To think people who own multiple homes have helped drive house prices out of reach?

Some people need the flexibility of renting. Some areas benefit from holiday cottages creating jobs in the tourist industry. Who do you suggest should own these houses instead of private individuals? Large multinational corporations?

Back in the 20th century house prices were far more affordable, yet second homes were bought and owned without punitive stamp duty rates or double council tax. No one worried. This is because second home ownership is not a significant factor in house prices.

Instead, the amount banks will lend and the rate they lend at are the biggest factors. This is followed by the fact that we allow the top end of our housing market to be at by what the international elite can afford to pay for the most desirable properties, pushing the people who live in the uk and pay taxes here, would otherwise buy those houses, down a few rungs on the housing ladder. This has a trickle down effect.

Oh, not the same people by the way, same location area.

I know someone - not UK - who bought a flat for 30 thousand - old building, small, basic.

Living room, bedroom, tiny kitchen and bathroom, solo mum and kid, had to brush their teeth in the kitchen sink.

Now going for a million. Obviously upgraded, but still disgusting.

Owning multiple houses should be illegal. As should owning a home with far more bedrooms than you need.

OMG, an awful scenario into the future.....

Soviet style checking on the people. Fuck no!

Interestingly, I know someone living here from - old times - East Berlin.

She paid 10 Euros a month then for her apartment. 😮

Wonder why she fled as soon as the Berlin Wall came down....

I agree it's disgusting that a basic roof over your head - 2026 - should not be a capitalist venture! It's truly a disgrace!

Yea, but Fuck! We live in a capitalist world.

I suggest reading

https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-property-lobby

It's quite obvious. They are to blame for high rents too.

If house prices were "out of reach" there would be 100's maybe even thousands of unsold houses around because people couldn't afford them. There aren't, so houses are not "out of reach", there are probably just people who are prepared to spend more on a house than you..

I agree. But also the previous Conservative gov have propped up the market rather than letting it do its own thing.

Define "far more bedrooms than you need". Would one spare bedroom be acceptable under your rules? Two? Three?

There are some parts of the country where, for example, the demand for houses to buy is mainly for bungalows as the population ages. A typical family 3 bed terraced house is much harder to sell in those areas.

We know one area where there are many second homes that are now for sale, relatively inexpensive, but even so there is just no interest. In many cases they were bought very cheaply thirty years ago or so, because they needed a lot of work but there were no local buyers interested. There's not much work in the area except in the holiday season either, and most young people prefer to move away if they can.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Owning multiple houses should be illegal. As should owning a home with far more bedrooms than you need.

Government incentives artificially inflated house prices. Daft buggers.

Yes, I think that people forget that for every divorce somebody needs another home.

Yes.

I think many of us have mentioned lending behaviour and lending multiples earlier in the thread, its not kept from the public at all!!!

Its not rocket science, if the general person can borrow more than they could 40 years ago, ergo the prices are going to match that.

Hi, I am a PhD mathematician and have studied this.

You are almost fully correct. This is a significant part of the problem. However, there is also another significant issue that is hidden from the public.

In the 1980's you were only allowed to borrow 2.5 times your wage, and only on the primary wage earner in the household. This has sky rocketed over the years, and both earners' wages are now taken into account. There is a DIRECT correlation between this multiple of earnings and the inflation in house prices. The word 'inflation' is accurate, as it is the magicing into existence of money that does not exist. It is not backed by anything (eg other peoples' savings, gold reserves etc).

You could solve the house price crisis within a year by returning borrowing multiples to 2.5 of the primary earner and FINE people 10% of the price of the house every year, if they personally cannot demonstrate 80% occupancy in a year. Instead of renting, people would be able to buy at similar present rental costs.

This intent to engage in house price inflation was known (by the chosen people) before it happened.

Inflation is a disgusting tax on the average family to let the rich get richer by doing literally nothing. They have excess money which they can park in the inflationary part of the economy without demonstrating any intelligence whatsoever.

I think in depends on the property. There are some that, due to location or type etc, would rarely be suitable for anything other than a holiday let.

Hospitals don't need in house actuaries!

There used to be pension/insurance head offices or large regional offices in virtually every county all over the UK. All sucked up by London and a handful of other big cities like Bristol and Edinburgh.

Yes, lots of defence jobs around the country, but again, useless if there are none within commutable distance of where your family live. It's not as if they're in every town and city is it??

Exactly! Govt's need to get on with council house building but new planning approvals are at very low levels at the moment, the plan seems to be to give approval for 3/4/5 bed town houses, that hardly anyone can afford and not Social housing.
HA haven't the funds to buy too many new builds, too busy getting existing stock up to new EPC standards... madness.

Big difference between homes that sit empty most of the year and homes that are rented out. The rental market is really important and someone has to own those houses. But second homes for occasional use are very hard to justify.

Plenty of places are near hospitals, larger towns will need pro services/finance, defence means engineering jobs around the country, not just in Barrow or Plymouth, Bristol is hub for aerospace and defence, as is Portsmouth, can manufacturing, various types of engineering, Universities too ...

Plenty of well paid work outside of London.

Where would all the tenants live if landlords didn't buy the homes?

Plenty of places are nowhere near defence plants either! It's not as if they're in every town. And not much use living within commuting distance of BAE at Barrow if you are an actuary!!

of course it’s part of the problem and it disproportionally impacts the younger generation because the landscape is very different now.