Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
liquid

The Consequences Of Decent Housing

Recommended Posts

It’s fantastical to imagine, but what would be the consequences of ‘decent’ and affordable housing for all? I guess defining decent is open to debate, but I’m more interested in the consequences for its people. Another way of looking at it is that this government once held the mantra ‘Education, Education, Education’. Should this now be ‘Housing, Housing, Housing’? If so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government are concerned that it would make people lazy and self-satisfied, leading to reduced productivity and lower economic growth.

Making people slave for the basics really sharpens the work ethic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the government are concerned that it would make people lazy and self-satisfied, leading to reduced productivity and lower economic growth.

Making people slave for the basics really sharpens the work ethic.

If you want to make the rich work harder, pay them more.

If you want to make the poor work harder, pay them less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic

Adding more housing will be the equivalent of building more roads to cope with congestion or printing more money to combat inflation. It will sustain the bubble and postpone a correction from happening. BTL'ers will just buy up more houses and create more debt. More FTB'ers will get fed up of waiting and finally go for the plunge and buy a house with a mortgage several times their salary.

What's needed is a house price crash and / or a tax on BTL's and empty holiday homes. Remember, if there really was a housing shortage then rent would go up as much as house prices. The problem lies in the distribution of the housing stock.

Karla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding more housing will be the equivalent of building more roads to cope with congestion

Indeed. As any sensible government would have been doing for years.

As for building more housing sustaining the bubble... I can only wonder which planet you're living on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be bad news for the banks and social control, just look at the growth in public sector employment and housing authority 'shared ownership', the government is both your employer and your landlord, better not upset them.

Remember that higher GDP per capita doesn't automatically equate to higher living standards, especially so if disposable incomes are increasingly used to service debt. Rising incomes and a free market should mean your average hard working joe could live here, but our land is too precious, it is not owned by the people, so instead we inflate the cost of the existing substandard housing stock.

Our model doesn't work, it will break eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the government are concerned that it would make people lazy and self-satisfied, leading to reduced productivity and lower economic growth.

You assume that debt based consumption can really be called "economic growth", this country originally grew rich through savings, capital investment, production and exports.

Housing should be a non-issue, a given, then people should worry about more important things such as working to cure cancer or developing new technologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the government are concerned that it would make people lazy and self-satisfied, leading to reduced productivity and lower economic growth.

Making people slave for the basics really sharpens the work ethic.

Yes, you’re right, but why should we, and I mean the folks here, be concerned with what the government think? Why do we care for their thinking that productivity is reduced and that it leads to lower economic growth? What if the people realized they needn’t be a slave to the mortgage ethic?

Further to BB's point, why not upset the government but with just cause?

Just a fantasy you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Housing should be a non-issue, a given, then people should worry about more important things such as working to cure cancer or developing new technologies.

Indeed. Just imagine what we could have done with all the money and effort put into BTL over the last decade if it had gone into something productive instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you’re right, but why should we, and I mean the folks here, be concerned with what the government think? Why do we care for their thinking that productivity is reduced and that it leads to lower economic growth? What if the people realized they needn’t be a slave to the mortgage ethic?

Further to BB's point, why not upset the government but with just cause?

Just a fantasy you understand.

I agree, who is brave enough to risk life and liberty for this though? The system here is perfectly balanced to make sure that you have just enough to make it not worth losing (in most people's eyes).

Drink and drugs is the only release (and has served oppressed generations to this end in the UK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Housing should be a non-issue, a given, then people should worry about more important things such as working to cure cancer or developing new technologies.

100% correct,

If people think HPI is ok, they must also think that Water Price Inflation, Food Price Inflation and Air Price Inflation would be

a good idea in the future. :blink::blink::blink: (The wonderful public will crow "Let them all die because I'm OK"). Homeless people are treated no different today.

(I actually work in a Cancer Research Centre, so kind of understand what matters in life - HPI is a load of bullsh*t created be idiots IMO) :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's needed is a house price crash and / or a tax on BTL's and empty holiday homes. Remember, if there really was a housing shortage then rent would go up as much as house prices. The problem lies in the distribution of the housing stock.

Tax on BTLs would be a disaster; as it's a change across the entire market, it could and would be passed on directly to the renters. Tax on empty holiday homes is definitely a good idea, though (hell, just don't give any council tax reduction for empty houses).

