Gary Stevenson – Economist
Discussion
John D. said:
Talksteer said:
For both of those you need public mood to be in that direction, see reaction to the farm inheritance tax changes.
Did anyone but the farmers really react to that? Now imagine trying to do something similar on IHT or land value, the opponents would be putting out stories about "penniless" old people who've scrimped and saved for 85 years to live in their £3.6m house etc.etc.
Talksteer said:
1: He uses the Rishi Sunak example; with £700m in the bank he gets £40m of passive annual income, he doesn't spend that money as the richer you are the less your personal consumption matters. Instead the super rich just buy up all the assets houses, gold, stocks as they can out bid you.
]
It is easy to pull apart every single one of his arguments, ]
But lets just stick to this one..... his argument is that rich people have become richer and that's forced house prices up ..... people can't afford nice places beacuse the rich have bought them all. his argument is that he is only talking about the super rich her- Ultra high net worths. So that's probably the top 200 households in the uk. They have wealth of £450bn, which is a lot.
The total value of all property in the UK is about £10 TRILLION.
So lets assumed the really rich in the UK, liquidate ALL their assets, and only buy uk houses, which they then refuse to rent out. This would remove 4.5% of the housing stock from the market.
To put that in context- since the year 2000 the UK population has increased by 16%.
So the demand from population growth for houses has grown 16%, but the very very worst case that the hyper rich could have on housing is 4.5%.... and yet its the riches fault that house prices have gone up.
Its patent b
ks. House prices have riisen for three reasons:
1. In the 1980s women joined the work force en masse, which meant there was much more money to pay for mortgages. Inevitably house prices started to rise.
2. Population growth over the past 20 years has been substantial and house building has nowheere near kept pace.
3. The splitting up of families means there are many more single people in house than 50 years ago further depleting the stock.
BUt it sounds much more attractive to blame really rich people.
I could almost get on board with his messaging if it have even an iota of genuine economics about it- instead its like listening to the young ones spouting total b
ks. Oh and his solution of "just tax them more" means they'll just sell all their UK assets and emigrate. These are the most mobile people in the world, with the greateest ability to move countries. Somehow we think they'll just sit around and give away 80% of their wealth when the government comes knocking? Grow up. instead they'll take their money and their tax revenues and live somewhere else.
Talksteer said:
Relatively simply:
1: He uses the Rishi Sunak example; with £700m in the bank he gets £40m of passive annual income, he doesn't spend that money as the richer you are the less your personal consumption matters. Instead the super rich just buy up all the assets houses, gold, stocks as they can out bid you.
The problem with using Sunak as an example is that he wasn't born into wealth and had a middle class background. Father a GP, Mother a Pharmacist. He married into wealth but even there it was 2nd generation wealth as her Father was one of the founders of a successful Indian business. 1: He uses the Rishi Sunak example; with £700m in the bank he gets £40m of passive annual income, he doesn't spend that money as the richer you are the less your personal consumption matters. Instead the super rich just buy up all the assets houses, gold, stocks as they can out bid you.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
It is easy to pull apart every single one of his arguments,
But lets just stick to this one..... his argument is that rich people have become richer and that's forced house prices up ..... people can't afford nice places beacuse the rich have bought them all. his argument is that he is only talking about the super rich her- Ultra high net worths. So that's probably the top 200 households in the uk. They have wealth of £450bn, which is a lot.
The total value of all property in the UK is about £10 TRILLION.
So lets assumed the really rich in the UK, liquidate ALL their assets, and only buy uk houses, which they then refuse to rent out. This would remove 4.5% of the housing stock from the market.
To put that in context- since the year 2000 the UK population has increased by 16%.
So the demand from population growth for houses has grown 16%, but the very very worst case that the hyper rich could have on housing is 4.5%.... and yet its the riches fault that house prices have gone up.
Its patent bks.
House prices have riisen for three reasons:
1. In the 1980s women joined the work force en masse, which meant there was much more money to pay for mortgages. Inevitably house prices started to rise.
2. Population growth over the past 20 years has been substantial and house building has nowheere near kept pace.
3. The splitting up of families means there are many more single people in house than 50 years ago further depleting the stock.
BUt it sounds much more attractive to blame really rich people.
I could almost get on board with his messaging if it have even an iota of genuine economics about it- instead its like listening to the young ones spouting total bks.
Oh and his solution of "just tax them more" means they'll just sell all their UK assets and emigrate. These are the most mobile people in the world, with the greateest ability to move countries. Somehow we think they'll just sit around and give away 80% of their wealth when the government comes knocking? Grow up. instead they'll take their money and their tax revenues and live somewhere else.
