Hot tip: To predict future house prices and rents, simply look to East Asia (HK, SG) to see how far markets can squeeze renters incomes (both domestic and retail) and how banks squeeze buyers by making mortgages GREATER than whole-of-life ie ppl pass debt on to their children (Japan). Unlimited credit its the problem of the last 70 years that has allowed a minority of people (small landlords, overseas buyers, companies) to disproportionately own UK housing that’s out competed owner occupiers. Note also: that when people pay more for rent/mortgages then they have less income to spend on the wider economy which impacts GDP. Unless the UK government legislates against the above, then East Asia shows us that the UK property will spiral out of control and it won’t get the growth in GDP it’s hoping for.
Uk landlords are one of the most taxed in the world. That’s one of the reason of sky high rent, taxing them more will only worsen the situation. The real issue is crazy level of uncontrolled migration, those people even don’t have a clue that they will not have better quality of life in the uk than they have back in their countries. England is the most densely populated country in Europe and so is Hong Kong- that’s the issue. More people competing for living space will push prices up.
It is an absurd and extremely expensive situation. And as hi-lighted by Tejvan in one of his other videos, there is a ticking time bomb of renters who never manage buy and have to claim housing benefits from retirement. Future taxpayers are facing a very big bill! Don’t let the size of the PRS get any bigger than it is (at 20% of all housing).
Perhaps Rental properties should ONLY be allowed to be owned by councils, or other not-for-profit housing co-operatives and charities etc ? We have similar laws in place already for non-housing items. Hear me out... Throughout the UK, "for the overall good of society" ONLY Government authorities like the Police and Army are allowed to own Machine guns. A private person, or corporation, might own a big bunch of land, and want to set up, an approved and certified "shooting range" where sensible people can go and shoot machine guns at targets, quite safely "for fun". A company or individual might want to be able to offer such "machine gun, shooting range" services, as a way of making a profit and earning a living. . But the law does not allow that. ONLY specific government authorities, like the police and army, are allowed to own and use machine guns in the UK... Why shouldn't rental housing be placed in the same theoretical basket as machine guns ? Currently almost half the UK population are being "negatively impacted" by private landlordism. There is no advantage having essential societal infrastructure, such as electric, water, drainage, or housing, owned by wealthy individuals or billionaire corporations based on Wall Street or Swiss Banks, or Russian Oligarchs either. And remember every single "rental" home that a landlord "has to sell". (boo hoo, NOT), then becomes available for a current tenant, to buy, to live in as their own home. House prices would be more reasonable if wannabe homeowners didn't have to literally out-bid landlords whenever they wanted to buy a home to live in for themselves. I am involved with a church based not-for-profit social housing project in New Zealand. Our brand new units all have solar panels on the roof to help minimise energy bills to residents. The buildings are constructed to modern standards of energy efficiency and insulation ad Earthquake resistance. Tenants pay at most 25% of their income in rent. A long term contract with the govt supported housing (similar to UK's "council housing") paid to have the new buildings built on church land. Eventually after 50 years they will revert to church having full ownership.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma I think you have it spot on. The problem is we are where we are and thanks to successive governments 20% of houses now in the private rental sector, and the % houses owned by councils and housing associations has gradually diminished. And the taxpayers bill for housing benefit has skyrocketed (currently £27bn) and will only keep going up. It would take a lot of work and planning and a of of time to unpick it. But I agree with what you are saying.
Nah, government subsidising tenants housing costs. In turn subsidising low minimum wage work. In turn subsidising business owners. In turn subsiding consumers. Unwind it all.
Me and my wife both preferred to stay living with parents for a number of extra years than start renting. We really wanted our foot on the ladder, we didnt want to pay dead money to pay off someone else’s mortgage
@@seany8787 that only works if you have parents who have a reasonably sized property. Not a childhood box room or a room that was shared between siblings - they can’t all stay then, can they 🙄 And also if the parents are ok with you staying - some aren’t and it’s also understandable. Many parents also downsize as soon as possible because they are struggling and have no private pension pot. And some end up renting themselves. Your recommendation is far from being a viable solution unfortunately.
I know what you say is true, but it's difficult to understand with your huge country and abundant resources, even if you are limited to living in the coastal regions. Met a guy from Melbourne recently and my jaw dropped when he told me about the property market there. Sounds like your politicians may be as bad as ours...almost.
"Official data is available on the nationality of those allocated social housing. It shows that at least 11% of social housing lets in London were given to foreign nationals. In the boroughs of Ealing and Haringey nearly half of all social housing lets went to foreign nationals." This was from 2012. Imagine the situation now.
@3thinking , your interpretation of the social housing statistics in London are disingenuous, there is no such thing in the statistics to show that social housing is going to foreign nationals, majority of ethnic minorities in London are British citizens, and the statistics show that , this group are more likely to rent social housing due to their economic status, and majority whites people in London are owners occupiers, they have no needs for social housing. If you have issues with immigrants and non white people, come straight out with it , don’t hide behind misinformation.
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp it is because they have collapsed their own nation and are losing currency status which is fatal. the £ will become very worthless. they have lost it all.
Its the planning permission act 1949 combined with the Thatcherism of the 80s. The act gave local councils the ability to set standards of construction but also block any they didn't like. It was intended to make all houses safe and it did. Only issue is they didn't lower there power once it was achieved. In the 50s houses were built by the government with all the planning permission they could force though. Local councils couldn't overrule the government on things that were to the benefit of the nation. I can't remember the name of that law but HS2 is an example. But none of the expensive planning permission was reduced, combined with the strengthening of local councils under the idea of the local councils represent the people of there local area therefore know what they need most. So what happened is the average member of those local councils having a vested interest in keeping the housing costs high so that there homes remain expensive as most are older people with more free time who care about the costs of there assets as its the only way to guarantee stability which is what we all want. Meanwhile the youth are to busy trying to survive to go and spend the time needed to jump though the hoops to get into a council they wont influence as there outnumbered 20 to 1. Its not a purposefull system just a system that didn't account for the way people work. Combined with a government oversight.
13:15 - This is terribly wrong. Increasing housing benefits will not solve the problem - giving people more money will just increase rents. This is just basic economics of demand and supply.
@@vonder7 Exactly - the government keeps on pouring in billions in housing benefit and surprise, surprise, rents keep on increasing. Basic demand and supply that this guy doesn't understand.
@@JoBo301 if the rent is 1300 but you get 800 from the govt it actually costs you just 500 and it’s ruining it for everyone else who is not on benefits. Who is profiteering from that? You would say landlords but they are also taxed to the brink - I looked into possibly becoming one and you are taxed so much that it doesn’t make sense. So who is profitiring on that? Pretty much no one, but the middle class have to pay for it in high taxes and inflated house prices. This country is so badly governed that it’s unbelievable. It’s like - let tax food so much that the poor cannot afford it and let’s provide them with free coupons so they don’t die of hunger. And who is going to pay for those coupons? Those who are still above the water and working hard. Ridicolous.
@@pauln6803 If you watch the video it was one of his suggestions to fix the rental crisis. But of course it would only push rents higher, not lower. His knowledge of demand and supply is not well defined.
This video was very well researched & presented. It is the best video I've seen that explains how the rental and ownership model changed since the 1920's. a must watch for anyone that wants to understand the history of the UK housing market.
This is an excellent (although depressing) Channel. I consistently recommend this to my friends and colleagues "Down Under", since the UK situation may well be a harbinger of the Aussie future, with our very well-established "Rentier, get rich quick" mindset reliant on "Build to Rent" mass-produced (and awful build quality) "homes", especially in the "apartment" area. The Wife likes your regular choice of Airforce blue; are you ex - Services perhaps (I'm ex RN by the way!)
I enjoy your videos, but I think it’s odd that you don’t cite section 24 (not being able to offset mortgage costs) as a primary reason for rising rents. Landlords have to be able to make money… it’s a business not a charity, and if there is no margin obviously the asset owners will simply look at other markets (stocks, bonds, overseas property). The thing that would benefit tenants most is allowing tax offsets again.
Quite right. But it’s not just mortgage interest costs you can’t offset, and you have to pay tax on the revenue, not on the profit. No other business is penalised this way. Because of all that, my second home sits empty for a while now. As a higher rate taxpayer, it would be foolish to have it rented out. I calculated that frequently redecorating and taking the risk of a bad tenant not paying and/or damaging the property(which would cost me a fortune) is simply not worth the tiny profit I’d make after tax. Especially as I can’t do any DIY and tradesmen became increasingly expensive too, it’s just not worth it. I’m not selling, because I want to keep it as asset and pass it on as part of my estate, but hell no, I’m not renting it out under the current rules.
As a former tenant I wouldn’t have a problem with revoking S24, as it doesn’t affect tenant rights etc. However, I’m not convinced the savings will be passed on in the form of lower rents. As the author of the video has pointed out, we are in a situation where landlords can charge as much as the tenant can stomach. Why would a landlord lower the rent (and reduce profits) if they didn’t have to? As you said, they are operating a business.
@@redbruce1999 there’s only so much one can charge based on that area. You want to get tenants who can afford the place and afford it on the longer term. A high turnover of tenants is very much a pain for a landlord. I’d rather not raise the rent unless it’s a must, than raise it and end up losing an otherwise good tenant. Also, there are limitations on how much you can raise the rent within a certain period of tenancy.
@@MsJustice4ever I take on board what you are saying about rents. But in the end landlords will charge the market rate (or thereabouts), whatever their margins, even landlords with no mortgage to pay. I think the main benefit in revoking S24 (if there is one) would be to persuade landlords with low margins to stay and also to offset against the regulations coming up in terms of banning S21 and EPC requirements. This might not be a popular point of view, but I don’t believe we should incentivise BTL too much that would result in the rapid expansion of the size of the PRS (beyond 20% of all housing where it stands now). Shifting the needle from ownership to PRS will just create more demand and won’t solve anything. And it would result in taxpayers (especially future taxpayers) paying more and more in housing benefits, when the bill has already skyrocketed to £27bn. Looking at the growth of the PRS on the graph, it’s clear that S24 put a brake on the rapid expansion of the PRS from 2017. And without it we would probably be looking at 25% (or more) of houses being private rentals by now, meaning more people trapped in the PRS (some for the whole of their lives and into retirement) when they would otherwise be home owners, and higher house prices and still have the supply / demand problem in the private rental sector.
My father said that he as a running messenger boy at the age of 15 could "test live" apartments without rent for the first month. In central Stockholm. But then government introduced "housing policies". And today many in the age 20-30 can't form a family and have children, because there's no chance on the Hill that they can afford an apartement.
Your videos show how badly successive governments of all parties have governed the UK. Things will continue to get worse unless there is a major reset of the UK's institutions, and sadly, the Labour government seems to be unwilling to do this (e.g. elected House of Lords, proportional representation, codified constitution, disestablishment of CofE, reform of council tax,...) or to be candid to the UK population about the need for additional higher taxation.
Tejvan touched on an Important fact earlier in the video but didn’t really pick up on it and that is the fact that many people in the private rental sector are NOT there because they want to be there, but because they are trapped there. Many are hardworking people with families desperate to buy their first home, and don’t need the flexibility that some in the private rental sector want. How many renters are in this situation, that’s what we need to know. So it’s not necessarily the case that the PRS needs to expand further (beyond the 20% of all housing currently). If in theory the PRS expanded to 50% of all housing, would it solve anything? Certainly not. The big problem is lack of supply wrt population both to buy (and rent) and current housing stock not being used efficiently. I also don’t lend much credence to claims by landlords of planning to “sell up” resulting in a mass exodus. They have been saying that for the last 7 years and it has yet to materialise. As per the graph, the size of the PRS has remained broadly static since 2016 at 4.6m houses (19-20% of all housing). Increasing the size of the PRS will just result in more demand and more money poured down the drain by government (housing benefit) and renters who don’t claim housing benefits.
There is not a housing crisis. It is a chronic situation. The land market is dysfunctional and will continue to be dysfunctional until all UK property taxes are replaced by a land value tax based on annual rental values of sites only.
Perhaps Rental properties should ONLY be allowed to be owned by councils, or other not-for-profit housing co-operatives and charities etc ? We have similar laws in place already for non-housing items. Hear me out... Throughout the UK, "for the overall good of society" ONLY Government authorities like the Police and Army are allowed to own Machine guns. A private person, or corporation, might own a big bunch of land, and want to set up, an approved and certified "shooting range" where sensible people can go and shoot machine guns at targets, quite safely "for fun". A company or individual might want to be able to offer such "machine gun, shooting range" services, as a way of making a profit and earning a living. . But the law does not allow that. ONLY specific government authorities, like the police and army, are allowed to own and use machine guns in the UK... Why shouldn't rental housing be placed in the same theoretical basket as machine guns ? Currently almost half the UK population are being "negatively impacted" by private landlordism. There is no advantage having essential societal infrastructure, such as electric, water, drainage, or housing, owned by wealthy individuals or billionaire corporations based on Wall Street or Swiss Banks, or Russian Oligarchs either. And remember every single "rental" home that a landlord "has to sell". (boo hoo, NOT), then becomes available for a current tenant, to buy, to live in as their own home. House prices would be more reasonable if wannabe homeowners didn't have to literally out-bid landlords whenever they wanted to buy a home to live in for themselves. I am involved with a church based not-for-profit social housing project in New Zealand. Our brand new units all have solar panels on the roof to help minimise energy bills to residents. The buildings are constructed to modern standards of energy efficiency and insulation ad Earthquake resistance. Tenants pay at most 25% of their income in rent. A long term contract with the govt supported housing (similar to UK's "council housing") paid to have the new buildings built on church land. Eventually after 50 years they will revert to church having full ownership.