IMHO, the best solution would be to have more council properties available. Not to buy, but to rent. It should help slowly start decreasing market rents, making BTL less profitable, making it easier for people to buy their own place because they're not trying to compete with BTLers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tax on BTLs would be a disaster; as it's a change across the entire market, it could and would be passed on directly to the renters. Tax on empty holiday homes is definitely a good idea, though (hell, just don't give any council tax reduction for empty houses).

IMHO, the best solution would be to have more council properties available. Not to buy, but to rent. It should help slowly start decreasing market rents, making BTL less profitable, making it easier for people to buy their own place because they're not trying to compete with BTLers...

BTL should have been banned in my opinion. Like I said before, if in the future, Food or Water was in short supply, would people put up with some wealthy or greedy people buying up all the stock and then selling it back to the poor at inflated prices. :rolleyes:

It really makes me sick how everyone thinks that housing is any different. If you have no house, you are sleeping on the street, in the rain.

Death comes the same as if you have no water or food, just takes a few months longer.

BLT and HPI are fu*king pathetic in a civilised society, but still it continues. :blink::blink::blink::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s fantastical to imagine, but what would be the consequences of ‘decent’ and affordable housing for all? I guess defining decent is open to debate, but I’m more interested in the consequences for its people. Another way of looking at it is that this government once held the mantra ‘Education, Education, Education’. Should this now be ‘Housing, Housing, Housing’? If so, why?

Well according to maslow hierarchy of needs theory if eveyone had affordable housing, it would inspire them to work harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s fantastical to imagine, but what would be the consequences of ‘decent’ and affordable housing for all? I guess defining decent is open to debate, but I’m more interested in the consequences for its people. Another way of looking at it is that this government once held the mantra ‘Education, Education, Education’. Should this now be ‘Housing, Housing, Housing’? If so, why?

The main thing that strikes me is it would free up money for investment. Not investment in rotting piles of bricks and mortar but investment in businesses that create jobs and buy plant and machinery and link out to other businesses locally as part of their supply chain. I might have this wrong but I remember seeing the take-up of the stocks & shares ISA component was about 4%! I'm not saying everyone should be a wildly speculating cowboy trader but the tieing up of ever increasing amounts of capital in houses is not the way forward for an economy in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the UK was to increase the housing stock by 50%, then immigration would increase by the same.

Has anyone not realised that immigration is the culprit here, it lowers wages and pushes up inflation in public services, and income tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
If the UK was to increase the housing stock by 50%, then immigration would increase by the same.

Has anyone not realised that immigration is the culprit here, it lowers wages and pushes up inflation in public services, and income tax.

The problem you also have, however, is that you do need a certain amount of immigration to cover the reduced workforce.

I'm in favour of limited immigration policy especially given the vulnerability of lower skilled workers in the UK purely due to the exchange rate advantage of the pound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
The main thing that strikes me is it would free up money for investment. Not investment in rotting piles of bricks and mortar but investment in businesses that create jobs and buy plant and machinery and link out to other businesses locally as part of their supply chain. I might have this wrong but I remember seeing the take-up of the stocks & shares ISA component was about 4%! I'm not saying everyone should be a wildly speculating cowboy trader but the tieing up of ever increasing amounts of capital in houses is not the way forward for an economy in my view.

Quite. A good chunk of disposable income allows a lot more consumers and business creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite. A good chunk of disposable income allows a lot more consumers and business creation.

If you are an average earner in the UK in 2007, you should be able to have a house and a life, not either or. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this country home ownership is now the preserve of the few. We have a displaced generation that can expect little more than a lifetime of hard graft, debt repayment, and certainly no roof of their own over their heads.

This is the true cost of immigration, so quite how any right minded person can promote Immigration as something positive escapes me. Asking business if they approve of immigration, then excercising that policy is not unlike asking a Lion if he would like to share a cage with the deer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
If you are an average earner in the UK in 2007, you should be able to have a house and a life, not either or. :)

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTL should have been banned in my opinion. Like I said before, if in the future, Food or Water was in short supply, would people put up with some wealthy or greedy people buying up all the stock and then selling it back to the poor at inflated prices. :rolleyes:

It really makes me sick how everyone thinks that housing is any different. If you have no house, you are sleeping on the street, in the rain.

Death comes the same as if you have no water or food, just takes a few months longer.

BLT and HPI are fu*king pathetic in a civilised society, but still it continues. :blink::blink::blink::blink:

BTL is diabolical in it's current form. Renting out a place should be like any other investment; you put money in, you get a percentage back on that money. The idea that you put virtually nothing in, and 25 years later you have a house from someone else's hard work is ridiculous.

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.

  • 356 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

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


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



×
×
  • 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.