Alternative ways of housing / living

indemnity said

YorVikIng said

Carlos my point is simply that it is easy to understand why people get living in relatively poor areas get angry when they see rich outsiders come in and drive up house prices so that their own children will never own a house. It is also easy to understand why some of that anger, rightly or wrongly, gets pointed at said outsiders. And when rich bastard blame them for shopping the only places they can afford, it’s likely to make thyme more angry.

Normally you come across as being both intelligent and smart. But your last post is as tone deaf as Marie Antionette suggesting that the starving masses should just book a table at The Ritz.

Goodness me, what a good job you don't live in Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy etc you'd be well pissed off.

Or maybe my opinion is informed from having grown up in a similar area with a similar amount of foreign property owership.

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

Edited by K-arl

I concede to your superior knowledge on the subject, my professional qualifications and 29 years of professional experience in the field of working with FTBs, renters and landlords etc. meaning nothing at all.

Edited by Models in the Landscape

Models in the Landscape said

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

Edited by K-arl

I concede to your superior knowledge on the subject, my professional qualifications and 29 years of professional experience in the field of working with FTBs, renters and landlords etc. meaning nothing at all.

I am sure you are being modest, as what I explained is basic economics, the mechanism which is taught in first year economic degrees. Here in the Netherlands anyway. The Dutch also have a housing crisis for similar (some would say the same) reasons as the UK

Edited by K-arl

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

Edited by K-arl

I concede to your superior knowledge on the subject, my professional qualifications and 29 years of professional experience in the field of working with FTBs, renters and landlords etc. meaning nothing at all.

I am sure you are being modest, as what I explained is basic economics, the mechanism which is taught in first year economic degrees. Here in the Netherlands anyway. 

Edited by K-arl

I have no economics degree, only the experience of meeting and working with such folk as mentioned 5 days a week for c. 29 years.  Not that I am suggesting that this in any way is of more relevance than academic qualifications.

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

"something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most"

I can't see even a significant increase in social housing stock having a marked impact on the values of non social housing stock. Some localised impact possibly where new social housing abuts. They're quite different. Consequently I doubt your self-interest argument has any real impact on government policy, at least not here in the UK.

Edited by FiL

YorVikIng said

indemnity said

YorVikIng said

Carlos my point is simply that it is easy to understand why people get living in relatively poor areas get angry when they see rich outsiders come in and drive up house prices so that their own children will never own a house. It is also easy to understand why some of that anger, rightly or wrongly, gets pointed at said outsiders. And when rich bastard blame them for shopping the only places they can afford, it’s likely to make thyme more angry.

Normally you come across as being both intelligent and smart. But your last post is as tone deaf as Marie Antionette suggesting that the starving masses should just book a table at The Ritz.

Goodness me, what a good job you don't live in Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy etc you'd be well pissed off.

Or maybe my opinion is informed from having grown up in a similar area with a similar amount of foreign property owership.

YorVikIng  I don't wish to mock the hardship you have obviously suffered, but I have found your choice of moniker amusingly ironic.

Nice to see that the thread made it to almost two pages before going so far off topic that it has absolutely no relevance to the question that the OP asked. 😂😂😂

FiL said

YorVikIng said

indemnity said

YorVikIng said

Carlos my point is simply that it is easy to understand why people get living in relatively poor areas get angry when they see rich outsiders come in and drive up house prices so that their own children will never own a house. It is also easy to understand why some of that anger, rightly or wrongly, gets pointed at said outsiders. And when rich bastard blame them for shopping the only places they can afford, it’s likely to make thyme more angry.

Normally you come across as being both intelligent and smart. But your last post is as tone deaf as Marie Antionette suggesting that the starving masses should just book a table at The Ritz.

Goodness me, what a good job you don't live in Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy etc you'd be well pissed off.

Or maybe my opinion is informed from having grown up in a similar area with a similar amount of foreign property owership.

YorVikIng  I don't wish to mock the hardship you have obviously suffered, but I have found your choice of moniker amusingly ironic.