Every government policy seems to penalise small landlords , make homelessness worse and clear the way for big landlords . It;s much the same with other kinds of business. The donor class is favoured whilst SMEs are being destroyed.
@@mrmeldrew693 maybe the government will buy-out the filled hotels, add kitchens, and turn them into long-term illegal immigrant barracks (which they already are now).
Local councils tend to the problem more than anything else when it comes to building homes. They have had to much incentive to block planning permission by pandering to the older haves.
A reasonable analysis but fails to ask the most important question - why does supply not keep up with demand. When we look at this issue since 1914 (effectively the start of proper home ownership statistics), we see several period of social house building booms. With the exception of the immediate post WW2 boom which was needed to replace the housing destroyed by the Luftwaffe, social housing booms inevitable happen when the private sector reduces the number of homes it is building. So the question then becomes why is the private sector building less and of course the answer is falling demand and until around 1980 that falling demand was predominantly driven by the private rented sector not adding to its stock. The private rented sector was doing so because the combination of high taxation and rent controls made being a landlord not sufficiently profitable. Sadly politicians rarely learn lessons from history if those lessons would contradicted their biases. What we have seen over the last 10-15 years if governments, and it really does not matter which party is in charge, steadily increase regulations on landlords for very good intentions but without considering the overall consequences. We are now back to a similar situation to the late 1960s where being a private landlord is not particularly profitable and highly time consuming, in broad terms most private landlords would make a better return by selling up and putting the money into a boring share investment fund. What is happening is that the private individual landlord is selling and large corporate landlords are taking over. That will not end well for tenants
Maybe this helps: ruclips.net/video/tnVE9LFrhPw/видео.html Any simple solution can and WILL be outplayed for maximizing profits. You increase the standards or price cap? Builders reduce the size. As said in the video, for builders its not in their interest to build. The harder they work the less their profit will be. (not as if houses don't ever need maintenance, repairs or renovations btw...) Intorudcing a rent/sale cap again would deincentify the supply. Migration again is a weird topic. Most migrants share house with families and friends. Well... there's a grim solution on its way. Current generation is around 40% childfree. Homes and kids are not affordable. 40-60 years and their bloodline will end, whatever we'll they accumulated will not be inherited by their kids. Yet a controversial solution again for this is migration. Because someone needs to fund the pyramid scheme called pension... :D But work visas are tricky and could be manipulated because once the worker isn't needed government simply refuse to extend the visa: "no benefits, no pension, no unemployment increase" And migrant while some argue they take money away from the economy, the same time the need to settle down first and LIVE here. Whatever money they take with themselves usually minisculed by the GDP they pumped in. (ie: they built a house and paid their taxes)
So basically it's all them people who buy the houses. Then let them out. Have ruined the market. Yes there is others reasons. But the route cause is allowing people to own multiple dwellings, while others do not. I was training to be an electrician and was an apprentice that worked on building sites. But then I had a car crash and sustained a brain injury. I mean I couldn't even walk. I had to relearn. Enough about me. I wanted to get back into it. But I was laid off and I still have poor health since leaving hospital with minimal to no support. Now I just sit back and watch what's going on in the world
All these issues stem from an economy grappling with uncertainties, including housing problems, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and the aftermath of the pandemic, leading to instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions demand urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth.
With $420,000 in retirement savings, diversifying into assets that historically perform well during inflationary periods, such as Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), commodities, or foreign currency assets, might help protect against potential dollar depreciation. Exploring options like global real estate, diversified foreign bonds, or high-quality international equities may also offer a hedge against a declining dollar and inflationary risks .
With my demanding job, I lack time for investment analysis. For seven years, a fiduciary has managed my portfolio, adapting to market conditions, enabling successful navigation and informed decisions. Consider a similar approach.
this is definitely considerable! think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
Thanks, I looked her up on Google and was very impressed by her credentials. I reached out because I need all the help I can get. I've scheduled a phone call with her.
What nobody seems to realise is most of those post war houses were shit and have since been knocked down. Grenfell tower was one of the good ones that didn’t get knocked down but they foolishly modernised it by attaching flammable cladding. You have to admit the problem with Britain is the entire property industry. Has been the same for donkeys years.
Sorry, but you're wrong. They were good enough to sell off, so Margaret Thatcher sold them off to the tenants with a 20% discount. The ones sold are still in the private sector, and still standing.
Most council houses are pretty solid. But yes, a lot of the blocks of flats were shoddy to say the least. But looking at new builds, I see more problems for the near future. And that's the private sector.
You miss the point. Post WW2 housing was a huge improvement on the slums they replaced. I remember my grandparents houses in Aberdeen, Scotland. Slums.
Not true. The houses were good enough to qualify for mortgages, and many of the flats were too. Grenfell happened because the local council did not care enough to ensure that the properties met current regulations by installing sprinklers and other updates. And the renovators went along with that to increase their profits. Also, in London a lot of tower blocks have flats that have been purchased. They are good if they are looked after and updated, but with governments centralising financing and power, local authorities have and still are being hobbled. It's not that they don't want to build. It's that they are being prevented from building. The scam Thatcher inflicted on the country is still being allowed to escalate, because our politics is broken. Our politicians are careerists who will get speaking tours and nice jobs in the city after they leave politics, from the plutocrats funding them to get into power. So, we're being screwed over. Until we wake up to that nothing will change.
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver
As a beginner in this, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Jihan Wu is also my trade analyst, he has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
Jihan Wu Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love him here in Canada 🇨🇦 as he has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
1. End private landlords. No second homes. 2. Tenants in social housing forced into co-ownership of property (with gov or trust). 3. Housing National Insurance. Long term unemployed etc. in social housing accumulate financial ownership of the property even from temporary work. Can release cash by selling and downsizing. 4. End unmanaged immigration.
In broad strokes, the way to fix this is to: 1. Create a National Housing Service that not only is designed to build accommodation for public benefit and not profit, but can side step the insane number of NIMBY issues that plague the current market. 2. Abolish the current way we house people through the council. Create and maintain a national public housing stock and offer homes irrespective of location. If you’re in London and a house that fits your needs comes available in Scotland, you either accept it or are removed from the list and start again at the back of the queue. End right to buy now and forever, and move people out of publicly owned homes when they no longer suite their needs. Were you given a 3 bed council home when you had two young kids? When those children become adults you’re now housed in a one bed home or flat. Again if you refuse, you’re out and to the back of the queue for housing. 3. Stop only housing women with children as the top priority. Build homes specifically for young single people that are extremely cheap but serviceable, and stop letting non citizens be eligible for council homes. This would be considered cruel, but it would be highly effective.
Part of me understands why they wouldn’t because it would likely be political suicide. But if we could somehow do this and remove the triple lock this country might have an actual chance at real recovery.
@@lucasdeyton8842 how about redefined definitions on the word PreFab ,mortgage companies do not lend on pre fab, from an completely outdated outlook from the asbestos filled pre fab after ww2 ,A modern prefab manufacture can and is Epc efficient, better quality and control in factory environment, can be produced all year round very handy in U,K,and much ,much better for the environment ,but because mortgage companies don't lend on them no-one builds them ,because you struggle to re sell them!!! Modern house building standards as a whole are bad ,and slow but we could set factories up to build all year round ,not slave to the uk weather ,to cold ,to wet,and I bet no-one in the government housing department has even looked at this ,
I don't see a solution to the problem in the next 10 years. Most private landlords want to sell, which is reducing supply at the same time as demand from tenants is growing. More social housing will be built, but at a trickle and it will take a long time before the huge investment companies have built their premium priced blocks of flats with rents higher than the typical tenant can afford. We actually need more social housing on a massive scale and until that happens we need more private landlords just when Conservatives and Labour are deliberately adopting policies designed to get private landlords to sell up. Soon it will be very hard to accept a job in a new town or city because there won't be anywhere available to rent at an affordable price.
Is rent control workable? Rising house price kills the economy and also the people. If buying house is not equal to profitable investment, the house mkt will be more stable.
@@eruketo3969so you think private landlords should subsidise structural problems in the market? I’m selling my rental because I make a loss every year due to tax changes. Owning a rental now is a misallocation of capital and governments are making it worse and worse. I have a mortgage on it which I cannot offset against the rent in tax terms so I’m paying tax on full rent which combined with the mortgage means I lose every month. I’m out.
@@eruketo3969no, it is not. What you win in price you lose in availability. Rent control means a frozen rent market where wait lists grow indefinitely and people have to resort to illegal subletting to have a roof over their heads
In the end the main reason behind the secular rise in house prices from the 1980s was cheap credit and the liberalisation of mortgages, so a lot more ppl could borrow (a lot). This created artificial demand for housing above present income so prices of course ballooned. Isn’t part of the solution to reverse this? Ie. if interest rates would be kept at around 5-7% for a decade or more and mortgages would be more strictly regulated, prices should go down or at least stay flat. Incidentally, it would make sense to save again. If meanwhile nominal wage growth is 5%, in 10-15 years this could halve the price/income ratio, so it would become possible again to *save* enough to buy. I don’t understand why this solution (+more housebuilding) is never considered- oh ok i know, it’s politically unpalatable bc a lot of people want to buy things they cannot afford from their income?
Do you think there is any hope for the UK? I know negative videos get way more views than positive ones but after various watches, the latest being the one from Sasha I have no hope left.
I think it has to get worse to get better tbh. The changes needed will be brutal and society won’t accept them until they have to. The tax burden is massive and Labour are making it worse. However on a personal level how are you doing. You may be fine so don’t let it get you down. Or go somewhere else before tied down by family etc.
I watched that too, that real tax rate is like 70%. Honestly the only hope I see is Reform UK because the 2 main parties will NEVER solve anything, they've both been in power and are both the reason why this country is in decline. But since so many people are still voting for their own demise I guess things will have to get even worse until enough people finally realise this.
Are you sure the problem is caused by people offering a service that people want at rates barely above break-even? It couldn't possibly be caused by a massive increase in demand while the supply remains nearly-constant, could it? And what could cause an increase in demand? Any elephants in the room?
@chesshooligan1282 if you were talking about something with an elastic supply then sure. Land is not one of those things. Landlords "provide a service" as much as ticket sclalpers do. But it's far worse because it's for something that we all need to survive.
@@NK-vd8xi Nothing is stopping you from becoming a landlord and putting up with all the aggro, all the government regulations, the risk of bad tenants impossible to evict, the risk of a market crash that will leave you with negative equity, and so on... all for a return less than what the S&P 500 or gold give you without the need for moving a finger. Come on, go ahead, there's a fortune to make out there.
@@NK-vd8xi As for scalping, this is from an Economics 101 textbook: Tickets to athletic and artistic events are sometimes resold at higher-than-original prices-a market transaction known by the term “scalping.” For example,the original buyer may resell a $50 ticket to an NHL game for $200, $250, or more. The media often denounce scalpers for “ripping off” buyers by charging “exorbitant” prices. Scalping and extortion are synonymous in some people’s minds. But is scalping really sinful? We must first recognize that such ticket resales are voluntary transactions. Both buyer and seller expect to gain from the exchange. Otherwise it would not occur! The seller must value the $200 more than seeing the event, and the buyer must value seeing the event more than the $200. So there are no losers or victims here: Both buyer and seller benefit from the transaction. The “scalping” market simply redistributes assets (game or concert tickets) from those who value them less to those who value them more. Does scalping impose losses or injury on other parties, in particular the event sponsors of the event? If the sponsors are injured, it is because they initially priced tickets below the equilibrium level. In so doing they suffer an economic loss in the form of less revenue and profit than they might have otherwise received. But the loss is selfinflicted because of their pricing error. That mistake is quite separate and distinct from the fact that some tickets were later sold at a higher price. What about spectators? Does scalping deteriorate the enthusiasm of the audience? No! People who have the greatest interest in the event will pay the scalper’s high prices. Ticket scalping also benefits the teams and performing artists, because they will appear before more dedicated audiences-ones that are more likely to buy souvenir items or CDs. So, is ticket scalping undesirable? Not on economic grounds. Both seller and buyer of a “scalped” ticket benefit, and a more interested audience results. Event sponsors may sacrifice revenue and profits, but that stems from their own misjudgment of the equilibrium price.
@@NK-vd8xi As for scalping, this is from an Economics 101 textbook: "Tickets to athletic and artistic events are sometimes resold at higher-than-original prices-a market transaction known by the term “scalping.” For example,the original buyer may resell a $50 ticket to an NHL game for $200, $250, or more. The media often denounce scalpers for “ripping off” buyers by charging “exorbitant” prices. Scalping and extortion are synonymous in some people’s minds. But is scalping really sinful? We must first recognize that such ticket resales are voluntary transactions. Both buyer and seller expect to gain from the exchange. Otherwise it would not occur! The seller must value the $200 more than seeing the event, and the buyer must value seeing the event more than the $200. So there are no losers or victims here: Both buyer and seller benefit from the transaction. The “scalping” market simply redistributes assets (game or concert tickets) from those who value them less to those who value them more. Does scalping impose losses or injury on other parties, in particular the event sponsors of the event? If the sponsors are injured, it is because they initially priced tickets below the equilibrium level. In so doing they suffer an economic loss in the form of less revenue and profit than they might have otherwise received. But the loss is selfinflicted because of their pricing error. That mistake is quite separate and distinct from the fact that some tickets were later sold at a higher price. What about spectators? Does scalping deteriorate the enthusiasm of the audience? No! People who have the greatest interest in the event will pay the scalper’s high prices. Ticket scalping also benefits the teams and performing artists, because they will appear before more dedicated audiences-ones that are more likely to buy souvenir items or CDs. So, is ticket scalping undesirable? Not on economic grounds. Both seller and buyer of a “scalped” ticket benefit, and a more interested audience results. Event sponsors may sacrifice revenue and profits, but that stems from their own misjudgment of the equilibrium price."
we are cursed as uk citizens because the only other option is to be a visa bum in another country and any asset you buy can be one visa rejection away from disappearing
Between 1997 and 2007 the UK population increased by 5 percent. But over the same period house prices increased by 300 percent. House price inflation is not caused by immigration, or supply and demand. It is caused by private banks issuing endless amounts of debt.
