principals say to this? Is it a case of "I'm against all gov regulation!.... Apart from this bit and that bit cos that benefits me." In which case, are we any better than the banksters?

Edited by ska_mna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem in housing is like most things, too much government (mainly planning regs but not just) not too little.

Price controls sound good to the economically illiterate, but they always backfire and make things worse. Massive amounts of history to back that up in everything from direct prices controls in tudor times, food price controls in soviet union and 70's Carter America.....and not least Central bank price controls (interest rates) in the modern world creating booms and busts like the utter crises we are in now.

Very very bad idea.

Yup, it's a very bad idea.

It's funny... IIRC, they used rent controls in the Weimer Republic, while they were printing money too. It didn't seem to work there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not completely 100% for this idea but I think there is a wider case to be answered here. If you take the view that the gov's job is to foster an environment in which business can grow and prosper on the World stage, many would agree that housing the workforce at reasonable cost would be part of that infrustructure. So the question is how that is made/allowed to happen.

Very naive, IMO.

Now I would always look to a free market solution first, but to be honest I don't see one. De-regulating finance controls led to disaster. You could deregulate planning laws, but without regulation of BTL mortgages and property speculation in general, the new houses built will just end up with them being bought by investors and rented back to us.

Insuring an industry and them telling them to do as they like was always going to turn to disaster.

Removing planning laws, removes the monopoly on house building. Without the monopoly on house building, you can tell the BTL to bugger off and build your own place instead.

So my point is that whichever way I look at it, there's got to be some form of gov regulation at some point in the chain.

Nope.

What would those who champion absolute free market principals say to this? Is it a case of "I'm against all gov regulation!.... Apart from this bit and that bit cos that benefits me." In which case, are we any better than the banksters?

How could any 'champion' of 'absolute free market principals' make such a contradictory statement? It's not a free market if you can pick or choose how state violence can be used to get what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light blue touch paper and walk away quickly - I know, but....

Setting rents at a reasonable proportion of local income levels would release 'disposable income'. This will stimulate spending (surely not a bad thing).

It's a great idea.

My son reckons putting an expiry date on cash would have the same effect on spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its worth explaining why rents go up so much against cash.

The reason is that cash is loosing value. Exactly the same as when all other price controls where brought in, there was an expansion of the money supply that made the cash half the the transaction equation shrink in value compared to the other half of the transaction.

The reason it looks to you that 'all things' are getting more expensive is because wages, especially of the lesser skilled are the last thing to move up when the money supply expands.

You don't need price controls, you need sound sound money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can speak French you will have understood the article, if you can't speak French you will have been better off not quoting.

Either way I will explain for your benefit: the reason it is difficult to rent in France (and possibly in Germany) isn't because of rent control but because of tenant protection and so if your financial situation is not stable enough you won't get tenure as once in it is very difficult (and lengthy, several years, 3 years typically) to evict anyone for any reason. Rent control is an entirely different matter, the law is such that you cannot increase the rent of your tenant by more than x% / year (depends on regions and inflation and changes every year.

In my case in the region of 1-2% / year at the moment, although when I have a good tenant I don't increase rent. One of my tenants leaves in December so rent will go up then and I will find another tenant. In the UK, where there is no rent control, your landlord can charge you 30% more overnight and chuck you out the following day if you have been renting for 6 months +

So to put it simply, once the tenant is in rent can only go up by a few % each year (by law) and I cannot get rid of my tenant so long he pays his rent (by law). When my tenant leaves in December I could double my rent (no law against it) before a new tenant comes in, but then I wouldn't find a tenant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great idea.

My son reckons putting an expiry date on cash would have the same effect on spending.

You would just swap it for something which doesn't rot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insuring an industry and them telling them to do as they like was always going to turn to disaster.

How could any 'champion' of 'absolute free market principals' make such a contradictory statement? It's not a free market if you can pick or choose how state violence can be used to get what you want.

Respectfully, I think you're missing my point. Well actually, your last sentence is making the exact same point I am. It's the contradiction I was interested in.

Let me put it another way. Free market principals would say deregulating the financial industry was a good idea. And yet it ended in disaster. Now, I know that those same principals mean the failing institutions should be allowed to go bust, but the problem is that they're apparently "too big to fail" and would take our entire economy down the toilet with them. So couldn't it be said that they shouldn't have been allowed to get that big in the first place. In other words, deregulating was a bad idea. So realistically, you either have government stepping in at one end (keeping regulation) or stepping in at the other end (propping them up when they go pop).

So the question is, if I wanted to jump into free market ideology with both feet, how do I reconcile the banking regulation question with, say, something like introducing rent controls, or BTL regulation or whatever? If one, why not the other?

Not necessarily saying either way, just interested in the contradiction.

With apologies to the OP for potentially turning this thread into another free-market vs statism debate. But I guess the two go hand in hand.

Edited by ska_mna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it another way. Free market principals would say deregulating the financial industry was a good idea. And yet it ended in disaster.

If you accept the socialist statist left wing narrative trotted out by the BBC.

Now, I know that those same principals mean the failing institutions should be allowed to go bust,

So you do get it......

but the problem is that they're apparently "too big to fail" and would take our entire economy down the toilet with them.

If you accept the socialist statist left wing narrative trotted out by the BBC.

"We have to bail out everything and increase the size of the state ten fold, because the only answer to any question is increasing the size of the state" Yeah Right!

So couldn't it be said that they shouldn't have been allowed to get that big in the first place.

It was the barriers to entry, i.e. regulations, that allowed them to get that big in the first place. In genuinely free markets you don't get these huge monopolies.

. In other words, deregulating was a bad idea.

If you accept the socialist statist left wing narrative trotted out by the BBC.

So realistically, you either have government stepping in at one end (keeping regulation) or stepping in at the other end (propping them up when they go pop).

If you believe in statism, a kind of big government and big monopolies corporatist fascist state...... then I can see why you would think that. #

i do not.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 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.