I have not listen to him but your right that idea is rubbish.But lets just stick to this one..... his argument is that rich people have become richer and that's forced house prices up ..... people can't afford nice places beacuse the rich have bought them all. his argument is that he is only talking about the super rich her- Ultra high net worths. So that's probably the top 200 households in the uk. They have wealth of £450bn, which is a lot.
The total value of all property in the UK is about £10 TRILLION.
So lets assumed the really rich in the UK, liquidate ALL their assets, and only buy uk houses, which they then refuse to rent out. This would remove 4.5% of the housing stock from the market.
To put that in context- since the year 2000 the UK population has increased by 16%.
So the demand from population growth for houses has grown 16%, but the very very worst case that the hyper rich could have on housing is 4.5%.... and yet its the riches fault that house prices have gone up.
Its patent b
ks. House prices have riisen for three reasons:
1. In the 1980s women joined the work force en masse, which meant there was much more money to pay for mortgages. Inevitably house prices started to rise.
2. Population growth over the past 20 years has been substantial and house building has nowheere near kept pace.
3. The splitting up of families means there are many more single people in house than 50 years ago further depleting the stock.
BUt it sounds much more attractive to blame really rich people.
I could almost get on board with his messaging if it have even an iota of genuine economics about it- instead its like listening to the young ones spouting total b
ks. Oh and his solution of "just tax them more" means they'll just sell all their UK assets and emigrate. These are the most mobile people in the world, with the greateest ability to move countries. Somehow we think they'll just sit around and give away 80% of their wealth when the government comes knocking? Grow up. instead they'll take their money and their tax revenues and live somewhere else.
Not sure how he defines got a rich but Google suggests the number in the UK with wealth over £50m is about 5,000. The UK has a average population over the last 20 years of about 65m and 29m dwellings.
Sunak may well be sitting pretty, but he and his ilk are statistically insignificant.
You could tax him and people like him to high heaven and it wouldn’t make much of a dent. And against that you have to recognise that most of these people will be entrepreneurs who have created businesses and employment for many.
And they are likely to be doing lots of day-to-day spending on local trades and services.
Oh, and of course they would simply leave the country. Taking all of their money with him.
But apart from that, great idea.
You could tax him and people like him to high heaven and it wouldn’t make much of a dent. And against that you have to recognise that most of these people will be entrepreneurs who have created businesses and employment for many.
And they are likely to be doing lots of day-to-day spending on local trades and services.
Oh, and of course they would simply leave the country. Taking all of their money with him.
But apart from that, great idea.
I watched the link.
However, why is so many of these YouTubers spend 20 minutes repeating themselves when they could express themselves in five minutes. It is the same with the Blackbeltbarrister. In his recent video on Rupert Lowe, I think he mentioned at least three times he was not affiliated with any sponsors (despite pushing NordVPN).
However, why is so many of these YouTubers spend 20 minutes repeating themselves when they could express themselves in five minutes. It is the same with the Blackbeltbarrister. In his recent video on Rupert Lowe, I think he mentioned at least three times he was not affiliated with any sponsors (despite pushing NordVPN).
Slow.Patrol said:
I watched the link.
However, why is so many of these YouTubers spend 20 minutes repeating themselves when they could express themselves in five minutes. It is the same with the Blackbeltbarrister. In his recent video on Rupert Lowe, I think he mentioned at least three times he was not affiliated with any sponsors (despite pushing NordVPN).
I think YouTube has all sorts of suggestions for driving revenue, which includes the length of vids. However, I much prefer stuff that is 5 mins ish. If you need 10 mins+ to put over a point, it’s probably padded out with waffle.However, why is so many of these YouTubers spend 20 minutes repeating themselves when they could express themselves in five minutes. It is the same with the Blackbeltbarrister. In his recent video on Rupert Lowe, I think he mentioned at least three times he was not affiliated with any sponsors (despite pushing NordVPN).
PugwasHDJ80 said:
House prices have riisen for three reasons:
1. In the 1980s women joined the work force en masse, which meant there was much more money to pay for mortgages. Inevitably house prices started to rise.
2. Population growth over the past 20 years has been substantial and house building has nowheere near kept pace.
3. The splitting up of families means there are many more single people in house than 50 years ago further depleting the stock.
BUt it sounds much more attractive to blame really rich people.