House prices were at a post war low in 1997 ( it was even on the price to earnings chart he showed us)after 18 years of Tory rule. Brown got in as Chancellor and destroyed the economy by quadrupling prices in just ten years. Funny how the commentator never analyses when the damage was done, Brown was a disaster.
'Population crash' doesn't have to happen, if you import the workforce. When you think of it, it has been happening for decades - not enough 'Brits' born to manage the economy, so immigration was the key. The problem is that UK wanted more people in, but not willing to build for them. Everyone pays the price of it - older generation benefitted from it as they didn't have to do much and the price of their home made them millionaires(in desirable areas).
Something happened to the demographics of the UK in the late 1990s to cause rents and house prices to go through the rook. Hmm I wonder what it was, I just can't put my finger on it...............
He did say that. But that is only part of the problem. Also we need the builders if we want to increase supply. Do you prefer Polish or Indian builders ?
I dont want to increase the supply for immigrants. The UK's native population is decreasing. Why would I make current citizens who are dying out pay for the housing of their replacements? I am not an abuser of servants who orchestrates their downfall.
@@prolarka Then we should go down the Japanese route . But our political leaders have chosen the other path . The electorate don't understand the choices as our media and leaders treat us like children. That includes Reform . Japan has had flatlining growth , but so has the UK !
@@sfactory8253 GDP per capita is even decreasing due to settling in no skilled labour and freeloaders which will never be as productive as skilled workers. The current policies are on the right track to close the gap between the UK and the third world. They literally aim to compete with cheap labour. I see it every day at my work too.
I believe the 2 child housing benefit changes came about more because the system was being abused, than from it being compared to house building, from what I have read.
I am not sure if UK government even wants to solve the housing problem especially when they have conflict of interest i.e. either lots of decision maker are either landlords or gets good donation from rich landlords...
8:55 fow 'housing to become more affordable'... basically means that house prices need to 'crash' and go down by 15%-20% or at least stagnate for the next 10 -15 years...
Anyone who owns 2 homes, is taxed to the equivalent cost of building another 1 new home. Enforce this and watch how the numerous landlords and investors who can't hold a hammer and nail correctly either start building more or stop speculation. They are the group you cannot aim to please if you want lower cost housing, it's either them or tenants who just want a place to live.
Not really. You are taxed if you have a capital gain from that property. No capital gain, and all you have to pay is your council tax. Make a profit just like any other business, and you will be taxed on that profit. So, excuse me but I have no violins left. You are a business, and so you have to be taxed.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx the issue is that the amount of tax is Ridicolous, let say you bought some property and you earn 50k from your job. You would be taxed 40 percent on the entire rent you charge, so after paying the mortgage and expenses you would actually be losing money. That’s insane. In other countries you pay like 10 percent tax on rental income and can deduct mortgage. That’s why landlords are fleeing and as a result rents are skyrocketing. Lefties told the society that landlords are making big money and that’s all their fault, it’s actually completely not true, it’s the government that’s greedy.
@@vonder7 Actually, it's neo liberalism that caused the skyrocketing housing costs. When the councils were forced to sell off their properties at steep discounts, this opened the door for private rental as the amount of "social" housing that was already in short supply shrank. On top of that, sites that could have been redeveloped into social housing projects were sold to private developers who, naturally, want the best return for their investment. Enter corruption... While the government was making a song and dance about developers being forced to build a proportion of "affordable" housing, they, were taking donations (bribes in the common man's tongue) from developers to use executive power to exempt various projects from the rules - see Robert Jenrick vs Tower Hamlets. I've heard similar regarding local government, but unlike Jenrick's involvement with Richard Desmond and the subsequent High Court case, that's just rumours. We've allowed swathes of London to be snapped up by foreign buyers, pushing even some of the higher earners (in comparison to the midlands and the north) out of London, creating further demand for property in areas suitable for a commuter base. I certainly don't blame anyone for wanting 2nd or even more properties as an investment, but the whole system is crazy. We've created a situation where property developers have been allowed to sit on land until it accumulates perhaps double or more of its original value, and snap up the former city factory buildings, then primarily build property suited to the already wealthy, squeezing those at the lower end of the scale out of the market, then we tax that wealth to provide benefits so that those at the lower end of the earnings scale can afford the spiraling cost of rental property. The real question is not who should be taxed, but how to get out of this ridiculous situation?
Hi thanks for this video it explains the housing rental market very well and I wish tenants would watch it because as a landlord I'm very frustrated that we àre demonised as greedy landlords who don't care about anything apart from ourselves. As a business being a landlord it has to make financial sense most landlords do care about their tenants and are as much social workers as landlords and have to deal and help with all their tenants life problems it's a bit like a partnership one d doesn't work with out the other. If a landlord doesn't care about his tenants it will long term history business model will collapse this video is great for explaining the reason why rent prices are so high and housing costs are so high and how we got into this position (government).so my advice to any tenants is talk to your landlord most of them are normal people and will help as much as they can if you have a problem don't bury ahead in the sand because the problem will only get bigger and you will leave less opportunities for your landlord to help with the problem.
The UK has had a rentier economy enabled and subsidized by big government for decades. It's no wonder why everything is expensive there, and the UK is uncompetitive in manufacturing. Also, rent controls make everyone a loser in the end. There is plenty of history to show this. If you want a recent case, just look up Argentina rent controls. Yes there is a good long term solution! Stop subsidizing the housing sector with tax benefits, and government backing of mortgages. Prices will decline. Housing will eventually become affordable. Whatever gets subsidized, gets expensive!
A general point is if you expect the private sector to solve social problems like housing, you’ll be greatly disappointed. So what did the powerful do? Spread propaganda that “there’s no such thing as society.”
@@jeremiahpoole6526 They have of course saved for their old age, so they have no needs that concerns the government. Btw, they will keep voting the same way the rest of their lives too, nothing that government does affects that. So it isn't democratically possible to care about them.
Great content as always! But on an unrelated note, does anyone how to make a video like this where the slides have animated text and the presenter's face is in a small window on the side?
The fact that Britain has decided that Housing is a never-ending profitable investment.... is going to come back to bite them... The crash will happen... not now, not in 10 years... but in 20 years.... Housing prices going up in a straight curve is pipe dream and relity will hit (as it must)
“The crash” 😂 Is that the same crash which has been predicted for the last 20yrs? Look mate, if the market was EVER going to “crash” it would’ve done in the GFC. But guess what, it never happened. The same is true of the last 18mths where the cost of borrowing accelerated at its highest ever rate. We did not however see precipitous defaults. Wealth growth has insulated short term volatility. Look mate, this isn’t difficult. For as long as there is a shortage of supply, there is absolutely no catalyst for a correction. This is a very simple concept - not sophisticated economics. But hey, don’t let any of this stop you from predicting the crash. Every fool has their purpose.
The main reasons are Thatcherism followed by Cameron’s austerity, the selfish communities that don’t want to release land to buildings because it destroys their view and enjoyment of shi**y , miserable, wet, clodded fields, and, mindless immigration . With regards to the second point there would be no excuses from developed countries. Their pleadings would be struck off.
Where did all the money go from sale of council houses??!!rented for years ,built for pennies ,sold of at pounds but no money to build more!!??who and where did the money go??
The whole idea behind this and other neo-liberal Thatcherite policies was to shrink the state and to let the market decide with as little state intervention as possible. The end result was massive sell off of national assets. The whole idea was that the government shouldn't intervene, so any new development was essentially entirely in the hands of private developers. This is why all of the former city centre factories of my hometown were converted into luxury apartments, which sat almost empty for a couple of years until many professionals were priced out of London and sought a convenient mainline location to commute from. As for the money that went to local authorities from the sale of council properties? Probably spent on repairing roads, schools and other infrastructure they were liable for. And then came the 2007 financial crisis, triggered by the US sub prime mortgages, and the heavily mismatched debt to asset ratio of the global banking industry. Council investment and pension schemes suffered, with some even collapsing, essentially bankrupting them. And ever since David Cameron, central government funding of councils has been cut and power transfered to central government on the quiet, which has only made the situation worse.
Tejvan, have you had a look at a book called "Diminishing returns: the new politics of growth and stagnation", edited by Lucio Baccaro, Mark Blyth, and Jonas Pontusson? There's a chapter in it called 'Credit-Driven and Consumption-Led Growth Models in the United States and United Kingdom' written by Alexander Reisenbichler and Andreas Wiedemann. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this work.
I wish long term renting paid. Paid for the tenant as well as the landlord . Does anyone else agree that long term renters should get a return on there money like the landlords do . Why not!! If you rented a house . Say a housing association property. For 25 years In that time you'd at least pay as much as the property is worth and if honest possibly 2 or 3 times even depending where you live But when you leave . You'd be lucky to get your down payment back that you had to pay before moving in While the housing association makes a fortune from it. If the tenant actually got a decent return at the end . Say 20% of what they paid in. Or even a fraction of the house value at the time you move out . Then at least all our people who were never able to get onto the property ladder due to the climate they lived through . Like now for instance . Would actually have something built up for latter in life . Which could only benefit society . As when people cant afford to live. It has a knock on effect . And affects everybody . But if renters had a nice little nest egg to look forward to later in life Suddenly even the poorest of people would have a future to look forward to . Having a positive knock on effect for everyone. You'd also find renters were more reliable at paying ontime And landlords wouldn't have long periods of shortfalls . So it could and should balance it self out where landlords don't actually loose out anything by giving there long term Tennant's a return . Especially as these tennants have in alot of cases actually paid off the mortgage on the property. I don't know. What do you all think. I think we should do everything we can to boost the wealth of the poorest members of society. A 25 year plan With real potential growth for everyone . As landlords get positive equity over that length of time. Look at the last 25 years house price comparisons to today. So why not let everyone benefit over time .who ever they are .. And renting your whole life a having nothing to show for it. Sucks
Yes, we need to get rid of welfare (of which 40% is pensions) and bring back the workhouse. Perhaps you can be in charge of the profits of those too whilst everyone else pays ?
@@strobel6028The workhouse never worked because it never created wealth, trapping people. Not to mention rhe human rights abuses and the false imprisonment. What we need are risk takers and entrepreneurs to create jobs for the nation. Liz Truss had the right idea - we need to reward that which creates growth, in name that means reducing taxes by quite a lot. Let’s bring back the Concorde program, develop our space program, let’s mine all the coal we can on our island. This is where the jobs and the wealth are. If our nation isn’t willing to mine the resources we have to sell on the world markets - where demand for coal is huge, then we can’t complain when our people are on benefits….as we are not providing the correct opportunities.
I think Rachel Reeves is missing a trick. Instead of bunging the private fund managers a lot of money from local authority pension funds, with only 5% to be invested, why not stipulate that 15% of investments from these funds go to local authorities to build more houses? Right now 20% of pensions are subsidies from central government amounting to £70bn pa. Spend that on housing, training new construction workers, and using new building technologies we might make a dent in the problem.
If the government can protect remote workers or encourage remote working to employers (but in the UK) then that would certainly benefit myself and my colleagues. We don't want to live in overpriced London, but we like our jobs here.
@@vonder7 Yes I agree. I'm in IT (27) as are my brothers (in early 50s) who were earning high six figures in Y2K. Fact is I'll never make that money because our wages haven't moved since 2007.
Housing is not longer to live in, it is an asset to make money out of. Something like half of the global assets are homes. Banks are jubilant :) Builing new houses takes time and is expensive. Keeping up vale of and trading exising "assets" is easier and now protecting the value of the "asset" has top priority.
Immigration is rising because employers demand more labour. If there were no jobs, they will not come. Another driver is universities using the high fees paid to subsidise the home students. Solution? A higher birth rate to increase labour supply in the long run, more economically inactive people into the workforce and higher fees for students. All are challenging to deliver.
Partially incorrect. There were parts of the economy that needed to be 'privatised'. That being said, she has made many wrong decisions in the long run that caused UK to stagnate - selling all the land, waters, allowing international private companies to pay minimum tax and stop building was wrong decision.
She went too far but the economy boomed after complete failure and an IMF bailout under Labour before. Look up winter of discontent. Also mining was structurally broken so needed sorting.
