People Begging for a House Price Crash

>>>>

No. We had no need to do that in the past

It wouid not allow big companies simply throwing up large estates but would allow those with modest means the right to build a home they could afford. Much as we had for a thousand years until the advent of green belt planning regulations in the last century

>>>>>

And if that was not enough one could ban its resale for N years

There hasn't been a time when property was just given away. You still had to earn a certain amount and to save up.

But there is a big difference between having a certain kind of property costing, say, 3 times average salary, and 6 or more times as much.

It's always possible to make things a little more affordable by moving to a cheaper area and/or buying a smaller property (unless you're already buying the tiniest studio in the crappiest town in the UK), but that doesn't really count. Comparing like-with-like, house price inflation has been greater (if more volatile) than rises in earnings.

Increased demand caused by speculators - eg second homes, people buying bigger properties than they need.

It's not just second homes. Far more significant is people buying bigger houses than they need, eg single people buying a 4-bed family house etc. The attitude of "buy the most expensive house property you can afford because it's a good investment", is the most common form of speculation.

No. The problem is that housing demand is driven by speculators, resulting in people who simply want somewhere to live often having to rely on handouts (eg from parents, or the state in housing benefit).

Who said there was?

Indeed.

Er, yes, that's what the current reforms are aiming to do (benefit cap based on average income).

Hopefully, but that's a bit optimistic. Things are moving in the right direction with the universal credit, which will subsume HB.

Though there are other reasons why people buy bigger houses than their perceived need

tim

Of course there are. My point refers to those who do it as speculation.

The latter does not demand more houses though. Second homes and investment properties would explain it OTOH.

>>>>>>

I'd be OK with development on some greenbelt but it would have to be very carefully controlled IMHO. I wouldn't want developers building a huge estate on a AONB, for example. Some unused farmland OTOH would be more acceptable. The alternative is to keep expanding towns and villages which often don't have the infrastructure to cope.

And there's quite a lot of families in smaller houses than they "need".

What I don't really understand is why all these developers immediately stopped building. They can still make money by building/selling houses, even if it is a bit less than before.

Certainly some of the people I know were "given" substancial amounts of money by their parents /and/ take out large mortgages.

There has never been such a "Golden Age" but there did used to be a lot of council houses for those who could not afford mortgages. AFAIK there are far fewer than there were 20-30 years ago.

I think this is much too simplistic. A family with kids will need a larger (and therefore more expensive) place to live. They may happen to live in an expensive area. Are they all going to be shipped to Huddersfield (or whereever is the cheapest place in the UK)?

It does - for instance single people having a house to themselves instead of sharing, living with parents etc. Obviously there are other reasons why some people want to live alone (before anyone points it out) but speculation is one of them and does result in increased demand for property.

Investment properties which are rented out don't, because they provide someone else's accomodation needs. Ones which are left empty or just used as a holiday home for a few weeks a year certainly do.

Usually because they can't afford a bigger one because the price has been driven up by speculators.

I think the government have got this right - HB/LHA does need capping, the sort of levels payable in some parts of London were simply unbelivable - for instance the LHA rate for a 3-bed in Westminster is

750 a week (ie 39,000 a year, tax free!), whereas just across the river in Lambeth or Southwark it's about 300 a week.

It's not about carting people off to a different part of the country, it's saying the taxpayer isn't going to pay your 39,000 a year in rent when you could live half a mile away and it'd "only" be 15,600.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

The Welsh know how to deal with empty holiday homes, (or used to). ;-) I'm surprised that illegal squatting isn't more common, although the D**** M*** occasionally manages to find an example.

In message , Mark writes

Some homes being built today are inadequate for raising a couple of children in. I walked into one house where the painters were finishing off to have a look, and they said they felt claustrophobic just working in them.

They told me the eight tiny houses were bought "from plans" for £1M, and they were offered for rent at £550/month.

Exactly. I'm one of them (not speculator but someone who can't afford a big enough house).