I could almost get on board with his messaging if it have even an iota of genuine economics about it- instead its like listening to the young ones spouting total bks.
Oh and his solution of "just tax them more" means they'll just sell all their UK assets and emigrate. These are the most mobile people in the world, with the greateest ability to move countries. Somehow we think they'll just sit around and give away 80% of their wealth when the government comes knocking? Grow up. instead they'll take their money and their tax revenues and live somewhere else.
re 2) and 3) these demographics can't afford higher prices though can they, one income or young/immigrants (making up a large part of the population growth?) 1. In the 1980s women joined the work force en masse, which meant there was much more money to pay for mortgages. Inevitably house prices started to rise.
2. Population growth over the past 20 years has been substantial and house building has nowheere near kept pace.
3. The splitting up of families means there are many more single people in house than 50 years ago further depleting the stock.
BUt it sounds much more attractive to blame really rich people.
I could almost get on board with his messaging if it have even an iota of genuine economics about it- instead its like listening to the young ones spouting total b
ks. Oh and his solution of "just tax them more" means they'll just sell all their UK assets and emigrate. These are the most mobile people in the world, with the greateest ability to move countries. Somehow we think they'll just sit around and give away 80% of their wealth when the government comes knocking? Grow up. instead they'll take their money and their tax revenues and live somewhere else.
Only 1) the two parent working has pushed prices up?
2 and 3 generally create situations of multiple occupancy, kids living at home longer, immigrants housed in hotels etc as they can't afford it.
If you inherit a large sum of money, what do people tend to do, buy a property and rent it out? make sense right, some steady income and likely asset price appreciation to defned against inflation, look at the plethora of website and stories of property development. You are either rich or leveraged up (on the way to becoming rich) if you are able and start buying multiple properties.
This activity from individuals and companies pushes the prices up and their activities are supported/funded by regular people that have to have somewhere to live. A house builder can legitimately claim it's creating a house for someone to live in a landlord buying somewhere and saying he's providing a service by letting it out, is a bit disingenuous to me, if he or others could snap it up or borrow to do so then someone would buy it? This is not a personal attack on landlords I have friends and fmaily who've done this, but it has consequences on prices for sure.
It's not those currently without a house pushing prices up is it, the ones that can buy are just making a desperate leap to avoid the rent trap and get on the train before it leaves the station for good? Why do they always feel it's now or never and that you can't wait for prices to come down it's because they get snapped up by other already home owning people that's why. Perhaps not the truly rich but certainly richer than the first time buyer?
The lending of huge sums (who does your mortgage interest go to) with the 'promise' of capital gains, means that rents are forced up to cover these (plus a bit) that can perpetuate the property owning model, and I would argue to the detriment of society long term as it exacerbates the plight of the non property owner. It sort of exploits the consumers lack of choice, ie they need somewhere to live and if the rich can gradually own more and more of the houses then the future gets ever more bleak for those coming through that aren't the children of the property owners?
There was that old story of Jeremy hunt and the 7 properties stamp duty rule. Now he didn't break any rules but the rules themselves don't make sense to those down the bottom, ie stamp duty reduced when buying more than 7 properties, 7 proerties bougth at once considered 'commercial' not residential, who made this law/rule?
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/03/the-internet-m...
Just Jeremy's actions shows in miniture what has gone on, if no one of Jeremy's means could have bought those 7 flats then they would have to have sold at a price others could afford instead he has bougth them and forever 7 people/families will pay him rent and never or have delayed asset ownership.
That housing has become almost the number one 'heatsink' for all the excess debt/cash in the world is in my opinion 100% a detriment to society, I don't know the the fix but I think it's BS that prices are high just because of the 1-3 points above.
Scootersp said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Just Jeremy's actions shows in miniture what has gone on, if no one of Jeremy's means could have bought those 7 flats then they would have to have sold at a price others could afford instead he has bougth them and forever 7 people/families will pay him rent and never or have delayed asset ownership.
That housing has become almost the number one 'heatsink' for all the excess debt/cash in the world is in my opinion 100% a detriment to society, I don't know the the fix but I think it's BS that prices are high just because of the 1-3 points above.
Sorry to repeat what I wrote earlier, but my friend is buying as many appartment buildings (in reasonably sought after areas) he can get finance for...That housing has become almost the number one 'heatsink' for all the excess debt/cash in the world is in my opinion 100% a detriment to society, I don't know the the fix but I think it's BS that prices are high just because of the 1-3 points above.
He is doing this because he sees that many very wealthy people that he comes into contact with regularly do that regularly...