@Cassp0nk the economy boomed as things were sold of to the rich at basement prices and banks were deregulated but wages have stagnated for regular people since the 80s as everything else has gotten more expensive
I think moving towards the finance sector was the right decision but not investing in parts of the UK like Birmingham and Manchester was severely short sighted
for love of god.. increase in housing benefits IS NOT A SOLUTION!!!!! it is what is fuelling these endless rent increases... you said so yourself - landlords are charging what tenatns are able to pay so what do you think happens when yo increase what the tenant is able to pay, by giving them housing benefit? Landlord increases rent saying "oh, now that you can pay more i'll have that" but you know where's the problem? rents increase for everyone but not everyone is eligible for benefits. no wonder its so hard to increase productivity, if as a reward for hard work not only your rent keeps going up, but also you're not getting any help whatsoever to deal with it. and i absolutely dont understand why dont you just omit private property developers - if they are not interested in building affordable flats. why government or councils wont talk with construction companies directly? They want a shipload of apartment blocks to be build and they want someone to build it for them - this means they need construction company, not a middleman property developer. On top of it - YOU DON'T NEED IMMIGRATION TO GET CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. Plenty of construction companies in say Poland, to whom you give contract, they bring their own employees, and when contract is done these people either go to the next contract or go home. They will not be interested in staying. They will not bring their families along. Which means impact on net migration in the long term is zero. And they will be perfectly happy to do that because they've been doing it for decades in say Germany. That there is no money is no argument. If they spend 27 bloody billion on housing benefit - then in the long term wouldn't it be better to borrow the money, build houses, stop paying housing benefit, pay back the loans out money they will now be saving. So it's high time to cut the BS excuses and just get it done.
Turns out that building flats and houses that don't even last as long as a human lifespan doesn't work - if houses had a realistic 200+ year lifespan we'd have no problem. There are countries in Europe that have seen a much greater population growth and don't have the same problems. They build to last and they spend far less money and time on renovations and repairs. Some of the stuff from the 20s and 30s in Britain that is still standing has been refurbed and remodeled so often you could count them as having been built three times. And how many thousands of homes from the 50s-70s are now just dust? Another factor is that in Europe people leave the family home later and houses are far more likely to be passed on and not sold on, so there is more incentive to maintain them and cherish them, the way we treat property in the UK is the same way people treat Primark clothes.
we can dwell on the past for hours talking about thatcher's pathetic policy where the construction of houses with public money was finished and those that were already there were started to be sold for next to nothing. You can also blame the current immigration policy, the economic situation and many other factors mentioned on youtube channels. however, no one addresses one of the key elements why new cheap and easily accessible houses will not be built. the problem is that their construction is not in the interest of any party except people who currently cannot afford to buy them - the government does not have the funds to build them, developers do not see the profit in building something they will not earn (that's how the company works - it has to make a profit), current homeowners do not want both the loss of value of their houses and spending their taxes on building cheaper houses because why would anyone else buy cheaper and new ones when they themselves live in houses from decades ago and had to pay much more money for them. the biggest mistake of those people who cannot afford to buy is voting for those who promise to build new houses (especially throwing out made-up numbers like 1.5 million) because these are empty words spoken to buy their votes and sit for another few years in a government job doing nothing about their promises because there are no consequences for not keeping your promises.
..and the newbuild market is now struggling to deal with the 2024 introduction of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain planning law change with ecologists nationwide fully booked out for months, so that planning applications [requiring BNG plans as a pre-planning application requirement] are significantly delayed. No chance of achieving 1.5m new homes by 2029.
I wouldn’t want to buy here just because stamp duty is ridiculous compared to pretty much anywhere else, locks you into a place for way too long. The homes are worse than pretty much anywhere else as well 😅 not worth it
The quality is bad and the price is crazy. The only reason that support this craziness is "limited number of houses in London + limited jobs outside London". Without these 2, London will collapse, govt will not risk it. So, the problem will not be solved.
Getting back to slums. Convert a 3 bed terrace house to a HMO converted to a 6 bed with a license for 12 adults. In Birmingham an apartment I rented in 2014 for £450 a month with bills included is now £1,100 a month with no bills, and they now want £100 a month for a car parking space. Landlords also ask tenants leave using no fault evictions, motivation is landlords want to increase the rent.
Been working for a major builder for nearly a decade. Since Brexit there’s an acute skilled labour shortage in the industry. They simply can’t build more.
As personal wealth grows, you need bigger house with enough space for the increasing number of personal possessions. The kitchen alone now has to be huge to store all the kitchen appliances. This means that although the population numbers might be holding steady, the demand for living space grows.
All over the world government policies have got us to this point. Too much immigration and not enough resources to go round. All of this so that employers could pay lower wages.
@@cchan824people that contribute .... the ones coming in are claiming from the state .... or in such low wage jobs which again is topped up by the state .....
I left the UK in mid 2022 as the rents just went crazy in London and seeing that it has only increased since then just underscores my decision as being the right one.
And so many professionals bought/rented property outside of London, driving up prices elsewhere. Couple that with land and property being bought for speculation, sitting empty until the price has practically doubled, and a lack of lower priced and social housing being built and you get what we're seeing today. I come from a former major industrial city in the Midlands. There used to be factories all over the city centre and outskirts when I was a kid. All of that has gone, replaced by warehousing cited in industrial estates. And what of all the old factory buildings? Snapped up by developers for conversion into luxury apartments. These former "brown sites" would have made ideal social housing projects. IMHO, we've got it all backwards. We've removed access to housing for those at the bottom, to cater to the better off, only to tax them in order to pay for benefits so those at the lower end can afford a roof over their heads and feed their kids.
When you have over 1 million immigrants being allowed to stay in the last 2 years and probably even a of more to come you have no chance of building enough houses.
Be careful saying things like that in this country, you might get a knock on the door from the police! The UK population is forecast to increase by another 8 million or so by 2050. We haven't seen anything yet.
We need more workers , we are an ageing population and the birth rate is going down . Who will work, pay NI and look after the Boomers in their dotage particularly in the health and social care sector? The problem isn’t immigrants, the problem is short term policies sold to an ignorant electorate for the last 30 years. These people need to be processed , put to work and housed.
@@SarahWalker-Smith Do we really need more workers? What happened to the productivity improvements we used to see? I see so many people doing b*llshit non-job - adults doing jobs that children used to do: hand car washes, leaflet delivery, pizza delivery, etc. By all means bring in people for real jobs but we certainly don't need any more barbers or nail bars (just drug money!) And we also have record numbers of young people who don't seem to be working. It's something like 9 million adults who don't work now - I don't believe they are all long-term sick!
Did anyone else notice that hidden within the budget was a severe reduction in the Right To Buy discount available for current or former council house tenants? On the Gov.UK website it states that from November 21st this year the amount of discount available will be cut np matter how many years you have lived in the property. Just thought I'd put that out there as I have heard zero commentary about this.
You seem like a nice sort of a chap. How about making a pod cast with some positive ideas suggesting ways to make the country economically and socially viable. Here's me suggestions, get rid of the party based system as it stops any genuine dialogue. Replace it with independent MP's. Have the MP's constrained by an abridged new written constitution. Appoint a committee to investigate how to control the media to stop the excess of divisive and tribalistic paranoia. In our hearts many of us know we have to change but selfishly kick the can to the next generation.
The 2 main parties will never give up their power, we have to stop voting for them first, but for some reason most of the country still vote for their own demise. We need more people to start voting for parties that support proportional representation such as Reform UK and Liberal Democrats, until then we will never have a parliament that represents us.
@@arranf You are right the 2 main parties will not give up their power but if Labour screw up they might decide to go for PR if it is constitutionally possible. At the moment yes PR is the best we can aim for but it still would leave us with parties which bribe the electorate at the cost of future collective well being. Remember global warming means mass immigration plus limiting what we produce. As far as I see it only a more sharing world with emphasis on well being is coherent. There seems to be some delusion that only those gifted few can run a business and therefore we must let them exploit the masses. Like our politicians many entrepreneurs are unfit for purpose and we must look for greater people control including worker co-ops. China will always have the advantage over our so called democracy as ultimately the state controls the oligarchs whereas in the west this has been perverted. In fact we really need a grown up discussion on how an economy works. My take is that it essentially the creation and distribution of VALUE. Now value certainly could be a holiday in the Caribbean but it also could be entertainment. Entertainment can create wealth and employment and is sustainable. We need to be presented with the facts and kick those so selfish that all they care about is themselves into the margins. Ordinary people do not want to create wars or fight over material goods we can and must make a better society and global model. No single person leaders anywhere and no party politics. Get off your backsides and say so before the rich and powerful strip all the support systems away from government as we impower them from our ignorant desperation.
That's what you think. Watch and see. There's no way back from this, because we locking into a failing economic system. And the only way the profits can keep rolling in is to bring in migrants. As there's not enough money to pay anyone well. And attacking migrants is just a distraction. It's the form of capitalism we practice that leaves those in power with no choice but to bring in migrants, and pay them badly, and end up working in poor conditions. Stepping on them will not change one thing, because they are only the symptom of a failing economic model. Not the cure for it. Our politicians won't admit that growth is going to be quite difficult to find in the midst of the crises coming down the line. Inflation, and dealing with the consequences of sleeping on climate change will cost billions. Where's that money going to come from? Us if the plutocrats get their way. That's means we have to change, and the plutocrats are in denial. They know that they have to exploit everyone but their kith and kin to survive. So we have to not think there's someway to turn the clock back. That's all gone. It's going to be about survival for us too.
It would be interesting to see how many houses the people leaving vacate because obviously every immigrant needs a place to live, but an emigrant may be a young adult who was until that point living with their family. I think it's likely that it's not quite as simple as "net migration = 500k so we need 500k dwellings"
What is more money needed for? The problem here is not enough houses being built (planning permission is a big obstacle that doesn't cost money to fix) and too many people (stopping illegal immigration is as simple as instructing the navy to block channel crossings).
On the surface, taxing the rich seems like a good idea - but it isn't. Because if you start heavily taxing the rich here in the UK - they will move their buisness to countries where they are not taxed, and as a consequence - more job cuts.
Hot tip: To predict future house prices and rents, simply look to East Asia (HK, SG) to see how far markets can squeeze renters incomes (both domestic and retail) and how banks squeeze buyers by making mortgages GREATER than whole-of-life ie ppl pass debt on to their children (Japan).
Unlimited credit its the problem of the last 70 years that has allowed a minority of people (small landlords, overseas buyers, companies) to disproportionately own UK housing that’s out competed owner occupiers.
Note also: that when people pay more for rent/mortgages then they have less income to spend on the wider economy which impacts GDP.
Unless the UK government legislates against the above, then East Asia shows us that the UK property will spiral out of control and it won’t get the growth in GDP it’s hoping for.
Uk landlords are one of the most taxed in the world. That’s one of the reason of sky high rent, taxing them more will only worsen the situation. The real issue is crazy level of uncontrolled migration, those people even don’t have a clue that they will not have better quality of life in the uk than they have back in their countries. England is the most densely populated country in Europe and so is Hong Kong- that’s the issue. More people competing for living space will push prices up.
That and slums …
6:46 Thats all you need to know... Govt is subsidizing 'property investors' with 27bn per year. What a ludicrous joke, embarrasing
It is an absurd and extremely expensive situation.
And as hi-lighted by Tejvan in one of his other videos, there is a ticking time bomb of renters who never manage buy and have to claim housing benefits from retirement. Future taxpayers are facing a very big bill!
Don’t let the size of the PRS get any bigger than it is (at 20% of all housing).
Perhaps Rental properties should ONLY be allowed to be owned by councils, or other not-for-profit housing co-operatives and charities etc ? We have similar laws in place already for non-housing items. Hear me out...
Throughout the UK, "for the overall good of society" ONLY Government authorities like the Police and Army are allowed to own Machine guns. A private person, or corporation, might own a big bunch of land, and want to set up, an approved and certified "shooting range" where sensible people can go and shoot machine guns at targets, quite safely "for fun". A company or individual might want to be able to offer such "machine gun, shooting range" services, as a way of making a profit and earning a living. . But the law does not allow that. ONLY specific government authorities, like the police and army, are allowed to own and use machine guns in the UK...
Why shouldn't rental housing be placed in the same theoretical basket as machine guns ? Currently almost half the UK population are being "negatively impacted" by private landlordism.
There is no advantage having essential societal infrastructure, such as electric, water, drainage, or housing, owned by wealthy individuals or billionaire corporations based on Wall Street or Swiss Banks, or Russian Oligarchs either.
And remember every single "rental" home that a landlord "has to sell". (boo hoo, NOT), then becomes available for a current tenant, to buy, to live in as their own home. House prices would be more reasonable if wannabe homeowners didn't have to literally out-bid landlords whenever they wanted to buy a home to live in for themselves.
I am involved with a church based not-for-profit social housing project in New Zealand. Our brand new units all have solar panels on the roof to help minimise energy bills to residents. The buildings are constructed to modern standards of energy efficiency and insulation ad Earthquake resistance. Tenants pay at most 25% of their income in rent. A long term contract with the govt supported housing (similar to UK's "council housing") paid to have the new buildings built on church land. Eventually after 50 years they will revert to church having full ownership.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma I think you have it spot on. The problem is we are where we are and thanks to successive governments 20% of houses now in the private rental sector, and the % houses owned by councils and housing associations has gradually diminished. And the taxpayers bill for housing benefit has skyrocketed (currently £27bn) and will only keep going up.
It would take a lot of work and planning and a of of time to unpick it.
But I agree with what you are saying.
Nah, government subsidising tenants housing costs. In turn subsidising low minimum wage work. In turn subsidising business owners. In turn subsiding consumers. Unwind it all.
Insane.😮
Agreed. There is no future for young people in this country, especially if they cant live with their parents.
Me and my wife both preferred to stay living with parents for a number of extra years than start renting. We really wanted our foot on the ladder, we didnt want to pay dead money to pay off someone else’s mortgage
That’s the sacrifice
@@seany8787 that only works if you have parents who have a reasonably sized property. Not a childhood box room or a room that was shared between siblings - they can’t all stay then, can they 🙄
And also if the parents are ok with you staying - some aren’t and it’s also understandable.
