Housing isn't working

Some of our friends just outside London are moving overseas and putting their two-bed house up for rent. It was bought in 1999 for £80 and now has a market value of around £185k. The had three different agents round to view the property and all three were trying hard to convince them to put it on the market - 'It may remain empty for a while, Sir', 'We're short of homes for sale', 'We could sell this for you in two days'.

The area is short on ALL forms of housing - rental or for sale - at ALL price points, but is this a sign that the buy-to-let bubble is slowing up? I hope so - it's almost weekly you hear young middle-class couples ranting about the theft of housing stock by but-to-letters with an almost Sons of Glyndwr-type zeal.

Whatever is going on, 'the market' is doing a pathetic job at providing what's needed. Ok, it's not just 'the market' - NIMBYs, the British obsession with living in a dolls house on a green-belt chewing Barratt estate rather than a good flat, the aversion to medium-rise shops-at-the-bottom european style building doesn't help either as you can't make best use of the available space. Even so, 'the market' round here seems to like creating an oversupply of bland office blocks on land ripe for housing - office that simply sits empty for an age - and the odd 'exclusive developments' of boxy two-bed flats for 250k plus. The council just waves it all through, no problems...

I read in the paper last week than the CBI are even getting in on the 'houses are too expensive' act. Seems their members are having trouble getting staff and keeping them.

Another article I saw also stated that south east firms are having trouble finding staff due to the cost of living all the way up to 30k and more - 30k workers don't want to live in a putrid dive, or face a mammoth commute. And gone are the days where any number of positions with salaries below a living wage could be filled by ex-students living at home, or housewives returning to work.

This all certainly rings true. I've now worked at two south east companies where people earning from 13-25k were simply treading water, planning their moves up north or overseas, sick of doing demanding jobs only to spend half their incomes renting sub-standard housing. Surely, productivity nosedives when barely any member of staff feels they can either live on the money, or have the lifestyle their work and skill-level should provide? Morale takes a beating. Organisations based in London and the South East will have to put up with people 'getting a bit of experience' and then moving on at the earliest opportunity.

If we look to even unluckier individuals, the housing crisis is another Blairite stab in the back to honest, everyday people. Council/Social housing is now non-existent for working people as it's all been sold off. You have to be unemployed, have kids, be mentally or physically ill - and even then you'll face a long wait to be housed. This gives you the situation where £750 after tax workers are forced to pay £350-400 for bedsits or houseshares - the kinds of people that once might have been able to access social housing. The lack of social housing keeps rents high, as people are forced to pay inflated 'market rates' and hand over an unjust portion of their tiny incomes, thus promoting poverty and making it harder for people to save and better themselves.

Solving this NuLabour mess is no longer a matter of arsing about with interest rates. It needs serious input.

d.

Reply to
David
Loading thread data ...

Well said, Sir.

Here in Cambridge there is a desperate shortage of flats. You can't get a studio apartment for less than 110k.

cd

Reply to
criticaldensity

Sons of Glyndwr - ironically such people probably now live in some of the most expensive housing in Wales now since the Welsh language became an enormous cash cow and hundreds of millions go into Welsh language QUANGOs which are strangely, usually populated by the same people mostly related to one another.

Reply to
John Smith

What is left of social housing is being got rid of. Another Manchester estate has voted to go with a housing association

formatting link
Footballers' estate tenants in Moss Side give the green light for new landlord

More social housing - sensible prices and sensible buildings - needed.

Reply to
mogga

Not all called Baaasil, are they?

Reply to
Terry Harper

Excellent article. Ideas anyone ?

Some kind of punitive tax on residential property purchases if (a) the house lies empty and (b) the owner isn't resident. Would it work ?

Reply to
Chesney Christ

We already have that. It's called Council Tax.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

Abolish the single person discount. A single person can pay less council tax by living in a smaller house/flat or sharing a house.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

CGT on a person's main residence may work - with the proviso that you'd be able to roll any gain forwards to a new house if you moved - so you'd only end up paying CGT if you sold up without buying a new house or moved downmarket/abroad.

This may stop the daft idea some people have of buying a bigger house than they need to make money (which history has proved doesn't usually work anyway as I've said before).

Reply to
Andy Pandy

How about just having the state get it's nose out of the whole business and leaving it to free markets?

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

downmarket/abroad.

The US used to have a system like this, it was changed a few years ago, now you can exclude up to $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly) capital gains on your main residence every two years. The problem with rolling over the gains is that it forces people to buy a more expensive house just to avoid CGT. How would you feel if you got laid off, then you got a job offer in another part of the country where houses are cheaper, but you would get hit with £100,000 in CGT if you sold your house or you would have to find the most expensive house you could find just to avoid paying CGT. What if your spouse died, the house was too big for you, and in addition to all the grief you would also be taxed just for moving to a smaller, cheaper house or flat. I don't think people should be penalised for buying a cheaper and presumably smaller house.

Steve

Reply to
Steve

"Steve" wrote

And nor should they be immorally taxed on an inflationary, and therefore non-existent, gain. Inflation is the fault of governments. Homeowners are already punished once by house price inflation, and this CGT idea amounts to governments punishing them again for being victims.

Reply to
The Blue Max

In what way?

Reply to
Jim

You're only being taxed on the profit you made through house price inflation. Say you bought for 100k, sold for 200k, then bought in a cheaper area for

100k. You'd be taxed on half the rise in price (since you can roll forwards half your gain to the new house), so some percentage of 50k. You'd be better off than you'd have been if house prices had remained stable (assuming both areas grew in price at the same rate).

Yes, this could be a problem. But it could stop people buying houses bigger than they need in the first place, which should reduce demand and hence prices.

The same would apply if you cashed in any other asset jointly owned. Besides IHT is proof that the government are quite happy to take money off people at time of grief (OK it doesn't apply to interspousal transfers, but still).

The trouble is, it seems there are too many people looking to make money through house price inflation, and the only way they can realise that money is through eventually moving downmarket. If you tax the money they think they will make, then they may start looking to buy a house which suits their needs instead of one they consider part of their pension.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

Only if they want to move upmarket, in which case they wouldn't pay any CGT since it would be rolled forwards. Homeowners moving downmarket benefit from HPI.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.