Then he rents them out... to people who very possibly will never be able to scrape together a deposit and are not well paid enough to convince a bank to loan them money,
He takes a risk though, and he works hard at it... so personally I'm thrilled for him.
My point is that the people with the wealth advantage aren't all billionaires... there are financially indebted, frugal risk takers buying up the physical assets too.
Mrr T said:
I have not listen to him but your right that idea is rubbish.
Not sure how he defines got a rich but Google suggests the number in the UK with wealth over £50m is about 5,000. The UK has a average population over the last 20 years of about 65m and 29m dwellings.
What level of knowledge does google have pertaining to their offshore interests I wonder....Not sure how he defines got a rich but Google suggests the number in the UK with wealth over £50m is about 5,000. The UK has a average population over the last 20 years of about 65m and 29m dwellings.
Scootersp said:
re 2) and 3) these demographics can't afford higher prices though can they, one income or young/immigrants (making up a large part of the population growth?)
Only 1) the two parent working has pushed prices up?
2 and 3 generally create situations of multiple occupancy, kids living at home longer, immigrants housed in hotels etc as they can't afford it.
It amounts to the same thing. Dividing a big old pile into 10 bedsits is basically just a group buy/rent of a big old pile. The price of housing is ultimately governed by supply of and demand for housing. If it was the case that investors had pushed the asset value up beyond the underlying value then the rental yields would drop off, yet they remain quite healthy. It doesn't matter what ownership model you had, if you have more people than houses then the price will rise. Only 1) the two parent working has pushed prices up?
2 and 3 generally create situations of multiple occupancy, kids living at home longer, immigrants housed in hotels etc as they can't afford it.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It amounts to the same thing. Dividing a big old pile into 10 bedsits is basically just a group buy/rent of a big old pile. The price of housing is ultimately governed by supply of and demand for housing. If it was the case that investors had pushed the asset value up beyond the underlying value then the rental yields would drop off, yet they remain quite healthy. It doesn't matter what ownership model you had, if you have more people than houses then the price will rise.
Yields remain healthy because they have to go up for owners/investors to cover their costs, so the renters have to pay?They can't easily vote with their feet, like you would with almost anything else they have suck it up, the streets or 'van life' ?
Demand cannot really drop off noticeably for housing, hence why I beleive it would be better to limit multiple ownership.
Scootersp said:
Yields remain healthy because they have to go up for owners/investors to cover their costs, so the renters have to pay?
They can't easily vote with their feet, like you would with almost anything else they have suck it up, the streets or 'van life' ?
Demand cannot really drop off noticeably for housing, hence why I beleive it would be better to limit multiple ownership.
But it would be bid up exactly the same. The same amount of people would be chasing the same amount of housing and have the same amount of money available to get it. The only way to make housing more affordable is to have roughly equal numbers of houses and people who want to live in them. That means either build more or have fewer people. It really is that simple. They can't easily vote with their feet, like you would with almost anything else they have suck it up, the streets or 'van life' ?
Demand cannot really drop off noticeably for housing, hence why I beleive it would be better to limit multiple ownership.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Friday 14th March 15:41
Scootersp said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It amounts to the same thing. Dividing a big old pile into 10 bedsits is basically just a group buy/rent of a big old pile. The price of housing is ultimately governed by supply of and demand for housing. If it was the case that investors had pushed the asset value up beyond the underlying value then the rental yields would drop off, yet they remain quite healthy. It doesn't matter what ownership model you had, if you have more people than houses then the price will rise.
Yields remain healthy because they have to go up for owners/investors to cover their costs, so the renters have to pay?They can't easily vote with their feet, like you would with almost anything else they have suck it up, the streets or 'van life' ?
Demand cannot really drop off noticeably for housing, hence why I beleive it would be better to limit multiple ownership.
If you want to reduce the opportunity to rent seek, make it unattractive by improving supply.
Kawasicki said:
Sorry to repeat what I wrote earlier, but my friend is buying as many appartment buildings (in reasonably sought after areas) he can get finance for...
He is doing this because he sees that many very wealthy people that he comes into contact with regularly do that regularly...
Then he rents them out... to people who very possibly will never be able to scrape together a deposit and are not well paid enough to convince a bank to loan them money,
He takes a risk though, and he works hard at it... so personally I'm thrilled for him.
My point is that the people with the wealth advantage aren't all billionaires... there are financially indebted, frugal risk takers buying up the physical assets too.