Many parents also downsize as soon as possible because they are struggling and have no private pension pot. And some end up renting themselves.
Your recommendation is far from being a viable solution unfortunately.
Very similar problems to what we have in Australia.
I know what you say is true, but it's difficult to understand with your huge country and abundant resources, even if you are limited to living in the coastal regions. Met a guy from Melbourne recently and my jaw dropped when he told me about the property market there. Sounds like your politicians may be as bad as ours...almost.
Even worse in Australia main cities
@@chrisreed3929because it’s really just 5 housing districts …
The racism in Aust is just a bad too.
In England it's really not much space left but how is land so expensive in Australia is blowing my mind...
"Official data is available on the nationality of those allocated social housing. It shows that at least 11% of social housing lets in London were given to foreign nationals. In the boroughs of Ealing and Haringey nearly half of all social housing lets went to foreign nationals."
This was from 2012. Imagine the situation now.
@3thinking , your interpretation of the social housing statistics in London are disingenuous, there is no such thing in the statistics to show that social housing is going to foreign nationals, majority of ethnic minorities in London are British citizens, and the statistics show that , this group are more likely to rent social housing due to their economic status, and majority whites people in London are owners occupiers, they have no needs for social housing. If you have issues with immigrants and non white people, come straight out with it , don’t hide behind misinformation.
What's your point? Was the data going up or down at the time, which way are you extrapolating? Why do you think it might have changed?
probably the most financially inept period of british history.
It's not financially inept for those who issue private debt
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp it is because they have collapsed their own nation and are losing currency status which is fatal. the £ will become very worthless. they have lost it all.
Its the planning permission act 1949 combined with the Thatcherism of the 80s. The act gave local councils the ability to set standards of construction but also block any they didn't like. It was intended to make all houses safe and it did. Only issue is they didn't lower there power once it was achieved.
In the 50s houses were built by the government with all the planning permission they could force though. Local councils couldn't overrule the government on things that were to the benefit of the nation. I can't remember the name of that law but HS2 is an example.
But none of the expensive planning permission was reduced, combined with the strengthening of local councils under the idea of the local councils represent the people of there local area therefore know what they need most.
So what happened is the average member of those local councils having a vested interest in keeping the housing costs high so that there homes remain expensive as most are older people with more free time who care about the costs of there assets as its the only way to guarantee stability which is what we all want.
Meanwhile the youth are to busy trying to survive to go and spend the time needed to jump though the hoops to get into a council they wont influence as there outnumbered 20 to 1.
Its not a purposefull system just a system that didn't account for the way people work. Combined with a government oversight.
13:15 - This is terribly wrong. Increasing housing benefits will not solve the problem - giving people more money will just increase rents. This is just basic economics of demand and supply.
Housing benefit is one of the main reasons why rent is so high.
@@vonder7 Exactly - the government keeps on pouring in billions in housing benefit and surprise, surprise, rents keep on increasing. Basic demand and supply that this guy doesn't understand.
@@JoBo301 if the rent is 1300 but you get 800 from the govt it actually costs you just 500 and it’s ruining it for everyone else who is not on benefits. Who is profiteering from that? You would say landlords but they are also taxed to the brink - I looked into possibly becoming one and you are taxed so much that it doesn’t make sense. So who is profitiring on that? Pretty much no one, but the middle class have to pay for it in high taxes and inflated house prices. This country is so badly governed that it’s unbelievable. It’s like - let tax food so much that the poor cannot afford it and let’s provide them with free coupons so they don’t die of hunger. And who is going to pay for those coupons? Those who are still above the water and working hard. Ridicolous.
I don't believe he suggested it was a good idea, more that we are trapped in a vicious circle as the cost of housing spirals.
@@pauln6803 If you watch the video it was one of his suggestions to fix the rental crisis. But of course it would only push rents higher, not lower. His knowledge of demand and supply is not well defined.
This video was very well researched & presented. It is the best video I've seen that explains how the rental and ownership model changed since the 1920's. a must watch for anyone that wants to understand the history of the UK housing market.
Ricardo's law of rent in action. Great to live inside one big economics lesson of what not to do.
This is an excellent (although depressing) Channel. I consistently recommend this to my friends and colleagues "Down Under", since the UK situation may well be a harbinger of the Aussie future, with our very well-established "Rentier, get rich quick" mindset reliant on "Build to Rent" mass-produced (and awful build quality) "homes", especially in the "apartment" area. The Wife likes your regular choice of Airforce blue; are you ex - Services perhaps (I'm ex RN by the way!)
I enjoy your videos, but I think it’s odd that you don’t cite section 24 (not being able to offset mortgage costs) as a primary reason for rising rents. Landlords have to be able to make money… it’s a business not a charity, and if there is no margin obviously the asset owners will simply look at other markets (stocks, bonds, overseas property). The thing that would benefit tenants most is allowing tax offsets again.
Quite right. But it’s not just mortgage interest costs you can’t offset, and you have to pay tax on the revenue, not on the profit. No other business is penalised this way.
Because of all that, my second home sits empty for a while now. As a higher rate taxpayer, it would be foolish to have it rented out. I calculated that frequently redecorating and taking the risk of a bad tenant not paying and/or damaging the property(which would cost me a fortune) is simply not worth the tiny profit I’d make after tax.
Especially as I can’t do any DIY and tradesmen became increasingly expensive too, it’s just not worth it.
I’m not selling, because I want to keep it as asset and pass it on as part of my estate, but hell no, I’m not renting it out under the current rules.
As a former tenant I wouldn’t have a problem with revoking S24, as it doesn’t affect tenant rights etc.
However, I’m not convinced the savings will be passed on in the form of lower rents.
As the author of the video has pointed out, we are in a situation where landlords can charge as much as the tenant can stomach.
Why would a landlord lower the rent (and reduce profits) if they didn’t have to? As you said, they are operating a business.
@@redbruce1999 there’s only so much one can charge based on that area. You want to get tenants who can afford the place and afford it on the longer term. A high turnover of tenants is very much a pain for a landlord. I’d rather not raise the rent unless it’s a must, than raise it and end up losing an otherwise good tenant.
Also, there are limitations on how much you can raise the rent within a certain period of tenancy.
@@MsJustice4ever I take on board what you are saying about rents. But in the end landlords will charge the market rate (or thereabouts), whatever their margins, even landlords with no mortgage to pay.
I think the main benefit in revoking S24 (if there is one) would be to persuade landlords with low margins to stay and also to offset against the regulations coming up in terms of banning S21 and EPC requirements.
This might not be a popular point of view, but I don’t believe we should incentivise BTL too much that would result in the rapid expansion of the size of the PRS (beyond 20% of all housing where it stands now). Shifting the needle from ownership to PRS will just create more demand and won’t solve anything. And it would result in taxpayers (especially future taxpayers) paying more and more in housing benefits, when the bill has already skyrocketed to £27bn.
Looking at the growth of the PRS on the graph, it’s clear that S24 put a brake on the rapid expansion of the PRS from 2017. And without it we would probably be looking at 25% (or more) of houses being private rentals by now, meaning more people trapped in the PRS (some for the whole of their lives and into retirement) when they would otherwise be home owners, and higher house prices and still have the supply / demand problem in the private rental sector.
Correct! Too many people think landlords are charities.
My father said that he as a running messenger boy at the age of 15 could "test live" apartments without rent for the first month. In central Stockholm. But then government introduced "housing policies". And today many in the age 20-30 can't form a family and have children, because there's no chance on the Hill that they can afford an apartement.
Your videos show how badly successive governments of all parties have governed the UK. Things will continue to get worse unless there is a major reset of the UK's institutions, and sadly, the Labour government seems to be unwilling to do this (e.g. elected House of Lords, proportional representation, codified constitution, disestablishment of CofE, reform of council tax,...) or to be candid to the UK population about the need for additional higher taxation.
Tejvan touched on an
Important fact earlier in the video but didn’t really pick up on it and that is the fact that many people in the private rental sector are NOT there because they want to be there, but because they are trapped there. Many are hardworking people with families desperate to buy their first home, and don’t need the flexibility that some in the private rental sector want.
How many renters are in this situation, that’s what we need to know.
So it’s not necessarily the case that the PRS needs to expand further (beyond the 20% of all housing currently).
If in theory the PRS expanded to 50% of all housing, would it solve anything? Certainly not.
The big problem is lack of supply wrt population both to buy (and rent) and current housing stock not being used efficiently.
I also don’t lend much credence to claims by landlords of planning to “sell up” resulting in a mass exodus. They have been saying that for the last 7 years and it has yet to materialise. As per the graph, the size of the PRS has remained broadly static since 2016 at 4.6m houses (19-20% of all housing).
Increasing the size of the PRS will just result in more demand and more money poured down the drain by government (housing benefit) and renters who don’t claim housing benefits.
There is not a housing crisis. It is a chronic situation. The land market is dysfunctional and will continue to be dysfunctional until all UK property taxes are replaced by a land value tax based on annual rental values of sites only.
Big companies will get into renting
They already are.
Perhaps Rental properties should ONLY be allowed to be owned by councils, or other not-for-profit housing co-operatives and charities etc ? We have similar laws in place already for non-housing items. Hear me out...
Throughout the UK, "for the overall good of society" ONLY Government authorities like the Police and Army are allowed to own Machine guns. A private person, or corporation, might own a big bunch of land, and want to set up, an approved and certified "shooting range" where sensible people can go and shoot machine guns at targets, quite safely "for fun". A company or individual might want to be able to offer such "machine gun, shooting range" services, as a way of making a profit and earning a living. . But the law does not allow that. ONLY specific government authorities, like the police and army, are allowed to own and use machine guns in the UK...
Why shouldn't rental housing be placed in the same theoretical basket as machine guns ? Currently almost half the UK population are being "negatively impacted" by private landlordism.
There is no advantage having essential societal infrastructure, such as electric, water, drainage, or housing, owned by wealthy individuals or billionaire corporations based on Wall Street or Swiss Banks, or Russian Oligarchs either.
And remember every single "rental" home that a landlord "has to sell". (boo hoo, NOT), then becomes available for a current tenant, to buy, to live in as their own home. House prices would be more reasonable if wannabe homeowners didn't have to literally out-bid landlords whenever they wanted to buy a home to live in for themselves.
I am involved with a church based not-for-profit social housing project in New Zealand. Our brand new units all have solar panels on the roof to help minimise energy bills to residents. The buildings are constructed to modern standards of energy efficiency and insulation ad Earthquake resistance. Tenants pay at most 25% of their income in rent. A long term contract with the govt supported housing (similar to UK's "council housing") paid to have the new buildings built on church land. Eventually after 50 years they will revert to church having full ownership.
Keep up they have been doing this for a while.
Every government policy seems to penalise small landlords , make homelessness worse and clear the way for big landlords . It;s much the same with other kinds of business. The donor class is favoured whilst SMEs are being destroyed.
Our population has grown by another 750,000 and we've built a few hundred thousand new homes. Guess why we have a shortage of housing?
Yep.
Red and Blue can't mention that though.
Also, how many tens of thousands, (or more) are in hotels currently and will get given houses?!
@@mrmeldrew693 maybe the government will buy-out the filled hotels, add kitchens, and turn them into long-term illegal immigrant barracks (which they already are now).
When demand outstrips supply >2:1 then it should come as no surprise.
Stack em and Pack em
@@kim007250 That's what they do in China and it works.
Local councils tend to the problem more than anything else when it comes to building homes. They have had to much incentive to block planning permission by pandering to the older haves.
A reasonable analysis but fails to ask the most important question - why does supply not keep up with demand.
When we look at this issue since 1914 (effectively the start of proper home ownership statistics), we see several period of social house building booms. With the exception of the immediate post WW2 boom which was needed to replace the housing destroyed by the Luftwaffe, social housing booms inevitable happen when the private sector reduces the number of homes it is building. So the question then becomes why is the private sector building less and of course the answer is falling demand and until around 1980 that falling demand was predominantly driven by the private rented sector not adding to its stock. The private rented sector was doing so because the combination of high taxation and rent controls made being a landlord not sufficiently profitable.
Sadly politicians rarely learn lessons from history if those lessons would contradicted their biases. What we have seen over the last 10-15 years if governments, and it really does not matter which party is in charge, steadily increase regulations on landlords for very good intentions but without considering the overall consequences. We are now back to a similar situation to the late 1960s where being a private landlord is not particularly profitable and highly time consuming, in broad terms most private landlords would make a better return by selling up and putting the money into a boring share investment fund. What is happening is that the private individual landlord is selling and large corporate landlords are taking over. That will not end well for tenants
As long as there are strong laws to protect tenants, I can’t see a problem with corporate landlords.
Maybe this helps:
ruclips.net/video/tnVE9LFrhPw/видео.html
Any simple solution can and WILL be outplayed for maximizing profits.
You increase the standards or price cap? Builders reduce the size.
As said in the video, for builders its not in their interest to build. The harder they work the less their profit will be. (not as if houses don't ever need maintenance, repairs or renovations btw...)
Intorudcing a rent/sale cap again would deincentify the supply.
Migration again is a weird topic. Most migrants share house with families and friends.
Well... there's a grim solution on its way. Current generation is around 40% childfree. Homes and kids are not affordable. 40-60 years and their bloodline will end, whatever we'll they accumulated will not be inherited by their kids.
Yet a controversial solution again for this is migration. Because someone needs to fund the pyramid scheme called pension... :D
But work visas are tricky and could be manipulated because once the worker isn't needed government simply refuse to extend the visa: "no benefits, no pension, no unemployment increase"
And migrant while some argue they take money away from the economy, the same time the need to settle down first and LIVE here. Whatever money they take with themselves usually minisculed by the GDP they pumped in. (ie: they built a house and paid their taxes)
So basically it's all them people who buy the houses. Then let them out. Have ruined the market. Yes there is others reasons. But the route cause is allowing people to own multiple dwellings, while others do not. I was training to be an electrician and was an apprentice that worked on building sites. But then I had a car crash and sustained a brain injury. I mean I couldn't even walk. I had to relearn. Enough about me. I wanted to get back into it. But I was laid off and I still have poor health since leaving hospital with minimal to no support. Now I just sit back and watch what's going on in the world
So many videos recently - you're spoiling us Mr Ambassador
lol local councils bought up houses from local landlords…the councils wish to do the same today but they want the houses on the cheap!!!
All these issues stem from an economy grappling with uncertainties, including housing problems, foreclosures, global fluctuations, and the aftermath of the pandemic, leading to instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions demand urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth.
With $420,000 in retirement savings, diversifying into assets that historically perform well during inflationary periods, such as Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), commodities, or foreign currency assets, might help protect against potential dollar depreciation. Exploring options like global real estate, diversified foreign bonds, or high-quality international equities may also offer a hedge against a declining dollar and inflationary risks .
With my demanding job, I lack time for investment analysis. For seven years, a fiduciary has managed my portfolio, adapting to market conditions, enabling successful navigation and informed decisions.
Consider a similar approach.
this is definitely considerable! think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
Jennafer Beaver Turner is the licensed advisor I use.
Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with to set up an appointment
Thanks, I looked her up on Google and was very impressed by her credentials. I reached out because I need all the help I can get. I've scheduled a phone call with her.
An actual informed response - bravo
What nobody seems to realise is most of those post war houses were shit and have since been knocked down. Grenfell tower was one of the good ones that didn’t get knocked down but they foolishly modernised it by attaching flammable cladding. You have to admit the problem with Britain is the entire property industry. Has been the same for donkeys years.
Sorry, but you're wrong. They were good enough to sell off, so Margaret Thatcher sold them off to the tenants with a 20% discount. The ones sold are still in the private sector, and still standing.
Most council houses are pretty solid.
But yes, a lot of the blocks of flats were shoddy to say the least.
But looking at new builds, I see more problems for the near future.
And that's the private sector.
You miss the point. Post WW2 housing was a huge improvement on the slums they replaced. I remember my grandparents houses in Aberdeen, Scotland. Slums.
Not true. The houses were good enough to qualify for mortgages, and many of the flats were too. Grenfell happened because the local council did not care enough to ensure that the properties met current regulations by installing sprinklers and other updates. And the renovators went along with that to increase their profits. Also, in London a lot of tower blocks have flats that have been purchased. They are good if they are looked after and updated, but with governments centralising financing and power, local authorities have and still are being hobbled. It's not that they don't want to build. It's that they are being prevented from building. The scam Thatcher inflicted on the country is still being allowed to escalate, because our politics is broken. Our politicians are careerists who will get speaking tours and nice jobs in the city after they leave politics, from the plutocrats funding them to get into power. So, we're being screwed over. Until we wake up to that nothing will change.
Victorian and Edwardian..still the best!
Both Governments have done everything they can possibly do to destroy the rental market
Yup Because it profits them. They have captured demand. Too many landlords in parliament
Hit 240k today. Appreciate you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started with 24k in September 2024.,…
I would really love to know how much work you did put in to get to this stage
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver
As a beginner in this, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable.
Jihan Wu is also my trade analyst, he has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
Jihan Wu Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love him here in Canada 🇨🇦 as he has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
Waking up every tenth of each month to £210,000 it’s a blessing to I and my family… Big gratitude to this same Jihan Wu🙌
1. End private landlords. No second homes.
2. Tenants in social housing forced into co-ownership of property (with gov or trust).
3. Housing National Insurance. Long term unemployed etc. in social housing accumulate financial ownership of the property even from temporary work. Can release cash by selling and downsizing.
4. End unmanaged immigration.
In broad strokes, the way to fix this is to:
1. Create a National Housing Service that not only is designed to build accommodation for public benefit and not profit, but can side step the insane number of NIMBY issues that plague the current market.
2. Abolish the current way we house people through the council. Create and maintain a national public housing stock and offer homes irrespective of location. If you’re in London and a house that fits your needs comes available in Scotland, you either accept it or are removed from the list and start again at the back of the queue.
End right to buy now and forever, and move people out of publicly owned homes when they no longer suite their needs. Were you given a 3 bed council home when you had two young kids? When those children become adults you’re now housed in a one bed home or flat. Again if you refuse, you’re out and to the back of the queue for housing.
3. Stop only housing women with children as the top priority. Build homes specifically for young single people that are extremely cheap but serviceable, and stop letting non citizens be eligible for council homes.
This would be considered cruel, but it would be highly effective.
Labour and tories would never
Part of me understands why they wouldn’t because it would likely be political suicide. But if we could somehow do this and remove the triple lock this country might have an actual chance at real recovery.
@@lucasdeyton8842 how about redefined definitions on the word PreFab ,mortgage companies do not lend on pre fab, from an completely outdated outlook from the asbestos filled pre fab after ww2 ,A modern prefab manufacture can and is Epc efficient, better quality and control in factory environment, can be produced all year round very handy in U,K,and much ,much better for the environment ,but because mortgage companies don't lend on them no-one builds them ,because you struggle to re sell them!!! Modern house building standards as a whole are bad ,and slow but we could set factories up to build all year round ,not slave to the uk weather ,to cold ,to wet,and I bet no-one in the government housing department has even looked at this ,
I don't see a solution to the problem in the next 10 years.
Most private landlords want to sell, which is reducing supply at the same time as demand from tenants is growing.
More social housing will be built, but at a trickle and it will take a long time before the huge investment companies have built their premium priced blocks of flats with rents higher than the typical tenant can afford.
We actually need more social housing on a massive scale and until that happens we need more private landlords just when Conservatives and Labour are deliberately adopting policies designed to get private landlords to sell up.
Soon it will be very hard to accept a job in a new town or city because there won't be anywhere available to rent at an affordable price.
Is rent control workable? Rising house price kills the economy and also the people. If buying house is not equal to profitable investment, the house mkt will be more stable.
@@eruketo3969so you think private landlords should subsidise structural problems in the market? I’m selling my rental because I make a loss every year due to tax changes. Owning a rental now is a misallocation of capital and governments are making it worse and worse. I have a mortgage on it which I cannot offset against the rent in tax terms so I’m paying tax on full rent which combined with the mortgage means I lose every month. I’m out.
@@eruketo3969no, it is not. What you win in price you lose in availability. Rent control means a frozen rent market where wait lists grow indefinitely and people have to resort to illegal subletting to have a roof over their heads
When that house is sold, where does the house go to?
@@hylje But if everyone just have their own house, not having several, more people can afford to buy, isn't it?
In the end the main reason behind the secular rise in house prices from the 1980s was cheap credit and the liberalisation of mortgages, so a lot more ppl could borrow (a lot). This created artificial demand for housing above present income so prices of course ballooned.
Isn’t part of the solution to reverse this? Ie. if interest rates would be kept at around 5-7% for a decade or more and mortgages would be more strictly regulated, prices should go down or at least stay flat. Incidentally, it would make sense to save again. If meanwhile nominal wage growth is 5%, in 10-15 years this could halve the price/income ratio, so it would become possible again to *save* enough to buy. I don’t understand why this solution (+more housebuilding) is never considered- oh ok i know, it’s politically unpalatable bc a lot of people want to buy things they cannot afford from their income?
Do you think there is any hope for the UK? I know negative videos get way more views than positive ones but after various watches, the latest being the one from Sasha I have no hope left.
Sahsa was spotted on. I did the same maths. Maths don't lie, politicians and their supporters do!
I think it has to get worse to get better tbh. The changes needed will be brutal and society won’t accept them until they have to. The tax burden is massive and Labour are making it worse.
However on a personal level how are you doing. You may be fine so don’t let it get you down. Or go somewhere else before tied down by family etc.
On the positive side things are a lot better than 100 or 50 years ago.
I watched that too, that real tax rate is like 70%. Honestly the only hope I see is Reform UK because the 2 main parties will NEVER solve anything, they've both been in power and are both the reason why this country is in decline. But since so many people are still voting for their own demise I guess things will have to get even worse until enough people finally realise this.
Landlordism and rent-seeking is the issue but Thatcherism brainwashed everyone into thinking it was virtuous.
We seriously need Georgism.
Are you sure the problem is caused by people offering a service that people want at rates barely above break-even? It couldn't possibly be caused by a massive increase in demand while the supply remains nearly-constant, could it? And what could cause an increase in demand? Any elephants in the room?
@chesshooligan1282 if you were talking about something with an elastic supply then sure. Land is not one of those things.
Landlords "provide a service" as much as ticket sclalpers do. But it's far worse because it's for something that we all need to survive.
@@NK-vd8xi Nothing is stopping you from becoming a landlord and putting up with all the aggro, all the government regulations, the risk of bad tenants impossible to evict, the risk of a market crash that will leave you with negative equity, and so on... all for a return less than what the S&P 500 or gold give you without the need for moving a finger. Come on, go ahead, there's a fortune to make out there.
@@NK-vd8xi As for scalping, this is from an Economics 101 textbook:
Tickets to athletic and artistic events are sometimes resold at higher-than-original prices-a market transaction known by the term “scalping.” For example,the original buyer may resell a $50 ticket to an NHL game for $200, $250, or more. The media often denounce scalpers for “ripping off” buyers by charging “exorbitant” prices. Scalping and extortion are synonymous in some people’s minds.
But is scalping really sinful? We must first recognize that such ticket resales are voluntary transactions. Both buyer and seller expect to gain from the exchange. Otherwise it would not occur! The seller must value the $200 more than seeing the event, and the buyer must value seeing the event more than the $200. So there are no losers or victims here: Both buyer and seller benefit from the transaction. The “scalping” market simply redistributes assets (game or concert tickets) from those who value them less to those who value them more.
Does scalping impose losses or injury on other parties, in particular the event sponsors of the event? If the sponsors are injured, it is because they initially priced tickets below the equilibrium level. In so doing they suffer an economic loss in the form of less revenue and profit than they might have otherwise received. But the loss is selfinflicted because of their pricing error. That mistake is quite separate and distinct from the fact that some tickets were later sold at a higher price.
What about spectators? Does scalping deteriorate the enthusiasm of the audience? No! People who have the greatest interest in the event will pay the scalper’s high prices. Ticket scalping also benefits the teams and performing artists, because they will appear before more dedicated audiences-ones that are more likely to buy souvenir items or CDs.
So, is ticket scalping undesirable? Not on economic grounds. Both seller and buyer of a “scalped” ticket benefit, and a more interested audience results. Event sponsors may sacrifice revenue and profits, but that stems from their own misjudgment of the equilibrium price.
@@NK-vd8xi As for scalping, this is from an Economics 101 textbook:
"Tickets to athletic and artistic events are sometimes resold at higher-than-original prices-a market transaction known by the term “scalping.” For example,the original buyer may resell a $50 ticket to an NHL game for $200, $250, or more. The media often denounce scalpers for “ripping off” buyers by charging “exorbitant” prices. Scalping and extortion are synonymous in some people’s minds.
But is scalping really sinful? We must first recognize that such ticket resales are voluntary transactions. Both buyer and seller expect to gain from the exchange. Otherwise it would not occur! The seller must value the $200 more than seeing the event, and the buyer must value seeing the event more than the $200. So there are no losers or victims here: Both buyer and seller benefit from the transaction. The “scalping” market simply redistributes assets (game or concert tickets) from those who value them less to those who value them more.
Does scalping impose losses or injury on other parties, in particular the event sponsors of the event? If the sponsors are injured, it is because they initially priced tickets below the equilibrium level. In so doing they suffer an economic loss in the form of less revenue and profit than they might have otherwise received. But the loss is selfinflicted because of their pricing error. That mistake is quite separate and distinct from the fact that some tickets were later sold at a higher price.
What about spectators? Does scalping deteriorate the enthusiasm of the audience? No! People who have the greatest interest in the event will pay the scalper’s high prices. Ticket scalping also benefits the teams and performing artists, because they will appear before more dedicated audiences-ones that are more likely to buy souvenir items or CDs.
So, is ticket scalping undesirable? Not on economic grounds. Both seller and buyer of a “scalped” ticket benefit, and a more interested audience results. Event sponsors may sacrifice revenue and profits, but that stems from their own misjudgment of the equilibrium price."
we are cursed as uk citizens because the only other option is to be a visa bum in another country and any asset you buy can be one visa rejection away from disappearing
Only reason you need to be a visa bum is Brexit
@kevoreilly6557 was always the case for asia
Between 1997 and 2007 the UK population increased by 5 percent. But over the same period house prices increased by 300 percent. House price inflation is not caused by immigration, or supply and demand. It is caused by private banks issuing endless amounts of debt.
House prices were at a post war low in 1997 ( it was even on the price to earnings chart he showed us)after 18 years of Tory rule. Brown got in as Chancellor and destroyed the economy by quadrupling prices in just ten years. Funny how the commentator never analyses when the damage was done, Brown was a disaster.
If we are heading to a population crash, does it matter about building more houses?
