Big J on radio 4..

[Khriss]

"Small......... Far Away...." bit like some peoples intellect. K

[Conor Wright]

28 minutes ago, Khriss said:

"Small......... Far Away...." bit like some peoples intellect. K

... careful now!

[Chalgravesteve]

15 hours ago, Big J said:

What you describe regarding a philanthropic land owner isn't a million miles away from what we'd like to do in the medium term building low cost housing in rural communities around us. High quality, well designed, eco friendly houses, built for key workers (teachers, emergency services, rural workers etc) built simply but smartly and brought to market below market rate. This would be partly on account of hopefully finding a land vendor with a philanthropic bent and partly by economising on the build by using modular systems. Such houses could be resold at any stage, but any increase in the asking price could only match overall national house price increases and should they choose to sell at full market rate, the excess profit would go directly to the community. It would be a covenant that would cover that. It's just an idea at this stage.

But as soon as you link any future resale value to an open market rate, when the property is not available to sell on the open market, then you have a distorted gain, particularly for the first owner (which must impact upon the price paid by the second surely?).

 

So the only way to do this, that maintains the original principle of the philanthropic land donation (and as someone else pointed out, this could be achieved through state owned land (or land owned by the church as they are one of the biggest landowners of all)) is to remove the house price increase profit element from the equation. The recipient/custodian of the property gains a property at an affordable rate and the property remains permanently tied to that principle. 

 

Someone who moves in and as their life/career progresses becomes more able to afford a "normal" house, can move out and do so.

 

 

[Squaredy]

I have been reading this thread with interest.  Fair play Jonathon you are good at starting interesting threads.

 

I think anyone who doesn't see the down side of the high property prices in the UK is being a little naive.  A lot of people have benefited from the high price of property and land....mainly land owners and anyone who owns more than one house especially.  And of course anyone who inherits a house or a share of.  The majority of people in the UK have done very nicely out of this bubble.  I may do one day when my parents/in-laws pop their clogs. 

 

But you have to feel for anyone trying to get their foot on the property ladder.  That is really what Big J is talking about.  OK he is wanting to do it slightly differently from most, but before the last 20 years of crazy property value increases it would have been probably quite feasible for him to do exactly what he is suggesting.  For an average decent family home in Devon to be worth maybe £350,000 when Devon is full of people in the tourist industry earning maybe £17,000 per year is a huge problem.  The system is broken.  Same problem in London and most of South East England.  Many people can only ever rent (at a rate that means they will never be able to save up a deposit) or hope they will one day inherit.

 

It is a very sad situation, not for the majority who are doing very nicely thank you, but for the millions who may never be able to get on the property ladder, and are stuck in a cycle of ever-increasing rent.

 

I for one think that if Brexit means the property market crashes, or at least drops 20% or so this could be very welcome relief for a lot of people.

 

I also want to just say that it is so ironic that as this thread highlights, the only type of activity that is fully supported and for which an AOC is likely to be granted is exactly the sort of activity that is contributing vastly to global warming and food insecurity.  Sustainable profitable forestry is not allowed, yet unsustainable animal agriculture is encouraged and heavily subsidised.  And when I say unsustainable animal agriculture, I am not suggesting all animal husbandry is unsustainable, but if you take a look at the bigger picture such farming is most certainly unsustainable.

[eggsarascal]

I agree with the vast majority of the above but, J says he's a first time buyer that wants a big family home with sheds, or the room to build sheds and a few acres of land, I'm afraid that isn't how it works unless you are rolling in money. Most folk from the 'baby boom' generation who are sitting on property worth big money started with a terraced house, or a semi. They didn't just rush out and buy a big house in a big plot of land.

[difflock]

Eggs, Simon is it?, 

Anyway, despite our philosophical differences, we too started out with a previously owned and run-down 1100 sqft timber frame bungalow and very second hand furniture, plus a small(1100cc) self maintained 2nd hand car.

