Goodbye Generation Rent, Hello Generation Buy
Discussion
CMD will tell Conference and the nation in his closing speech later today that he's going to turn Generation Rent into Generation Buy. Something to do with relaxing the rules so developers will no longer be required to build affordable homes for rent, instead they will be able to build low-cost homes for sale at a discount of 20% below market rates.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-07/david-camerons-...
Generation Rent, Generation Buy. Nobody needs to mention her name
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-07/david-camerons-...
Generation Rent, Generation Buy. Nobody needs to mention her name
Call me cynical but I suspect it will end up as a give away to big developers building large developments of shoebox houses. I think it would be much better (and much more conservative if that counts for anything with CMD) to reform planning laws and make it much easier to build your own home where and how you want it.
turbobloke said:
CMD will tell Conference and the nation in his closing speech later today that he's going to turn Generation Rent into Generation Buy. Something to do with relaxing the rules so developers will no longer be required to build affordable homes for rent, instead they will be able to build low-cost homes for sale at a discount of 20% below market rates.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-07/david-camerons-...
Generation Rent, Generation Buy. Nobody needs to mention her name
Great - house prices more than double in a decade but hey, you can have 20% off the ludicrous 'market rates'.http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-07/david-camerons-...
Generation Rent, Generation Buy. Nobody needs to mention her name
It's like a DFS 'sale'.
Lots of developments already require 'affordable' housing to make up p[art of a development.
My daughter bought one around 8-9 years ago, it was an apartment and the same size as others in the development but with less standard fittings and fixtues, for example the bathroom was only tiled to waist height rather than to ceiling and with cheaper tiles, same with the kitchen, cheaper units etc.
My daughter bought one around 8-9 years ago, it was an apartment and the same size as others in the development but with less standard fittings and fixtues, for example the bathroom was only tiled to waist height rather than to ceiling and with cheaper tiles, same with the kitchen, cheaper units etc.
Corpulent Tosser said:
Lots of developments already require 'affordable' housing to make up p[art of a development.
My daughter bought one around 8-9 years ago, it was an apartment and the same size as others in the development but with less standard fittings and fixtues, for example the bathroom was only tiled to waist height rather than to ceiling and with cheaper tiles, same with the kitchen, cheaper units etc.
So is this announcement all noise then?My daughter bought one around 8-9 years ago, it was an apartment and the same size as others in the development but with less standard fittings and fixtues, for example the bathroom was only tiled to waist height rather than to ceiling and with cheaper tiles, same with the kitchen, cheaper units etc.
We've caused the problem by offering a) tiny interest rates and b) interest only mortgages; meaning a number of middle-aged, middle-class people are living in houses they simply cannot afford and won't ever own - the result of this being the silly increase in house prices we've seen over the past years (especially in the SE).
However it has given successive governments the boost to the economy required to make them appear successful from a monetary perspective so I suppose it's not all bad.
Building more houses doesn't solve the problem - it just creates more over-priced houses who are then sold to people who over-stretch themselves on the purchase of them out of desperation.
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
However it has given successive governments the boost to the economy required to make them appear successful from a monetary perspective so I suppose it's not all bad.
Building more houses doesn't solve the problem - it just creates more over-priced houses who are then sold to people who over-stretch themselves on the purchase of them out of desperation.
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
MrBarry123 said:
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
No just reduce the income/lend ratio to something that is sensible long term not for "jut right now"If you cant borrow the money you can't spend it = house price adjustment
MrBarry123 said:
We've caused the problem by offering a) tiny interest rates and b) interest only mortgages; meaning a number of middle-aged, middle-class people are living in houses they simply cannot afford and won't ever own - the result of this being the silly increase in house prices we've seen over the past years (especially in the SE).
However it has given successive governments the boost to the economy required to make them appear successful from a monetary perspective so I suppose it's not all bad.
Building more houses doesn't solve the problem - it just creates more over-priced houses who are then sold to people who over-stretch themselves on the purchase of them out of desperation.
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
Buy_to_let will undermine that plan and result in increased rents for those unable to buy.However it has given successive governments the boost to the economy required to make them appear successful from a monetary perspective so I suppose it's not all bad.
Building more houses doesn't solve the problem - it just creates more over-priced houses who are then sold to people who over-stretch themselves on the purchase of them out of desperation.
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
MrBarry123 said:
We've caused the problem by offering a) tiny interest rates and b) interest only mortgages; meaning a number of middle-aged, middle-class people are living in houses they simply cannot afford and won't ever own - the result of this being the silly increase in house prices we've seen over the past years (especially in the SE).