Long time for a population crash. UK population will keep rising, just getting older
'Population crash' doesn't have to happen, if you import the workforce. When you think of it, it has been happening for decades - not enough 'Brits' born to manage the economy, so immigration was the key. The problem is that UK wanted more people in, but not willing to build for them. Everyone pays the price of it - older generation benefitted from it as they didn't have to do much and the price of their home made them millionaires(in desirable areas).
Agreed, if anything it will become harder as taxes go up to support the elderly even if population declines.@@economicshelp
The birth rates might keep on dropping within the country but there will be still immigrating to your country.
The problem is we have a socialist ponzi of state benefits and it is collapsing. Low gdp migrants do not help long term.
Something happened to the demographics of the UK in the late 1990s to cause rents and house prices to go through the rook. Hmm I wonder what it was, I just can't put my finger on it...............
Big shout out to Tony Blair(t Stain)
I guess it has nothing to do with council housing non-citizens.
He did say that. But that is only part of the problem. Also we need the builders if we want to increase supply. Do you prefer Polish or Indian builders ?
I dont want to increase the supply for immigrants. The UK's native population is decreasing. Why would I make current citizens who are dying out pay for the housing of their replacements? I am not an abuser of servants who orchestrates their downfall.
@@prolarka Then we should go down the Japanese route . But our political leaders have chosen the other path . The electorate don't understand the choices as our media and leaders treat us like children. That includes Reform . Japan has had flatlining growth , but so has the UK !
@@sfactory8253 GDP per capita is even decreasing due to settling in no skilled labour and freeloaders which will never be as productive as skilled workers. The current policies are on the right track to close the gap between the UK and the third world. They literally aim to compete with cheap labour. I see it every day at my work too.
Is there any thing good about Britain that you could talk?
another great video, EVEN IF, the collar is loose on one side, again
Buy-to-let "investments" willl slump... until interest rates go down again...
I believe the 2 child housing benefit changes came about more because the system was being abused, than from it being compared to house building, from what I have read.
I am not sure if UK government even wants to solve the housing problem especially when they have conflict of interest i.e. either lots of decision maker are either landlords or gets good donation from rich landlords...
8:55 fow 'housing to become more affordable'... basically means that house prices need to 'crash' and go down by 15%-20% or at least stagnate for the next 10 -15 years...
A recession could cause the property prices to crash - not that anyone wants a recession, but it could be how property prices crash.
@@redbruce1999 recession means that asset prices lose value?
Was there a recession between 1989 and 2002?
@@redbruce1999 we can see house price stagnation or falling in prices without a recession...
@@billykotsos4642to be honest, I wasn’t too sure about my statement.
But doesn’t a drop in house prices normally accompany a recession?
@@billykotsos4642 Yes, 1990 - 91 - property bubble burst.
Great video ill be sure to crediit
Anyone who owns 2 homes, is taxed to the equivalent cost of building another 1 new home. Enforce this and watch how the numerous landlords and investors who can't hold a hammer and nail correctly either start building more or stop speculation. They are the group you cannot aim to please if you want lower cost housing, it's either them or tenants who just want a place to live.
😂 ok mr Lenin, and let’s allow to own only two pairs of pants. Go to N Korea. There is no available land to build, that’s the problem,
Not really. You are taxed if you have a capital gain from that property. No capital gain, and all you have to pay is your council tax. Make a profit just like any other business, and you will be taxed on that profit. So, excuse me but I have no violins left. You are a business, and so you have to be taxed.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx the issue is that the amount of tax is Ridicolous, let say you bought some property and you earn 50k from your job. You would be taxed 40 percent on the entire rent you charge, so after paying the mortgage and expenses you would actually be losing money. That’s insane. In other countries you pay like 10 percent tax on rental income and can deduct mortgage. That’s why landlords are fleeing and as a result rents are skyrocketing. Lefties told the society that landlords are making big money and that’s all their fault, it’s actually completely not true, it’s the government that’s greedy.
@@vonder7
Actually, it's neo liberalism that caused the skyrocketing housing costs.
When the councils were forced to sell off their properties at steep discounts, this opened the door for private rental as the amount of "social" housing that was already in short supply shrank.
On top of that, sites that could have been redeveloped into social housing projects were sold to private developers who, naturally, want the best return for their investment.
Enter corruption...
While the government was making a song and dance about developers being forced to build a proportion of "affordable" housing, they, were taking donations (bribes in the common man's tongue) from developers to use executive power to exempt various projects from the rules - see Robert Jenrick vs Tower Hamlets.
I've heard similar regarding local government, but unlike Jenrick's involvement with Richard Desmond and the subsequent High Court case, that's just rumours.
We've allowed swathes of London to be snapped up by foreign buyers, pushing even some of the higher earners (in comparison to the midlands and the north) out of London, creating further demand for property in areas suitable for a commuter base.
I certainly don't blame anyone for wanting 2nd or even more properties as an investment, but the whole system is crazy.
We've created a situation where property developers have been allowed to sit on land until it accumulates perhaps double or more of its original value, and snap up the former city factory buildings, then primarily build property suited to the already wealthy, squeezing those at the lower end of the scale out of the market, then we tax that wealth to provide benefits so that those at the lower end of the earnings scale can afford the spiraling cost of rental property.
The real question is not who should be taxed, but how to get out of this ridiculous situation?
Boo hoo 😢 you seem a little bitter
Hi thanks for this video it explains the housing rental market very well and I wish tenants would watch it because as a landlord I'm very frustrated that we àre demonised as greedy landlords who don't care about anything apart from ourselves. As a business being a landlord it has to make financial sense most landlords do care about their tenants and are as much social workers as landlords and have to deal and help with all their tenants life problems it's a bit like a partnership one d doesn't work with out the other. If a landlord doesn't care about his tenants it will long term history business model will collapse this video is great for explaining the reason why rent prices are so high and housing costs are so high and how we got into this position (government).so my advice to any tenants is talk to your landlord most of them are normal people and will help as much as they can if you have a problem don't bury ahead in the sand because the problem will only get bigger and you will leave less opportunities for your landlord to help with the problem.
The UK has had a rentier economy enabled and subsidized by big government for decades. It's no wonder why everything is expensive there, and the UK is uncompetitive in manufacturing. Also, rent controls make everyone a loser in the end. There is plenty of history to show this. If you want a recent case, just look up Argentina rent controls.
Yes there is a good long term solution! Stop subsidizing the housing sector with tax benefits, and government backing of mortgages. Prices will decline. Housing will eventually become affordable. Whatever gets subsidized, gets expensive!
0:06 "Rents rising faster than inflation "...rents have been rising exactly proportioonal to RENT INFLATION !!
A general point is if you expect the private sector to solve social problems like housing, you’ll be greatly disappointed.
So what did the powerful do? Spread propaganda that “there’s no such thing as society.”
5:45 Let's be clear. Section 24 is not a regulation, it's primary legislation, i.e.- statute.
I love these videos. ❤
@3:57 don't see West Midlands on that chart 📈
Maybe lowering yearly immigration by a million could help ease the housing shortage?
How would that service the needs of an increasingly ageing population, who are extremely needy?
@@jeremiahpoole6526 They have of course saved for their old age, so they have no needs that concerns the government. Btw, they will keep voting the same way the rest of their lives too, nothing that government does affects that. So it isn't democratically possible to care about them.
Great content as always! But on an unrelated note, does anyone how to make a video like this where the slides have animated text and the presenter's face is in a small window on the side?
Need a crash of 30-40% to correct this to align back with Salaries
Buy-to-let was never a good investment over other avenues... such as buying stocks and shares... people just wanted to become "investors" in something
The fact that Britain has decided that Housing is a never-ending profitable investment.... is going to come back to bite them...
The crash will happen... not now, not in 10 years... but in 20 years....
Housing prices going up in a straight curve is pipe dream and relity will hit (as it must)
“The crash” 😂 Is that the same crash which has been predicted for the last 20yrs? Look mate, if the market was EVER going to “crash” it would’ve done in the GFC. But guess what, it never happened.
The same is true of the last 18mths where the cost of borrowing accelerated at its highest ever rate. We did not however see precipitous defaults. Wealth growth has insulated short term volatility.
Look mate, this isn’t difficult. For as long as there is a shortage of supply, there is absolutely no catalyst for a correction. This is a very simple concept - not sophisticated economics.
But hey, don’t let any of this stop you from predicting the crash. Every fool has their purpose.
The main reasons are Thatcherism followed by Cameron’s austerity, the selfish communities that don’t want to release land to buildings because it destroys their view and enjoyment of shi**y , miserable, wet, clodded fields, and, mindless immigration . With regards to the second point there would be no excuses from developed countries. Their pleadings would be struck off.
Where did all the money go from sale of council houses??!!rented for years ,built for pennies ,sold of at pounds but no money to build more!!??who and where did the money go??
On giving tax cuts. Lol. And the result is we've won an economic Darwin Award.
The whole idea behind this and other neo-liberal Thatcherite policies was to shrink the state and to let the market decide with as little state intervention as possible.
The end result was massive sell off of national assets.
The whole idea was that the government shouldn't intervene, so any new development was essentially entirely in the hands of private developers.
This is why all of the former city centre factories of my hometown were converted into luxury apartments, which sat almost empty for a couple of years until many professionals were priced out of London and sought a convenient mainline location to commute from.
As for the money that went to local authorities from the sale of council properties?
Probably spent on repairing roads, schools and other infrastructure they were liable for.
And then came the 2007 financial crisis, triggered by the US sub prime mortgages, and the heavily mismatched debt to asset ratio of the global banking industry.
Council investment and pension schemes suffered, with some even collapsing, essentially bankrupting them.
And ever since David Cameron, central government funding of councils has been cut and power transfered to central government on the quiet, which has only made the situation worse.
Tejvan, have you had a look at a book called "Diminishing returns: the new politics of growth and stagnation",
edited by Lucio Baccaro, Mark Blyth, and Jonas Pontusson? There's a chapter in it called 'Credit-Driven and Consumption-Led Growth Models in the United States and United Kingdom' written by Alexander Reisenbichler and Andreas Wiedemann. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this work.
I wish long term renting paid. Paid for the tenant as well as the landlord .
Does anyone else agree that long term renters should get a return on there money like the landlords do .
Why not!!
If you rented a house . Say a housing association property. For 25 years
In that time you'd at least pay as much as the property is worth and if honest possibly 2 or 3 times even depending where you live
But when you leave .
You'd be lucky to get your down payment back that you had to pay before moving in
While the housing association makes a fortune from it.
If the tenant actually got a decent return at the end . Say 20% of what they paid in. Or even a fraction of the house value at the time you move out .
Then at least all our people who were never able to get onto the property ladder due to the climate they lived through . Like now for instance .
Would actually have something built up for latter in life . Which could only benefit society .
As when people cant afford to live. It has a knock on effect . And affects everybody .
But if renters had a nice little nest egg to look forward to later in life
Suddenly even the poorest of people would have a future to look forward to .
Having a positive knock on effect for everyone.
You'd also find renters were more reliable at paying ontime
And landlords wouldn't have long periods of shortfalls . So it could and should balance it self out where landlords don't actually loose out anything by giving there long term Tennant's a return .
Especially as these tennants have in alot of cases actually paid off the mortgage on the property.
I don't know. What do you all think.
I think we should do everything we can to boost the wealth of the poorest members of society.
A 25 year plan
With real potential growth for everyone .
As landlords get positive equity over that length of time. Look at the last 25 years house price comparisons to today.
So why not let everyone benefit over time .who ever they are ..
And renting your whole life a having nothing to show for it. Sucks
People are moving to the UK to get welfare. People are leaving the UK to save money from their hard work. The tax/welfare system is the problem.
Yes, we need to get rid of welfare (of which 40% is pensions) and bring back the workhouse. Perhaps you can be in charge of the profits of those too whilst everyone else pays ?
Maybe if pensioners paid an appropriate tax - specifically a wealth tax
Triple lock - bs ; just wealth transfer
@@strobel6028The workhouse never worked because it never created wealth, trapping people. Not to mention rhe human rights abuses and the false imprisonment.
What we need are risk takers and entrepreneurs to create jobs for the nation. Liz Truss had the right idea - we need to reward that which creates growth, in name that means reducing taxes by quite a lot. Let’s bring back the Concorde program, develop our space program, let’s mine all the coal we can on our island. This is where the jobs and the wealth are.
If our nation isn’t willing to mine the resources we have to sell on the world markets - where demand for coal is huge, then we can’t complain when our people are on benefits….as we are not providing the correct opportunities.
hello from corby
I think Rachel Reeves is missing a trick. Instead of bunging the private fund managers a lot of money from local authority pension funds, with only 5% to be invested, why not stipulate that 15% of investments from these funds go to local authorities to build more houses? Right now 20% of pensions are subsidies from central government amounting to £70bn pa. Spend that on housing, training new construction workers, and using new building technologies we might make a dent in the problem.
If the government can protect remote workers or encourage remote working to employers (but in the UK) then that would certainly benefit myself and my colleagues. We don't want to live in overpriced London, but we like our jobs here.
In London it’s really hard these days to get a good job as well. I’ve been a software dev for almost a decade, not there are no jobs in that industry.
@@vonder7 Yes I agree. I'm in IT (27) as are my brothers (in early 50s) who were earning high six figures in Y2K. Fact is I'll never make that money because our wages haven't moved since 2007.
Housing is not longer to live in, it is an asset to make money out of. Something like half of the global assets are homes. Banks are jubilant :)
Builing new houses takes time and is expensive. Keeping up vale of and trading exising "assets" is easier and now protecting the value of the "asset" has top priority.
