HMRC's time machine setting sights on all graduates!

[Lance]

Are you honestly saying that a decline by half in the supply of housing, and a subsequent increase in house prices, and house price: income ratio is "correlation and not causation," and are unrelated???

It's not a decline in half the supply of housing. It's a decline in new house building. The supply isn't growing enough and that is why house prices are rising. And the lack of new housing stock is due to Nimbyism.

The green belt is probably the strongest legislation that prevents new house building, but that's your argument I'm supporting isn't it? In fact it's your only argument so far (well done).

House prices are high as demand is higher than supply. Fixing the supply side isn't easy as governments have found out for nearly 20 years (although they could repeal the green belt, and reduce the power of local planning authorities - but they haven't)./

As for the house price income ratio. Provide the underlying numbers..



Anyway..... What are you trying to say? I still don't understand....

[tiggat]

It's not a decline in half the supply of housing. It's a decline in new house building. The supply isn't growing enough and that is why house prices are rising. And the lack of new housing stock is due to Nimbyism.

The green belt is probably the strongest legislation that prevents new house building, but that's your argument I'm supporting isn't it? In fact it's your only argument so far (well done).

House prices are high as demand is higher than supply. Fixing the supply side isn't easy as governments have found out for nearly 20 years (although they could repeal the green belt, and reduce the power of local planning authorities - but they haven't)./

As for the house price income ratio. Provide the underlying numbers..


Anyway..... What are you trying to say? I still don't understand....

So then what you're saying then that there's the government has no influence on local authority building via legislation? Aren't three graphs showing a decline in supply of new housing and subsequent price rises enough to prove my point?

I haven't said anything about the green belt.

[barrydidit]

Gosh. Wasn't there an awful lot of housebuilding during the early 1950's..

[Lance]

So then what you're saying then that there's the government has no influence on local authority building via legislation? Aren't three graphs showing a decline in supply of new housing and subsequent price rises enough to prove my point?

I haven't said anything about the green belt.

what's your point? What are you arguing?
You posted a bad video. I called it politics of envy.
You countered with

Right because things like house prices, tuition fees and the job market are "politics of envy" and nothing to do with legislation ?

I answered the question as I don't believe that house prices and the job market are controlled by legislation because that's market forces.

I never said govt have no influence (you have inferred that), but they clearly have very little or else housing wouldn't be the tulipshow that it is.
We do seem to agree that new house building has declined and that has increased the price.

Please don't tell me that's all there is to your point.

[Lance]

Gosh. Wasn't there an awful lot of housebuilding during the early 1950's..

Yes. And in the 30s.

[tiggat]

what's your point? I never said govt have no influence (you have inferred that), but they clearly have very little or else housing wouldn't be the tulipshow that it is.
We do seem to agree that new house building has declined and that has increased the price.

Please don't tell me that's all there is to your point.

Local authorities (mandated by the government) used to provide ~40% of new house supply, that stopped, the supply went down, house prices went up to their current levels. If local authorities could build new houses at the rate they have in the past, house prices might become sensible again. Is that simple enough?

[The_Equalizer]

Local authorities (mandated by the government) used to provide ~40% of new house supply, that stopped, the supply went down, house prices went up to their current levels. If local authorities could build new houses at the rate they have in the past, house prices might become sensible again. Is that simple enough?

Where does money supply and population levels come in to it? I can't be a5sed to read the whole thread.

[Lance]

Local authorities (mandated by the government) used to provide ~40% of new house supply, that stopped, the supply went down, house prices went up to their current levels, is that simple enough?

OK. We're down to one argument now.
Can you identify the legislation that is preventing local authorities from building new housing? (this is like pulling teeth, trying to tell you how to make your own argument stand up. what do they teach in schools these days?)

And your statement is not brilliant. Yes the did once build 40%. They once built around 80%. And now they build a percent or two.
So I repeat, Can you identify the legislation (or legislations) that is (or are) preventing local authorities from building new housing?

[northernladyuk]

Where does money supply and population levels come in to it? I can't be a5sed to read the whole thread.

And household size.

[Lance]

And household size.

bloody single mothers, nicking half our housing with their half-families (that was an argument in the 80s I think)