Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ways to solve the property crisis
I noticed in one of the free papers yesterday that in London two thirds of new build homes are sold to buy to let investors. This is reflected in these statistics which show that home ownership is the lowest in the country in London and it also has the highest amount of private sector rented accomodation.
My worry is that this trend could spill out to the rest of the country as house prices rise dramatically above the rise in wages. Effectively this means that it becomes increasingly hard for people to get on the housing ladder while the more wealthy sections of society who already have all the advantages of owning property see there wealth rise unchecked.
I think there are several things that we can do. Firstly we should increase the supply. Now i'm not keen on turning all the south east into a massive housing estate so the only solution would be to build up. We should change the rules so that in urban centres we can have massive apartment blocks. Also it is important to bear in mind that they shouldn't all be one and two bedroom flats because british families come in all sizes and some will want more bedrooms than two.
Secondly we should take first time buyers out of stamp duty at least on properties worth less than £300,000 which lets face it is going to cover the vast majoirty of first time buyers anyway. This would give first time buyers an edge in the market which they really need if they are not going to be renting forever.
Third i don't want to stop people getting a buy to let investment as I think it is a legitamate way to provide people with financial security but there comes a stage where people already on the housing ladder are crowding out those that are not already in the market. This I think provides a strong case for government internvention in order to address market failure. So I think people who want to own more than 5 homes should face higher stamp duty and the more homes that they buy the more that it would be.
The good thing about this is that you can have tens of millions in assets if all your five houses are large country estates and not pay a penny but if you have ten small homes that people would be looking to buy when starting out on the property ladder the state would be saying "hey hold on a moment, these people have a greater need for this property and we should be helping them rather than you"
Forth the money that this could generate could either be used to fund public services or I would suggest raise the income tax threashold which benefits everyone but benefits the poor proportionately more lessening inequality. ¶ 10:38 am
My worry is that this trend could spill out to the rest of the country as house prices rise dramatically above the rise in wages. Effectively this means that it becomes increasingly hard for people to get on the housing ladder while the more wealthy sections of society who already have all the advantages of owning property see there wealth rise unchecked.
I think there are several things that we can do. Firstly we should increase the supply. Now i'm not keen on turning all the south east into a massive housing estate so the only solution would be to build up. We should change the rules so that in urban centres we can have massive apartment blocks. Also it is important to bear in mind that they shouldn't all be one and two bedroom flats because british families come in all sizes and some will want more bedrooms than two.
Secondly we should take first time buyers out of stamp duty at least on properties worth less than £300,000 which lets face it is going to cover the vast majoirty of first time buyers anyway. This would give first time buyers an edge in the market which they really need if they are not going to be renting forever.
Third i don't want to stop people getting a buy to let investment as I think it is a legitamate way to provide people with financial security but there comes a stage where people already on the housing ladder are crowding out those that are not already in the market. This I think provides a strong case for government internvention in order to address market failure. So I think people who want to own more than 5 homes should face higher stamp duty and the more homes that they buy the more that it would be.
The good thing about this is that you can have tens of millions in assets if all your five houses are large country estates and not pay a penny but if you have ten small homes that people would be looking to buy when starting out on the property ladder the state would be saying "hey hold on a moment, these people have a greater need for this property and we should be helping them rather than you"
Forth the money that this could generate could either be used to fund public services or I would suggest raise the income tax threashold which benefits everyone but benefits the poor proportionately more lessening inequality. ¶ 10:38 am
Comments:
<< Home
You should use it to slash VAT rather than raising the income tax threshold. Again, it would benefit everyone but especially the poor because they spend a greater proportion of their income on each purchase. VAT is an unfair tax and if possible, it should be abolished altogether.
# posted by 
: 11:42 am
: 11:42 am
Not a bad idea but it would depend what the VAT is on. As the government has to raise money from somewhere and taxing products that mainly the rich buy is a perfectly legitimate way to do it without having punitive rates of income tax. But is see your point about it's regressive nature when applied to stuff that everyone buys.
This story seems to indicate one reason why Labour people will not back the conspiracy theorist and land rentier Michael Meacher, much as they admire some of his post-job leanings.
I have blogged some more on Marc and that bizarre list now btw. But the list itself is long gone.
I have blogged some more on Marc and that bizarre list now btw. But the list itself is long gone.
I don't have a problem with people having a few properties to rent but I think that more than five is taking the mick.
Meacher can on occasion make a good contribution.
Meacher can on occasion make a good contribution.
Meacher and his wife had about NINE big FO ones at the last count I saw ... may have expanded operations by now. Or gone off shore. To be safe from the aliens and/or Mossad/CIA/MI6 agents that are about to land on the roof of the palace of Westminister. AAAARGH. Men in white coats for Mr Meacher please ....
I saw the mark thomas thing ages ago and I thought it was 13 homes. But anyway. Tis neither here nor there.
Mmmm. Perhaps 13 homes will count as "very unlucky" on the Leadership while nine would be "lucky as a dead cat"? John McDonnell's one or so will tend to look "just right" or "just left".
Post a Comment
<< Home
