Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Si1

Putting aside low interest rates, is more or less govt money being pumped into home ownership than 10 years ago, say?

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Si1 said:

As per title.

Is £htb > £(smi + S24).   ?

A very good question. Just how many hundreds of billions have been thrown at the banks and homebuilders in the last ten years? Clearly, the locus of govt intervention appears now to have shifted away from Buy to Let towards Build to Rent but a database of post-2008 subsidy schemes would be very handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Govt money being pumped into Build to Rent is still a method of, at the very least, keeping current price levels propped up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do the current ruling politicians want to see everyone younger that 45 priced out of the property market???

 

It seems like the policy of total retards, as the way things are looking, the Conservitive party is going to "cease to exist" within 10 years, at this rate.

 

Fooking madness, but the laughable thing is, this is what we are witnessing.......lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

Why do the current ruling politicians want to see everyone younger that 45 priced out of the property market???

 

It seems like the policy of total retards, as the way things are looking, the Conservitive party is going to "cease to exist" within 10 years, at this rate.

 

Fooking madness, but the laughable thing is, this is what we are witnessing.......lol.

Everyone under 45 isn't priced out most of the country. A large proportion of skilled workers under 45 choose to work in the least affordable places to live. Understandably so, since salaries are noticeably higher. But to an extent not being able to afford a house or having crippling rent levels is a choice. I worked with a Spanish chap in London who complained he couldn't afford to rent a place with his own kitchen. He couldn't see the irony that by moving to London himself he had in a small way compounded the problem. 

Back on topic, I don't think you can separate low IR from the government props. HTB would be entirely pointless if interest rates were at say 5% since the monthly payments would be so much higher (and/or prices would fall). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎23‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 09:48, nome said:

Govt money being pumped into Build to Rent is still a method of, at the very least, keeping current price levels propped up

Really?  I don't think so.  Build to Rent by the institutions like L&G etc increases supply and everything else being equal will put downward pressure on rents and prices.  In contrast to the usual approach of pushing demand side stimuli that does nothing for supply and is simply more fuel to the fire...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

A large proportion of skilled workers under 45 choose to work in the least affordable places to live. Understandably so, since salaries are noticeably higher.

The law of rent makes this basically inevitable. Rents reflect local wages, so average standards of living will be the roughly the same wherever you go. 

For many people it simply doesn’t matter whether they live in a high wage high rent area or a low wage low rent area. 

There’s really no choice to the degree with which they are priced out. It’s not always true for everyone, but if it wasn’t generally true then people would move, and rents/prices wouldn’t show the degree of variation that they do. 

Edited by BorrowToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BorrowToLeech said:

The law of rent makes this basically inevitable. Rents reflect local wages, so average standards of living will be the roughly the same wherever you go. 

For many people it simply doesn’t matter whether they live in a high wage high rent area or a low wage low rent area. 

There’s really no choice to the degree with which they are priced out. It’s not always true for everyone, but if it wasn’t generally true then people would move, and rents/prices wouldn’t show the degree of variation that they do. 

I am not 100% sure that this is true in the UK.  Surely rents in London are pushed up by housing benefit?  If the Government said "People who work less than 35 hours a week, will only get HB in London for a year, then they have to move somewhere cheaper", rents in London would crash but wages probably would not (maybe some supermarkets would reduce staff for a bit).*

 

Also some places e.g Brighton have higher rents than some London suburbs but I doubt wages are higher.

 

*Lets not discuss whether this would be morally right or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2018 at 08:29, Si1 said:

As per title.

Is £htb > £(smi + S24).   ?

You need to include housing benefit as well.

 

Is £htb + housing benefit > £(smi + S24).   ?

BTW I am not saying that it is a bad thing, I would hate to see people homeless because they can't pay the rent.  Saying that I don't think people who don't work should be given housing that they would not be able to afford if they were working (surprisingly a very controversial view).

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

Everyone under 45 isn't priced out most of the country. A large proportion of skilled workers under 45 choose to work in the least affordable places to live. Understandably so, since salaries are noticeably higher. But to an extent not being able to afford a house or having crippling rent levels is a choice. I worked with a Spanish chap in London who complained he couldn't afford to rent a place with his own kitchen. He couldn't see the irony that by moving to London himself he had in a small way compounded the problem. 

Back on topic, I don't think you can separate low IR from the government props. HTB would be entirely pointless if interest rates were at say 5% since the monthly payments would be so much higher (and/or prices would fall). 

Forget who the person is or where they come from.....the state of the housing situation in certain areas is nothing to be proud of.....having over crowded HMOs to help keep rents up and wages down is nothing to be proud of....somebody is making from it big time.;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I am not 100% sure that this is true in the UK.  Surely rents in London are pushed up by housing benefit?  If the Government said "People who work less than 35 hours a week, will only get HB in London for a year, then they have to move somewhere cheaper", rents in London would crash but wages probably would not (maybe some supermarkets would reduce staff for a bit).*

 

Also some places e.g Brighton have higher rents than some London suburbs but I doubt wages are higher.

 

*Lets not discuss whether this would be morally right or not.

When I say wages I definitely include benefits.

You should also include local amenities as a sort of non-cash wage and their absence as a cost.

I’m deliberately simplifying a lot, but don’t think these caveats invalidate my argument though. 

For many (but by no means all) people it makes very little difference whether they live in high wage/high rent or low wage/ low rent areas.

For other people this calculus means they are better off living in a high rent area.

In neither case can you really choose the degree to which you are priced out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/07/2018 at 00:37, Social Justice League said:

Why do the current ruling politicians want to see everyone younger that 45 priced out of the property market???

 

It seems like the policy of total retards, as the way things are looking, the Conservitive party is going to "cease to exist" within 10 years, at this rate.

 

Fooking madness, but the laughable thing is, this is what we are witnessing.......lol.

It's even worse really. Those who are priced out are those who will be forced to underwrite the unpayable debt. I think there must be  a deliberate attempt to bring back slavery in all but name....... I mean imagine if everyone could eventually pay off a home of their own...... far better to keep them working 'til they drop. Root cause -- fractional reserve banking and land 'ownership'

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

You need to include housing benefit as well.

 

Is £htb + housing benefit > £(smi + S24).   ?

 

ahh, indeed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BorrowToLeech said:

When I say wages I definitely include benefits.

You should also include local amenities as a sort of non-cash wage and their absence as a cost.

I’m deliberately simplifying a lot, but don’t think these caveats invalidate my argument though. 

For many (but by no means all) people it makes very little difference whether they live in high wage/high rent or low wage/ low rent areas.

For other people this calculus means they are better off living in a high rent area.

In neither case can you really choose the degree to which you are priced out.

Fair enough,  personally I think a lot of people over value some local amenities as a non cash wage when they rent and even more so if they buy. (For example is Brighton really worth 2 hours extra on the train every working day of your life compared to a london suburb?  However that is an aside to the main topic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

I worked with a Spanish chap in London who complained he couldn't afford to rent a place with his own kitchen. He couldn't see the irony that by moving to London himself he had in a small way compounded the problem. 

 

Why did he live in London?  I thought that the Euro was going to make Euroland rich.

Was he a big fan of Surrey Cricket club or Harlequins Rugby (you can't see either top cricket or Rugby in Spain, so I guess that is what he came here.)

 

22 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

 

Back on topic, I don't think you can separate low IR from the government props. HTB would be entirely pointless if interest rates were at say 5% since the monthly payments would be so much higher (and/or prices would fall). 

True.  Sadly lower IR does not make housing cheaper for FTB as it makes prices higher and makes saving for a deposit so much harder.  I heard someone once say "I bought my house when IR was 15%", I wish I had said to them "You were so so lucky".

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wayward said:

Really?  I don't think so.  Build to Rent by the institutions like L&G etc increases supply and everything else being equal will put downward pressure on rents and prices.  In contrast to the usual approach of pushing demand side stimuli that does nothing for supply and is simply more fuel to the fire...

Everything else isn't equal. Build to Rent increases supply but maintains upward pressure on sq ft. rents and prices by reducing floorspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

Everyone under 45 isn't priced out most of the country. A large proportion of skilled workers under 45 choose to work in the least affordable places to live. Understandably so, since salaries are noticeably higher. But to an extent not being able to afford a house or having crippling rent levels is a choice. I worked with a Spanish chap in London who complained he couldn't afford to rent a place with his own kitchen. He couldn't see the irony that by moving to London himself he had in a small way compounded the problem. 

Back on topic, I don't think you can separate low IR from the government props. HTB would be entirely pointless if interest rates were at say 5% since the monthly payments would be so much higher (and/or prices would fall). 

Private sector debt/GDP is ~175% of GDP, same as it was in late 2008 i.e.the UK economy is stuck in an enormous hole going nowhere, same as it was in late 2008. Hence the continued necessity for emergency interest rates of 0.5%.

Share this post


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

Private sector debt/GDP is ~175% of GDP, same as it was in late 2008 i.e.the UK economy is stuck in an enormous hole going nowhere, same as it was in late 2008. Hence the continued necessity for emergency interest rates of 0.5%.

And no sign of a plan of how to climb out the hole, even slowly.

In early 2008 I had to remortgage, I thought that Labour had destroyed the economy so much that rates would drop and got a lifetime tracker.

It may sound like I am a winner from low interest rates but I calculated that Labour's HPI compared to 97 prices and interest rates plus inflation will cost me £105k over my life - if rates never rise - compared to what I should have paid for my house.  (That is ignoring the cost in taxes etc)

I realize others have it far far worse than me so not complaining.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

And no sign of a plan of how to climb out the hole, even slowly.

In early 2008 I had to remortgage, I thought that Labour had destroyed the economy so much that rates would drop and got a lifetime tracker.

It may sound like I am a winner from low interest rates but I calculated that Labour's HPI compared to 97 prices and interest rates plus inflation will cost me £105k over my life - if rates never rise - compared to what I should have paid for my house.  (That is ignoring the cost in taxes etc)

I realize others have it far far worse than me so not complaining.

There are millions far far worse than you, so yes you should not be complaining.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The growing problem we have is because money has been diluted so.....nobody will do anything without an incentive, a bonus or lots of help......sit back and enjoy the ride.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, winkie said:

There are millions far far worse than you, so yes you should not be complaining.;)

Ironically you probably are not one of them, saying that losing £105K over 25 years due to Government policy is a significant sum for me so I can complain a bit.  It is depressing to think that it could be worse.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Ironically you probably are not one of them, saying that losing £105K over 25 years due to Government policy is a significant sum for me so I can complain a bit.  It is depressing to think that it could be worse.

Depends what yo think £105k will eventually buy you in 25 years time.....your health and welfare might be worth many times more than that....;)

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.

  • 336 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.