Immigration is rising because employers demand more labour. If there were no jobs, they will not come. Another driver is universities using the high fees paid to subsidise the home students. Solution? A higher birth rate to increase labour supply in the long run, more economically inactive people into the workforce and higher fees for students. All are challenging to deliver.
Thatcher was the wrong solution to whatever problems Britain had in the 1970's.
Partially incorrect. There were parts of the economy that needed to be 'privatised'.
That being said, she has made many wrong decisions in the long run that caused UK to stagnate - selling all the land, waters, allowing international private companies to pay minimum tax and stop building was wrong decision.
I don't know whether they needed privatising or just seious manegement reform. They never really tried r@@nothereandthereanywhere
She went too far but the economy boomed after complete failure and an IMF bailout under Labour before. Look up winter of discontent. Also mining was structurally broken so needed sorting.
@Cassp0nk the economy boomed as things were sold of to the rich at basement prices and banks were deregulated but wages have stagnated for regular people since the 80s as everything else has gotten more expensive
I think moving towards the finance sector was the right decision but not investing in parts of the UK like Birmingham and Manchester was severely short sighted
Moving to the US, Washington state now. No regrets
You omit to comment that graphs are a result of previous activity, going back years.
for love of god..
increase in housing benefits IS NOT A SOLUTION!!!!!
it is what is fuelling these endless rent increases...
you said so yourself - landlords are charging what tenatns are able to pay
so what do you think happens when yo increase what the tenant is able to pay, by giving them housing benefit? Landlord increases rent saying "oh, now that you can pay more i'll have that"
but you know where's the problem?
rents increase for everyone
but not everyone is eligible for benefits.
no wonder its so hard to increase productivity, if as a reward for hard work not only your rent keeps going up, but also you're not getting any help whatsoever to deal with it.
and i absolutely dont understand why dont you just omit private property developers - if they are not interested in building affordable flats.
why government or councils wont talk with construction companies directly? They want a shipload of apartment blocks to be build and they want someone to build it for them - this means they need construction company, not a middleman property developer.
On top of it - YOU DON'T NEED IMMIGRATION TO GET CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. Plenty of construction companies in say Poland, to whom you give contract, they bring their own employees, and when contract is done these people either go to the next contract or go home. They will not be interested in staying. They will not bring their families along. Which means impact on net migration in the long term is zero. And they will be perfectly happy to do that because they've been doing it for decades in say Germany.
That there is no money is no argument. If they spend 27 bloody billion on housing benefit - then in the long term wouldn't it be better to borrow the money, build houses, stop paying housing benefit, pay back the loans out money they will now be saving.
So it's high time to cut the BS excuses and just get it done.
Turns out that building flats and houses that don't even last as long as a human lifespan doesn't work - if houses had a realistic 200+ year lifespan we'd have no problem. There are countries in Europe that have seen a much greater population growth and don't have the same problems. They build to last and they spend far less money and time on renovations and repairs. Some of the stuff from the 20s and 30s in Britain that is still standing has been refurbed and remodeled so often you could count them as having been built three times. And how many thousands of homes from the 50s-70s are now just dust? Another factor is that in Europe people leave the family home later and houses are far more likely to be passed on and not sold on, so there is more incentive to maintain them and cherish them, the way we treat property in the UK is the same way people treat Primark clothes.
Where in Europe has much higher population growth than the UK?
we can dwell on the past for hours talking about thatcher's pathetic policy where the construction of houses with public money was finished and those that were already there were started to be sold for next to nothing. You can also blame the current immigration policy, the economic situation and many other factors mentioned on youtube channels. however, no one addresses one of the key elements why new cheap and easily accessible houses will not be built. the problem is that their construction is not in the interest of any party except people who currently cannot afford to buy them - the government does not have the funds to build them, developers do not see the profit in building something they will not earn (that's how the company works - it has to make a profit), current homeowners do not want both the loss of value of their houses and spending their taxes on building cheaper houses because why would anyone else buy cheaper and new ones when they themselves live in houses from decades ago and had to pay much more money for them. the biggest mistake of those people who cannot afford to buy is voting for those who promise to build new houses (especially throwing out made-up numbers like 1.5 million) because these are empty words spoken to buy their votes and sit for another few years in a government job doing nothing about their promises because there are no consequences for not keeping your promises.
..and the newbuild market is now struggling to deal with the 2024 introduction of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain planning law change with ecologists nationwide fully booked out for months, so that planning applications [requiring BNG plans as a pre-planning application requirement] are significantly delayed. No chance of achieving 1.5m new homes by 2029.
I wouldn’t want to buy here just because stamp duty is ridiculous compared to pretty much anywhere else, locks you into a place for way too long. The homes are worse than pretty much anywhere else as well 😅 not worth it
The quality is bad and the price is crazy. The only reason that support this craziness is "limited number of houses in London + limited jobs outside London".
Without these 2, London will collapse, govt will not risk it. So, the problem will not be solved.
Getting back to slums. Convert a 3 bed terrace house to a HMO converted to a 6 bed with a license for 12 adults.
In Birmingham an apartment I rented in 2014 for £450 a month with bills included is now £1,100 a month with no bills, and they now want £100 a month for a car parking space. Landlords also ask tenants leave using no fault evictions, motivation is landlords want to increase the rent.
Been working for a major builder for nearly a decade. Since Brexit there’s an acute skilled labour shortage in the industry. They simply can’t build more.
At the same time there are absolutely no jobs in software engineering or finance in London. I think it’s time to change industries
As personal wealth grows, you need bigger house with enough space for the increasing number of personal possessions. The kitchen alone now has to be huge to store all the kitchen appliances. This means that although the population numbers might be holding steady, the demand for living space grows.
peg rents and council tax to inflation
Who could have thought that bringing so many people into the country would increase housing costs? 😱
Well you need people coming into the system to pay into the pension system.
You have an ageing economy, you need more people. What you also need is to build more social housing
All over the world government policies have got us to this point. Too much immigration and not enough resources to go round. All of this so that employers could pay lower wages.
@@emilyodwyer7376Forget more people and forget the endless house building that no one can afford.
@@cchan824people that contribute .... the ones coming in are claiming from the state .... or in such low wage jobs which again is topped up by the state .....
Where is our money being spent ?
We need to start with that i think, the math isnt mathing
I left the UK in mid 2022 as the rents just went crazy in London and seeing that it has only increased since then just underscores my decision as being the right one.
And so many professionals bought/rented property outside of London, driving up prices elsewhere.
Couple that with land and property being bought for speculation, sitting empty until the price has practically doubled, and a lack of lower priced and social housing being built and you get what we're seeing today.
I come from a former major industrial city in the Midlands.
There used to be factories all over the city centre and outskirts when I was a kid.
All of that has gone, replaced by warehousing cited in industrial estates.
And what of all the old factory buildings?
Snapped up by developers for conversion into luxury apartments.
These former "brown sites" would have made ideal social housing projects.
IMHO, we've got it all backwards.
We've removed access to housing for those at the bottom, to cater to the better off, only to tax them in order to pay for benefits so those at the lower end can afford a roof over their heads and feed their kids.
I left in the Thatcher years. It's been sad to watch the continued and continuing decline of the UK.
When you have over 1 million immigrants being allowed to stay in the last 2 years and probably even a of more to come you have no chance of building enough houses.
Be careful saying things like that in this country, you might get a knock on the door from the police!
The UK population is forecast to increase by another 8 million or so by 2050. We haven't seen anything yet.
We need more workers , we are an ageing population and the birth rate is going down . Who will work, pay NI and look after the Boomers in their dotage particularly in the health and social care sector? The problem isn’t immigrants, the problem is short term policies sold to an ignorant electorate for the last 30 years. These people need to be processed , put to work and housed.
@@SarahWalker-Smith I don`t fancy a Zulu looking after me when I`m old.
@@SarahWalker-Smith Do we really need more workers? What happened to the productivity improvements we used to see?
I see so many people doing b*llshit non-job - adults doing jobs that children used to do: hand car washes, leaflet delivery, pizza delivery, etc. By all means bring in people for real jobs but we certainly don't need any more barbers or nail bars (just drug money!)
And we also have record numbers of young people who don't seem to be working. It's something like 9 million adults who don't work now - I don't believe they are all long-term sick!
@@SarahWalker-Smith I doubt they came here for work but hey, you are free to have your own opinion.
Rents are not rising. The pound is falling in value compared to hard assets
Gordon Brown is responsible for what we have today. Labour made it easier to borrow in the late 90s and house prices went up 50% between 97 and 03.
Is Gordon Brown responsible for selling off council houses and not replacing them ?
@ The default response from the Labour types. Tell me why house prices were unaffected for 17+ yrs until Gordon Brown came along?
And since 03? And Austerity? And Brexit? And the Lettuce Budget … and, and, and
@ And what? Unless you crash the housing market you’re not going to solve it. Which government wants to be attached to that.
Did anyone else notice that hidden within the budget was a severe reduction in the Right To Buy discount available for current or former council house tenants? On the Gov.UK website it states that from November 21st this year the amount of discount available will be cut np matter how many years you have lived in the property. Just thought I'd put that out there as I have heard zero commentary about this.
I saw that and it’s correct. Why are we giving 100k + handouts to council tenants. Incredibly stupid policy.
You seem like a nice sort of a chap. How about making a pod cast with some positive ideas suggesting ways to make the country economically and socially viable. Here's me suggestions, get rid of the party based system as it stops any genuine dialogue. Replace it with independent MP's. Have the MP's constrained by an abridged new written constitution. Appoint a committee to investigate how to control the media to stop the excess of divisive and tribalistic paranoia. In our hearts many of us know we have to change but selfishly kick the can to the next generation.
The 2 main parties will never give up their power, we have to stop voting for them first, but for some reason most of the country still vote for their own demise. We need more people to start voting for parties that support proportional representation such as Reform UK and Liberal Democrats, until then we will never have a parliament that represents us.
@@arranf You are right the 2 main parties will not give up their power but if Labour screw up they might decide to go for PR if it is constitutionally possible. At the moment yes PR is the best we can aim for but it still would leave us with parties which bribe the electorate at the cost of future collective well being. Remember global warming means mass immigration plus limiting what we produce. As far as I see it only a more sharing world with emphasis on well being is coherent. There seems to be some delusion that only those gifted few can run a business and therefore we must let them exploit the masses. Like our politicians many entrepreneurs are unfit for purpose and we must look for greater people control including worker co-ops. China will always have the advantage over our so called democracy as ultimately the state controls the oligarchs whereas in the west this has been perverted. In fact we really need a grown up discussion on how an economy works. My take is that it essentially the creation and distribution of VALUE. Now value certainly could be a holiday in the Caribbean but it also could be entertainment. Entertainment can create wealth and employment and is sustainable. We need to be presented with the facts and kick those so selfish that all they care about is themselves into the margins. Ordinary people do not want to create wars or fight over material goods we can and must make a better society and global model. No single person leaders anywhere and no party politics. Get off your backsides and say so before the rich and powerful strip all the support systems away from government as we impower them from our ignorant desperation.
People can move and experience living in other parts of the country.
Not if there are no jobs..!
I have to say on this one - what’s your point? What’s your plan? You need to start applying some critical thinking.
What is step 1?
500k extra people every year is completely and utterly unsustainable..
There are many people leaving. Of course those leaving all the smartest and the most productive and intelligent.
That's what you think. Watch and see. There's no way back from this, because we locking into a failing economic system. And the only way the profits can keep rolling in is to bring in migrants. As there's not enough money to pay anyone well. And attacking migrants is just a distraction. It's the form of capitalism we practice that leaves those in power with no choice but to bring in migrants, and pay them badly, and end up working in poor conditions. Stepping on them will not change one thing, because they are only the symptom of a failing economic model. Not the cure for it. Our politicians won't admit that growth is going to be quite difficult to find in the midst of the crises coming down the line. Inflation, and dealing with the consequences of sleeping on climate change will cost billions. Where's that money going to come from? Us if the plutocrats get their way. That's means we have to change, and the plutocrats are in denial. They know that they have to exploit everyone but their kith and kin to survive. So we have to not think there's someway to turn the clock back. That's all gone. It's going to be about survival for us too.
It would be interesting to see how many houses the people leaving vacate because obviously every immigrant needs a place to live, but an emigrant may be a young adult who was until that point living with their family. I think it's likely that it's not quite as simple as "net migration = 500k so we need 500k dwellings"
@@vonder7 It is OVER 500k NET migration, not gross.
Thats people in AND out.
We are still half a million more this year than last.
@@SubjectiveFunny officially, probably twice that.
Interest rates are expected to rise in 2025.
Yep
Economists eh ? Perfect 20-/20 hindsight,
All bubbles inflate. Then they burst. The question is, when?
Not a bubble when it actually is a supply problem
Why can this guy never sort his collar out..lol!
1000 extra bodies arriving every day via boats across the channel and pressure on the housing market? - gee who da thunk?
Tax the super rich who live off passive income from asset and debt acquisition.
What is more money needed for? The problem here is not enough houses being built (planning permission is a big obstacle that doesn't cost money to fix) and too many people (stopping illegal immigration is as simple as instructing the navy to block channel crossings).
On the surface, taxing the rich seems like a good idea - but it isn't. Because if you start heavily taxing the rich here in the UK - they will move their buisness to countries where they are not taxed, and as a consequence - more job cuts.
Not taxing businesses but assets. They can't move their assets. Land in the UK cannot be moved overseas.
@AngelaBee_13 , yeah, but if you tax assests - what for you think will happen to the rental market?
@AngelaBee_13 , there is already a lack of rental supply, which is why rent payments are soaring.