FiL not to worry. I haven't suffered any hardship, but I have gained an understanding of why some people in less affluent areas have the attitude that was discussed a page or two ago. As for my moniker - surely we all know that Vikings were tradesmen who travelled long distances and integrated peacefully with communities that could benefit from their wealth.

Alan Ewart said

Nice to see that the thread made it to almost two pages before going so far off topic that it has absolutely no relevance to the question that the OP asked. 😂😂😂

Good to see that the thread made more than 5 pages before anyone made an irrelevant comment on the fact that it had made it to almost 2 pages before going off topic.  Back to you Sir!

The big question is do you have anything tying you down to where you live and do you have children you need to consider?

Hi Emma Jayne. We found a friendly local property developer who had a bunch of properties (about 15). He offered to help us find properties for a fee (few hundred quid), and because he was plugged into all sort of networks that we didn't have access to, this turned out to be a great move for us. He quickly found us a house that had been recently reposessed, and which the bank was happy to sell to us for 50% of the amount the previous owner had paid for it only a couple of years earlier. I felt sorry for the previous owner, but at the same time have my own family to look after, so of course jumped at the chance to buy it. 

This was in 2008 just months after the last crash/recession. My guess is that our 2022 cost of living crisis will start seeing similar struggles for homeowners, and that the number of repos will rise. Good luck.

FiL said

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

"something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most"

I can't see even a significant increase in social housing stock having a marked impact on the values of non social housing stock. Some localised impact possibly where new social housing abuts. They're quite different. Consequently I doubt your self-interest argument has any real impact on government policy, at least not here in the UK.

Edited by FiL

Enough social housing would reduce the value of owned houses as there would be less demand. One of the reasons for increase in house prices is the lack of social housing. As with anything, satisfy the market demand and prices fall. People have grown up since the 80s believing houses are an investment, not so much a home. It was the sale of social housing that was the election bribe that took Thatcher to power and Tory governments have been aware of that ever since. A future housing crisis was actually predicted and its mechanism understood back in the 80s when the social housing sale was first proposed. The lack of building of social housing has perpetuated the housing crisis. There is a reason governments don't solve the crisis because they could solve it and for the benefit of the economy as a whole, which is the madness of not doing it.

Edited by K-arl

K-arl said

FiL said

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

"something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most"

I can't see even a significant increase in social housing stock having a marked impact on the values of non social housing stock. Some localised impact possibly where new social housing abuts. They're quite different. Consequently I doubt your self-interest argument has any real impact on government policy, at least not here in the UK.

Edited by FiL

Enough social housing would reduce the value of owned houses as there would be less demand. One of the reasons for increase in house prices is the lack of social housing. As with anything, satisfy the market demand and prices fall. People have grown up since the 80s believing houses are an investment, not so much a home. It was the sale of social housing that was the election bribe that took Thatcher to power and Tory governments have been aware of that ever since. A future housing crisis was actually predicted and its mechanism understood back in the 80s when the social housing sale was first proposed. The lack of building of social housing has perpetuated the housing crisis. There is a reason governments don't solve the crisis because they could solve it and for the benefit of the economy as a whole, which is the madness of not doing it.

Yep, I don't disagree with most of that, but my point is that the people creating a demand for social housing aren't the same people creating a demand for non social housing. Satisfying the demand created by the former, by building more social housing, doesn't impact the demand for the latter except for a very narrow margin at the cusp.

FiL said

K-arl said

FiL said

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

"something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most"

I can't see even a significant increase in social housing stock having a marked impact on the values of non social housing stock. Some localised impact possibly where new social housing abuts. They're quite different. Consequently I doubt your self-interest argument has any real impact on government policy, at least not here in the UK.

Edited by FiL

Enough social housing would reduce the value of owned houses as there would be less demand. One of the reasons for increase in house prices is the lack of social housing. As with anything, satisfy the market demand and prices fall. People have grown up since the 80s believing houses are an investment, not so much a home. It was the sale of social housing that was the election bribe that took Thatcher to power and Tory governments have been aware of that ever since. A future housing crisis was actually predicted and its mechanism understood back in the 80s when the social housing sale was first proposed. The lack of building of social housing has perpetuated the housing crisis. There is a reason governments don't solve the crisis because they could solve it and for the benefit of the economy as a whole, which is the madness of not doing it.