However it has given successive governments the boost to the economy required to make them appear successful from a monetary perspective so I suppose it's not all bad.
Building more houses doesn't solve the problem - it just creates more over-priced houses who are then sold to people who over-stretch themselves on the purchase of them out of desperation.
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
Agree with you there. The town I live in (about 30,000 population) has a local plan to build 3000 new houses over the next few years (so increasing population by 25%-ish)However it has given successive governments the boost to the economy required to make them appear successful from a monetary perspective so I suppose it's not all bad.
Building more houses doesn't solve the problem - it just creates more over-priced houses who are then sold to people who over-stretch themselves on the purchase of them out of desperation.
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
Several hundred houses have already been built, but despite the extra properties available it has not dropped house prices by 1%. Prices asked by developer are no different to any other houses.
Out of interest, what happens to these affordable houses after the first buyer has got them? The sell-on price will be exactly the same as the non-affordable housing in the area, so giving owners and immediate 20% gain on their investment. Or is there some sort of covenant to stop them being sold at market rate?
cptsideways said:
MrBarry123 said:
The only way to help the problem is to increase interest rates and therefore limit people's spending power on houses.
No just reduce the income/lend ratio to something that is sensible long term not for "jut right now"If you cant borrow the money you can't spend it = house price adjustment
Once houses drop to a level where they become affordable, demand goes up and so does the price. All it will lead to is cyclical boom & bust. It's doesn't address the problem, it just kicks it down the road.
Demand outstrips supply, that is the issue. You could look at punitive taxes to deter investors, both private and commercial from BTL but there will always be a proportion of society that wants to rent. The simple fact is that the housing stock in the UK is too small. So you either increase the number of houses or reduce the size of the population.
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is f
k all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
boyse7en said:
Out of interest, what happens to these affordable houses after the first buyer has got them? The sell-on price will be exactly the same as the non-affordable housing in the area, so giving owners and immediate 20% gain on their investment. Or is there some sort of covenant to stop them being sold at market rate?
That was my concern also however my hope is that the government purchases a 20% interest in the property prior to it going on sale to the public (hence why the developers can sell it below market rate) and that this 20% is never allowed to be purchased - thereby restricting the house to only being worth 80% of what it would be worth.cptsideways said:
No just reduce the income/lend ratio to something that is sensible long term not for "jut right now"
If you cant borrow the money you can't spend it = house price adjustment
Yep, that's another way of doing it.If you cant borrow the money you can't spend it = house price adjustment
V8 Fettler said:
Buy_to_let will undermine that plan and result in increased rents for those unable to buy.
As a last resort to the buggered system we have, I am in favour of rent controls as a way to counteract this. I am aware of the issues they cause however they are, in my opinion, better than nothing.TEKNOPUG - I agree that, at some point, supply becomes an issue however you can only introduce new houses once the financing system for purchasing said houses is fixed.
cptsideways said:
No just reduce the income/lend ratio to something that is sensible long term not for "jut right now"
If you cant borrow the money you can't spend it = house price adjustment
Or cash rich investors snapping everything up and vast numbers of people stuck renting forever.If you cant borrow the money you can't spend it = house price adjustment
Whichever way you cut it, eventually it comes back to demand outstripping supply.
I blame our planning system, which makes the market slow to adapt to changing demand, and means that when it does new supply is in the form of large developments of low quality housing, in places where few people would actually choose to live and infrastructure scarcely supports them. On the other hand we have very inefficient use of suburban land with rows of old houses converted to bedsits with inadequate parking and high rents. Elsewhere you have commuter belt towns and villages that suddenly get 100 new houses dumped on them miles from where people work and with a lack of local facilities.
kiethton said:
speedyman said:
Far better to limit land banking by large building companies.
There is fk all land banking by the large house builders really, enough plots to series the next couple of years requirements. There will always be an element of inbuilt land for any developer, schemes can take 10 years to complete (populations in some areas can't sustain the same level of annual sales as others) whilst other land is still in the process of having planning refined/development contracts tendered etc.Land banking was just a millipede slogan that seems to have stuck
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/20...
Hoofy said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
Lots of developments already require 'affordable' housing to make up p[art of a development.
My daughter bought one around 8-9 years ago, it was an apartment and the same size as others in the development but with less standard fittings and fixtues, for example the bathroom was only tiled to waist height rather than to ceiling and with cheaper tiles, same with the kitchen, cheaper units etc.
So is this announcement all noise then?My daughter bought one around 8-9 years ago, it was an apartment and the same size as others in the development but with less standard fittings and fixtues, for example the bathroom was only tiled to waist height rather than to ceiling and with cheaper tiles, same with the kitchen, cheaper units etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff