Re: Black Wednesday 1992


"Andy Pandy" <spam8times@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5ae6pkF2ou9poU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"michael adams" <mjadams27@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5ae3ipF2lap1qU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Andy Pandy" <spam8times@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5ae0umF2nef4lU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

One idea I've heard is to completely abolish planning permission.
Planning permission is what keeps prices high - if it were abolished
building land prices would plummet,

While the price of agricultural and all other land would rise.

Yes but not by much. The point is that by removing the speculators and the
idea that
buying a big house is a Good Investment, you decrease demand. We already
have more
than enough accomodation in this country, the demand for more houses/flats
is mainly
driven by the "property per person" increasing (ie each person using up
more square
footage of property than in the past, due to lower occupancy - couples
buying family
houses, single people living alone rather than with friends/parents,
people buying
second homes etc).

....

You missed out a bit.

The housing shortage is actually due to wrinklies hanging on to houses
which are far too big for them. What with them all living longer as well.
Which is the real background to the "OAP Council Tax Scandal" of course.
So how exactly do you intend to shift them all ? At the point of a gun ?

....


So if you take out the demand for more houses, there's no reason for
agricultural
land prices to rise overall, although they may in certain areas...

....

In the areas where speculators bought up the agricultural land.
Who exactly do you think own all the big farms in SE England,
the ones that have all been considated into gigantic holdings ?
You don't think those are owned by the tenants do you ?



Rich land owners who presently own millions of acres at presently
full of cows or sheep or crops would be able to build housing estates
instead. And so either the cost of agricultural produce or imports would
have to rise.

However they'd mainly do this near towns where people actually work.
Not in the middle of nowhere where nobody wants to live. So that all
that would happen would be that the green belt around those towns
would be destroyed, green belt which at presnt is considered to be
an amenity.

My parents live in a village in the green belt outside London, and there
seems to be
a massive amount of new buildings going up there. So it's happening
already. But I
take your point, there may need to some restrictions in areas like green
belts around
major cities.

as would house prices, it would drive the speculative leeches out

...

It would simply enrich present day landholders. Many of whom are
speculators themselves - some of Jim Slater's mates in the 70's for
a start - who bought up millions of acres of agricultural land
especially in the SE and around major conurbations in the expectation
of that very thing happening.

...

and people may
start to look on a home as somewhere to live, not as an investment.

People who only look on a home as somewhere to live are happy to rent.

No they aren't. I only look on my car as something to drive, not an
investment, but I bought it rather than renting it since buying is
cheaper.

....

That would depend on how many miles you drive for a start. There can
also be tax advantages for self employed people in leasing cars rather
than owning them outright.

....

Similarly with my telly my computer, etc.

....

Years ago it was far cheaper to rent a telly as well. These things all
depend on market conditions.

....

The same applies to my house. Buying is generally cheaper than renting
over the long term, assuming you don't move too often. You also have
more security (you won't be forced to move because your landlord wants
to cash in his investment).

The relative cost of buying as against renting is dependant on market
conditions. Which themselves depend on supply and demand. Removing
large numbers of council houses from the rented sector into the owner
occupied sector increased the cost of renting as against ownership.
Which is all down to government legislation.

As to landlords you can't be forced to move because your landlord
wants to cash in his investment. Although new classes of tenants
were created by the 1988 Act some with no protection at all, there
are still fixed term tenancies with private landlords and totally
secure tenancies with housing associations, corporations, trusts, etc
etc.

http://www.caradon.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2559



As did a sizeable percentage of the UK population up until quite
recently.

The person who claimed that only people who owned their own homes
really had a stake in the country, when what she realy meant was
that people who were saddled with large mortgages were less likely
to rock the boat by going on strike was Thatcher. Nobody else.

Thatcher was also responsible for distorting the rental market by
encouraging Local Authorities to sell off their Public Housing stock.
Thus ushering a new breed of Rachmanns, only this time subsidised by
the taxpayer by way of Housing Benefit.

But like practically everything else Thatcher did, Labour were highly
critical at the time but when they got into power they carried on down
the exact same lines.

Er exactly what did you expect them to do ? Buy back all those council
houses by compulsory purchase using ratepayers and taxpayers money? The
"Daily Mail" would have really lapped that one up, I'd imagine.


I'm
reminded of Animal Farm.


In what way exactly ?


michael adams

....

--
Andy




.

Relevant Pages

  • papist multi$million nincompoops housing deceptions exposed
    ... "LOWERING land cost as a way to reduce new Housing Board flat prices is ... Most of cost of HDB flats comes from the land cost component. ... suggestion by Worker's PAP to sell land at a more reasonable price. ... How do we maximise the benefits of public housing for Singaporeans in the ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: Future of Hawaii: For rich only?
    ... The point is not the party in and of itself, but the fact that this one party - whichever and whatever it is/was - had control at the state level for 40 years...and this problem of some much land owned by so few entities still remains today. ... There was also fear that the large landowners and the Big 5 had undue influence in local politics. ... Hawaii's land owned by so few entities, then you - in my judgement - really are not in position to complain about the high cost of housing there. ... Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the State and Federal Governments owned almost 49% of the State's land, another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. ...
    (soc.culture.hawaii)
  • a real estate correction is necessary: The market is running away with itself and needs to regain af
    ... country and its workers. ... But if land prices also fall, ... of Cambodia and the Bonna Realty Group, property prices in Phnom Penh ... "It seems like the storm has come to hit Cambodia," he said. ...
    (soc.culture.cambodia)
  • Re: Workfare, not welfare
    ... Admittedly measures that restrict housing supply (eg planning ... and the current tax regime. ... for imposing a land tax on large holdings only. ... speculators could try to get it re-zoned into a lower-tax ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Workfare, not welfare
    ... what he would like with his own land. ... If the tenant cannot pay the rent then the arrangement under or ... housing benefit or not. ... I would be in favour of some measures that rig the housing market in ...
    (uk.politics.misc)