Yep, I don't disagree with most of that, but my point is that the people creating a demand for social housing aren't the same people creating a demand for non social housing. Satisfying the demand created by the former, by building more social housing, doesn't impact the demand for the latter except for a very narrow margin at the cusp.

But they are the same because there is no real alternative. Private renting is expensive and BTL takes houses out of the private market into the private renting market but also costs the tax payer millions in housing benefit which could be invested in social housing with lower rents. It is all linked. There is a hidden benefit in lower rents in social housing and cheaper houses in the private market, it would release income to use in other parts of the economy, creating more economic activity.

Social housing is also a national asset, not a private asset, which is also benefit. There is a housing crisis in the Netherlands because the Netherlands also has a neoliberal government for years which copied the UK housing policy. Germany was more sensible, as was France.

Edited by K-arl

K-arl said

FiL said

K-arl said

FiL said

K-arl said

Models in the Landscape said

Not wishing to entirely divert the conversation from anything of use to Emma but;

Whilst I won't argue in terms of overall reasons as to why private landlords enter the market (or did previously) they do assist in filling the gap that government housing schemes leave (the cause of the gap being a separate issue) and whilst there are "bad" landlords just as there are "bad" tenants there are also plenty that offer good quality living space that would otherwise not be available.

This is not true. The living accommodation exists, private landlords buy it, often using the rents paid by their tenants. Basically houses and apartments are bought through leverage, ie. debt, debt effectively paid for by the tenants. It is part of rentier economy which ends up replacing the productive economy, reducing economic productivity. It is bad for the economy and Britain suffers more than most from this as it has a government that facilitates and supports the rentier economy. Buy to let is part of the housing problem, not part of the solution.

While I wouldn't condemn BTL landlords as they are only going about their legal business, I would condemn the government for allowing and facilitating BTL. The only solution to the housing problem is to build more houses, something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most. The private construction industry has told the government on many occasions, it is uneconomic for the private construction industry to solve the housing crisis and it can only be solved with government money. 

A parliamentary report of a few years ago came to the conclusion that building social housing would be cost neutral. Despite this the government refuses to build adequate social housing, this refusal is clearly down to what is seen as short term political gain, not what is good for the country.

 

"something the government refuses to do because it will undermine houses as investment and will effect government supporters most"

I can't see even a significant increase in social housing stock having a marked impact on the values of non social housing stock. Some localised impact possibly where new social housing abuts. They're quite different. Consequently I doubt your self-interest argument has any real impact on government policy, at least not here in the UK.

Edited by FiL

Enough social housing would reduce the value of owned houses as there would be less demand. One of the reasons for increase in house prices is the lack of social housing. As with anything, satisfy the market demand and prices fall. People have grown up since the 80s believing houses are an investment, not so much a home. It was the sale of social housing that was the election bribe that took Thatcher to power and Tory governments have been aware of that ever since. A future housing crisis was actually predicted and its mechanism understood back in the 80s when the social housing sale was first proposed. The lack of building of social housing has perpetuated the housing crisis. There is a reason governments don't solve the crisis because they could solve it and for the benefit of the economy as a whole, which is the madness of not doing it.

Yep, I don't disagree with most of that, but my point is that the people creating a demand for social housing aren't the same people creating a demand for non social housing. Satisfying the demand created by the former, by building more social housing, doesn't impact the demand for the latter except for a very narrow margin at the cusp.

But they are the same because there is no real alternative. Private renting is expensive and BTL takes houses out of the private market into the private renting market but also costs the tax payer millions in housing benefit which could be invested in social housing with lower rents. It is all linked. There is a hidden benefit in lower rents in social housing and cheaper houses in the private market, it would release income to use in other parts of the economy, creating more economic activity.

As I said, that's true for a very narrow margin at the cusp. And on the point I was actually addressing, which is your assertion that self interest drives government policy, it makes sod all difference.

Probably a much bigger driver of cross-flow of demand between private and social housing are economic cycles.

Edited by FiL