Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saving For a Space Ship

Radical model fighting the housing crisis: property prices based on income

Recommended Posts

Radical model fighting the housing crisis: property prices based on incomehttps://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/16/radical-model-housing-crisis-property-prices-income-community-land-trusts

 

Quote

 

Community land trusts battle gentrification by linking house prices to local wages rather than the market rate. But can this growing movement for ‘permanently affordable’ homes really ease Britain’s housing crisis?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we have the key problem with what passes for the left.  

Identify a problem and then try to fix it by some elaborate scheme, usually funded by the taxpayer.

No attempt to analyse the problem, understand and deal with the real causes, or see anything as part of a coherent bigget picture. 

See also: wage caps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BuyToLeech said:

And here we have the key problem with what passes for the left.  

Identify a problem and then try to fix it by some elaborate scheme, usually funded by the taxpayer.

No attempt to analyse the problem, understand and deal with the real causes, or see anything as part of a coherent bigget picture. 

See also: wage caps. 

Indeed

 

Fact is that the market failed due to over-intervention, so more of the same won't help

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Err. Can't they just bring back regulation of mortgage lending to, say, 2.5 times a single income plus 1x the second income....You know, like the good old days.

Why do we need fancy new socialist sounding structures like "Community Land Trusts".

Where is the jobs for the boys in that? Don't you know the robots are coming? ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hotairmail said:

Err. Can't they just bring back regulation of mortgage lending to, say, 2.5 times a single income plus 1x the second income....You know, like the good old days.

Why do we need fancy new socialist sounding structures like "Community Land Trusts".

Perhaps it's to attract / contain / placate politically active vocal people. Give 'em a bit o' CLT in hot spots and see if you can catch 'em away from the outside world & real problems where they would otherwise be p***ing off NIMBY HPI & Banksters. Potshot guess there.

Edited by Arpeggio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we'll hear of more radical ideas over the coming years, like houses being used as homes, employers paying proper wages not subsidised by the state so that people can feel like they are worth something, and ....overleveraged landlords being strung up by the b*llocks in the fiscal sense by the abolishment of housing benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Si1 said:

Fact is that the market failed due to over-intervention, so more of the same won't help

 

The problem is the principles on which the market is based. If you allow a completely free market with the starting point of our current system of land ownership, money will simply get funnelled upwards even faster than at present, tending towards an endgame in which everyone is the effective indentured serf of some bloated, rentierist Jabba the Hut character.

 

Market forces *ought* to be able to achieve a dynamic equilibrium, but in order to do that we would need to recognise as such the most common of common resources, the very physical space in which we all exist. That doesn't mean that exclusive title to residential land needs necessarily to be abolished or anything, just that it is required that society is appropriately compensated for *the true cost* through some perpetual charge for the ongoing use of that common resource. Once that is in place, sure, a free market ought to ensure a stable and efficient way of managing the use of housing. But without that, it's simply some greater or lesser degree of feudalism under another name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlokeInDurham said:

 

The problem is the principles on which the market is based. If you allow a completely free market with the starting point of our current system of land ownership, money will simply get funnelled upwards even faster than at present, tending towards an endgame in which everyone is the effective indentured serf of some bloated, rentierist Jabba the Hut character.

 

Market forces *ought* to be able to achieve a dynamic equilibrium, but in order to do that we would need to recognise as such the most common of common resources, the very physical space in which we all exist. That doesn't mean that exclusive title to residential land needs necessarily to be abolished or anything, just that it is required that society is appropriately compensated for *the true cost* through some perpetual charge for the ongoing use of that common resource. Once that is in place, sure, a free market ought to ensure a stable and efficient way of managing the use of housing. But without that, it's simply some greater or lesser degree of feudalism under another name.

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlokeInDurham said:

 

The problem is the principles on which the market is based. If you allow a completely free market with the starting point of our current system of land ownership, money will simply get funnelled upwards even faster than at present, tending towards an endgame in which everyone is the effective indentured serf of some bloated, rentierist Jabba the Hut character.

 

Market forces *ought* to be able to achieve a dynamic equilibrium, but in order to do that we would need to recognise as such the most common of common resources, the very physical space in which we all exist. That doesn't mean that exclusive title to residential land needs necessarily to be abolished or anything, just that it is required that society is appropriately compensated for *the true cost* through some perpetual charge for the ongoing use of that common resource. Once that is in place, sure, a free market ought to ensure a stable and efficient way of managing the use of housing. But without that, it's simply some greater or lesser degree of feudalism under another name.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/4080/4473/original.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BlokeInDurham said:

 

The problem is the principles on which the market is based.

What principles are those ?  State funding by tax payers so the rich stay rich ?  Full on propaganda by state broadcasters ?  Unlimited immigratiobn policy to fill rooms making the UK a living hell hole ?

 

FREE MARKET, MY A**E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Frugal Git said:

Perhaps we'll hear of more radical ideas over the coming years, like houses being used as homes, employers paying proper wages not subsidised by the state so that people can feel like they are worth something, and ....overleveraged landlords being strung up by the b*llocks in the literal  fiscal sense by the abolishment of housing benefit.

Fixed for you.

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

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.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    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.