The way the system is setup you can't blame him and I don't blame you for being thrilled for him, but it's clear from what you wrote that he sees other very wealthy people and wants to be one so is following the path and if he carries on he will get there, and likely carry on growing the portfolio, ie he will transition from the financially indebted frugal person to those he seeks to emulate, presumably far less indebted, passive income rich, semi retired etc. He is doing this because he sees that many very wealthy people that he comes into contact with regularly do that regularly...
Then he rents them out... to people who very possibly will never be able to scrape together a deposit and are not well paid enough to convince a bank to loan them money,
He takes a risk though, and he works hard at it... so personally I'm thrilled for him.
My point is that the people with the wealth advantage aren't all billionaires... there are financially indebted, frugal risk takers buying up the physical assets too.
My argument is the system 'perhaps' shouldn't make housing/shelter a vehicle for this, more people would own properties if others were limited to their ownership the scrapping up of a deposit wouldn't be so difficult if things were different. He and other wealthy people would have to provide other services/things that people would actually have a choice to buy or not, housing is a constant basic need, it's therefore very hard (impossible?) to put pressure on the provider to lower prices, it ends up being more late/missed payments/evictions down the line as people have no choice but to try?
Unfortunately for the poorer in society the whole UK's finaces are largely underpinnned on property values so the method of leveraging against assets that you get others to pay for will likely continue to work.
egomeister said:
Just build more, it's simple really. (In concept anyway, we are absolutely hopeless at doing this in the UK)
Building much more isn't simple because a) There are planning and land constraints, and b) The building workforce needs to commensurately increase, via apprenticeships or other such schemes. A quick look at the graph of number of homes built per annum shows the figure cannot rapidly increase (for the aforementioned reasons), but instead the absolute best you'll get is maybe a 5-10% increase on the previous year (if it's not stagnant or dropping).In 2023 we built 223k new homes. The ONS states we are expected to add 4.9m in population by 2032. So that's about 1.5m new homes in 7 years, versus 5 million new people. In other words in 2032 expect our housing crisis to be even more severe. The only solution here is two fold: build more, and reduce net migration.
Olivera said:
egomeister said:
Just build more, it's simple really. (In concept anyway, we are absolutely hopeless at doing this in the UK)
Building much more isn't simple because a) There are planning and land constraints, and b) The building workforce needs to commensurately increase, via apprenticeships or other such schemes. A quick look at the graph of number of homes built per annum shows the figure cannot rapidly increase (for the aforementioned reasons), but instead the absolute best you'll get is maybe a 5-10% increase on the previous year (if it's not stagnant or dropping).In 2023 we built 223k new homes. The ONS states we are expected to add 4.9m in population by 2032. So that's about 1.5m new homes in 7 years, versus 5 million new people. In other words in 2032 expect our housing crisis to be even more severe. The only solution here is two fold: build more, and reduce net migration.
UK urban density and infrastructure is woeful - just look at how towns and cities are structured on the continent. Much more 5/6 story type builds, especially in proximity to transport links. Better use of basement/underground for parking or storage.
Olivera said:
egomeister said:
Just build more, it's simple really. (In concept anyway, we are absolutely hopeless at doing this in the UK)
Building much more isn't simple because a) There are planning and land constraints, and b) The building workforce needs to commensurately increase, via apprenticeships or other such schemes. A quick look at the graph of number of homes built per annum shows the figure cannot rapidly increase (for the aforementioned reasons), but instead the absolute best you'll get is maybe a 5-10% increase on the previous year (if it's not stagnant or dropping).In 2023 we built 223k new homes. The ONS states we are expected to add 4.9m in population by 2032. So that's about 1.5m new homes in 7 years, versus 5 million new people. In other words in 2032 expect our housing crisis to be even more severe. The only solution here is two fold: build more, and reduce net migration.
smn159 said:
You're not going to build more in the medium term by relying on apprenticeships - you need to supplement with an an immigrant workforce to facilitate that. All the talk of an immediate cut in net migration fails to point out how we are to wean ourselves off of it in the medium term - and whether it's even possible in some cases.
Indeed we can supplement with an an immigrant workforce for building - we already do quite significantly in London. But that should be via a restricted skills visa route. However unless we get a grip (reduce) net migration significantly then our housing crisis will be worse not better by 2032.Scootersp said:
Yields remain healthy because they have to go up for owners/investors to cover their costs, so the renters have to pay?
Rents aren't driven by costs. They're driven by what someone is prepared to pay. Whoever owned it and whether they sold it or rented it out the price would be driven by what someone was prepared to pay Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff