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

If The Government Really Wanted New Houses Built

Recommended Posts

which it says it does, but I don't believe it for one moment actually

then it could easily make it happen

let's here your suggestions how

for instance

zero capital gains tax on land sold upon which new houses are built and occupied for the term of this parliament

reduced or eliminated corporation tax for profits arising from building and selling new homes for the term of this parliament

reduced or eliminated employers NI for employees involved in building and selling new homes for the term of this parliament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would more subsidies for landowning encourage more building or cheaper housing? I'd suggest more or less opposite measures - e.g. one Parliamentary term before banked land is compulsory purchased at agricultural cost for 1) self or community build, 2) long leases rather than ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot Nimbys. Or make the rules the same as voting for a strike (as in % of eligible to comment, not % of those that actually do). Example - local planning event hosted by developer. Out of the 180 people that turned up to shout at them, 170 on an exit poll were against the development. Press therefore states that 95% of people are against the plans whereas in fact the other 3500 people in the village couldn't be bothered to turn up. Realistically, we only know for a fact that less than 5% are in opposition. The rest don't care.

There are loads of brown field sites round here that haven't got a hope in hell of getting past the planning stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot Nimbys. Or make the rules the same as voting for a strike (as in % of eligible to comment, not % of those that actually do). Example - local planning event hosted by developer. Out of the 180 people that turned up to shout at them, 170 on an exit poll were against the development. Press therefore states that 95% of people are against the plans whereas in fact the other 3500 people in the village couldn't be bothered to turn up. Realistically, we only know for a fact that less than 5% are in opposition. The rest don't care.

There are loads of brown field sites round here that haven't got a hope in hell of getting past the planning stage.

Maybe there should be a huge council tax increase on nimby's who refuse new development. A home building refusal tax :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which it says it does, but I don't believe it for one moment actually

then it could easily make it happen

let's here your suggestions how

for instance

zero capital gains tax on land sold upon which new houses are built and occupied for the term of this parliament

reduced or eliminated corporation tax for profits arising from building and selling new homes for the term of this parliament

reduced or eliminated employers NI for employees involved in building and selling new homes for the term of this parliament

The private sector builds houses not government and they want restricted supply and high prices as they have always done. All the talk about loosening the planning system is to permit building on more desirable sites, not to increase the supply of housing; the arguments given are entirely specious and self serving.

In any case the idea that we have a general shortage of housing is bunk. See:http://www.capx.co/there-is-no-uk-housing-crisis-and-there-never-was-one/. There may be a shortage in a particular area but not generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all safely assume the government has no intention of a massibe house building program.

The y seem to want to keep housing a luxury and charge people thrpough the nose for it ( which lines their pockets tax-wise ).

Shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that council tax should be charged from 6 months after planning permission (outline or full) has been granted, whether building is complete and sold or otherwise.

Any income thus gained should be ring fenced for the first 3 years to be spent in and by the local community. That might just get some support for new development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The private sector builds houses not government and they want restricted supply and high prices as they have always done.

EXACTLY. The "more houses equals cheaper houses" argument supposes that house builders want cheaper houses too. They don't. They want prices to remain high and get even higher. If more houses really does equal cheaper houses, builders aren't going to build.

Edited by canbuywontbuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY. The "more houses equals cheaper houses" argument supposes that house builders want cheaper houses too. They don't. They want prices to remain high and get even higher. If more houses really does equal cheaper houses, builders aren't going to build.

that is indeed so

but government policy can change such things - sort of like the simple change to BTL interest relief has changed the face of BTL

a couple of laser targetted changes could - if the government wanted (which is why I say they don't want) - massively increase the rate of new house building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY. The "more houses equals cheaper houses" argument supposes that house builders want cheaper houses too. They don't. They want prices to remain high and get even higher. If more houses really does equal cheaper houses, builders aren't going to build.

Its not the quantity but type of houses that is the problem. Builders just want to build big houses when you need a range of housing options.

Take a village in Hertfordshire (commuter belt) There have been 3 development sites in the village in the last few years (one is a big project). The first site produced about five houses including one that was sold for over a million, none were suitable for FTB.

The second was crammed onto a former builders yard were their were about 6 house built again well out of FTB reach.

Finally we have a development on a large former allotment site by Croudace http://www.croudacehomes.co.uk/new-homes/hertfordshire/heritage-gardensstrangely they don't advertise what they are selling out, they have built a few 2 bed properties but again I suspect they will be well out of range of FTB. There is no shared ownership nor social housing option in the village.

The two local Councillors in the area (Father and Daughter, both Tories) didn't bat an eyelid at any of the developments, but have kicked up a major fuss about Bloors making a land grab east of Luton, well they would their house is on the edge of the development area! When a proposal was made to build a small estate of social housing as well as the normal 5 and 4 big houses the Councillors referred to the social housing development rather snobbishly as "council housing" and opposed it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax builders' land banks at punitive rates esp. those with planning permissions already granted, so they are forced to build or divest to someone else who will.

Take all planning gain for the public purse. Builders should be solely remunerated on difference between costs of building and selling...not land speculation. That would encourage them to build more rather than less in order to generate decent profits.

Lets tax ourselves to prosperity! Taxes get paid by people at the end of the day. Gaining planning permission can take ages, and then suddenly several permissions may come at once. Most building companies want to build, but they also need a constant supply of land, so they can keep moving from site to site. Forcing a land merry go round is not the answer. It takes time to ramp up building. If planning permission was easier to come by there would be less need to establish any land banks. The solution is to approve planning for more than we need and let the market decide.

Edited by BalancedBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that council tax should be charged from 6 months after planning permission (outline or full) has been granted, whether building is complete and sold or otherwise.

Any income thus gained should be ring fenced for the first 3 years to be spent in and by the local community. That might just get some support for new development.

That could result in less planning permission rather than more. It can take a year or more just to get reserved matters approved after outline planning permission is granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The private sector builds houses not government and they want restricted supply and high prices as they have always done. All the talk about loosening the planning system is to permit building on more desirable sites, not to increase the supply of housing; the arguments given are entirely specious and self serving.

In any case the idea that we have a general shortage of housing is bunk. See:http://www.capx.co/there-is-no-uk-housing-crisis-and-there-never-was-one/. There may be a shortage in a particular area but not generally.

The link talks about the census being out. Well that is not a surprise as many people don't complete the census! Also, it does not matter if there is spare housing where there is less demand. If there is a shortage where people need to be, there is still a shortage. Somebody working in Birmingham will not care if there are plenty of cheap houses in Scunthorpe. They are not realistically going to move to Scunthorpe to get a cheap house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which it says it does, but I don't believe it for one moment actually

then it could easily make it happen

let's here your suggestions how

for instance

zero capital gains tax on land sold upon which new houses are built and occupied for the term of this parliament

reduced or eliminated corporation tax for profits arising from building and selling new homes for the term of this parliament

reduced or eliminated employers NI for employees involved in building and selling new homes for the term of this parliament

This is all very simple - teach your kids two rules

1. Follow the money - who is getting wealthy

2. Follow the power - who has it, even though they look like they don't

The government gives people just enough to stop the prols rioting. This site is dedicated to complaining but few here would ever march on parliament. A nice docile compliant society - unlike the third world or parts of asia where years of trading nation bartering and "get up and go" has to bred out. Everyone needs to follow one propaganda based dream to be happy and "safe" and have "a good life". Who doesn't believe there is one rule for the rich and one for the poor - justice is quite obviously bullshite..although dictatorships are probably a lot worse so not worth complaining too much.

The elites govern the masses through bread and circuses. We all know this on the forum but few remember it. Nothing will change unless the elites want it to. IF they are threatened they will launch all out attacks against their own population if needed - against as they would put it - "Terrorists". Mortgages and debt and simply another form of control like guards, swords and whips. To be truly free you need to create a productive asset that allows you to do what you like with your time, not buy a house (unless you can have enough equity to use it as a productive asset).

Live your life happy in the knowledge that you will get in debt and back to zero and then die, leaving behind children to do the same. Death and Taxes, as they say. Unless you climb the social curve through innovation or trading that is all that will ever happen to the middle and lower classes.

Now, let's chat about house prices and unfairness some more.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be truly free you need to create a productive asset that allows you to do what you like with your time, not buy a house (unless you can have enough equity to use it as a productive asset).

I agree. I always say - freedom first. A productive asset can be a skillset you can take anywhere and.....cold hard cash saved up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan seems to be throw the kitchen sink at the demand side (relax pensions access, HTB,housing benefit, tinker with inheritance tax, push mortgage finance costs down, immigration increase) and restrict supply side (restrict planning, building, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find a way of encouraging people to move to places like Accrington where there are loads of empty buildings, some of which are already houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the rate of interest the government can borrow at and the ability to compulsorily purchase farm land etc., you'd think it would be a nailed on profit. We could even securitise the whole UK and sell it to the foreigners.

I prefer this activity to be done by mutuals though and just allow the BoE to lend these mutuals cheap money....'Help to Build', 'Building Homes for Hard Working Families' etc.

Sure, that too for private sector if necc. but govt quite rightly can build for rent in the public sector without private sector contraints for long-term govt. ownership. Govt ought to be the builder of last resort smoothing supply, just like it is consumer of last resort & BoE is lender of last resort. Instead it has to force itself through these ludicrous demand side hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let first time buyers buy plots for farmland prices and build their own houses on it. Let foreign contractors build houses here without issues.

that'll cut out lanbankers, local nimbys, council fatcats, lazy contractors, MCS "certified" installers, mortgage lenders and a whole load of other parasites living it large.

question. if I can buy a TV, car, computer from any international company for the same price as everyone else on planet earth... why can't i do the same for a house? Its not as if UK farmland is 20x more productive than other places in Europe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find a way of encouraging people to move to places like Accrington where there are loads of empty buildings, some of which are already houses.

I would suggest if some one living in London can't find work due to child care problems then London's loss should be Accrington's gain (or the other way around). I would be quite happy to pay Accrington's council london rent to take them off our hands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   58 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.