I improved the dwelling with CH and a garage, all done with my own labour, and we sold it to buy another dwelling nearer both our places of employment,

 

From where we took the gamble of buying bare agricultural land at public auction,

land that no-one else was interested in bidding seriously on btw.

 

Nowhere in the first 2 house purchase and sale transactions did we "make" any money.

Our current, and quite unfinished  25 odd years later build ,was also the receipt of much of my own labour.

And was not planned with any forethought as to maximize any likely aftersale, which would be a proper nightmare.

 

Nowt in life is free.

 

And again, I was discerning or fortunate(but madly and passionately in love nonetheless) in my solid choice(well her choice I suppose, as in I chased her until she caught me!) of a mongrel bred Army-brat lover and wife.

Marcus

Edited August 30, 2019 by difflock

[Chalgravesteve]

21 minutes ago, Squaredy said:

I have been reading this thread with interest.  Fair play Jonathon you are good at starting interesting threads.

 

I think anyone who doesn't see the down side of the high property prices in the UK is being a little naive.  A lot of people have benefited from the high price of property and land....mainly land owners and anyone who owns more than one house especially.  And of course anyone who inherits a house or a share of.  The majority of people in the UK have done very nicely out of this bubble.  I may do one day when my parents/in-laws pop their clogs. 

 

But you have to feel for anyone trying to get their foot on the property ladder.  That is really what Big J is talking about.  OK he is wanting to do it slightly differently from most, but before the last 20 years of crazy property value increases it would have been probably quite feasible for him to do exactly what he is suggesting.  For an average decent family home in Devon to be worth maybe £350,000 when Devon is full of people in the tourist industry earning maybe £17,000 per year is a huge problem.  The system is broken.  Same problem in London and most of South East England.  Many people can only ever rent (at a rate that means they will never be able to save up a deposit) or hope they will one day inherit.

 

It is a very sad situation, not for the majority who are doing very nicely thank you, but for the millions who may never be able to get on the property ladder, and are stuck in a cycle of ever-increasing rent.

 

I for one think that if Brexit means the property market crashes, or at least drops 20% or so this could be very welcome relief for a lot of people.

 

I also want to just say that it is so ironic that as this thread highlights, the only type of activity that is fully supported and for which an AOC is likely to be granted is exactly the sort of activity that is contributing vastly to global warming and food insecurity.  Sustainable profitable forestry is not allowed, yet unsustainable animal agriculture is encouraged and heavily subsidised.  And when I say unsustainable animal agriculture, I am not suggesting all animal husbandry is unsustainable, but if you take a look at the bigger picture such farming is most certainly unsustainable.

Yes it is an interesting thread and the viewpoints of various contributors will be differing by age and/or financial restraints, depending on whether they have benefited from the "boom" or not.

 

The current stagnation in the housing market, in my view, is nothing to do with brexit. It is more a revaluation of property due to one thing, the major change in the way that buy to let and rental income taxation has changed. For the past decade or so, the boom in buy to let was fueled by the ability to deduct pretty much all of your maintenance costs including interest on a buy to let mortgage, before the balance became tax deductable as income. The result was that people could start with one house for rent, and then add others to increase their portfolio as they could afford to do so, funded by the ones they already own. So the first time buyer and the mid range houses were all being snapped up by the ever increasing number of people getting buy to lets. The massive competition and demand for houses boosted house prices upwards. 

 

With the changes that have come in, in the past few years, it is significantly less attractive to get a buy to let mortgage as in many cases it will not fund all of the outgoings, or the profit left after tax and expenses makes the acquisition of more houses less attractive. The market though, has not corrected itself downwards yet though, so the first time buyer is still being offered properties that are priced because of boosted prices and whilst they have significantly less competition from those wanting to buy to let, they still can't afford the price as it is now. Equally, the owner of the property who wants to sell, won't sell at a lower price than they paid unless they absolutely have to.

 

So you have a stagnant market at the moment which doesn't show any signs of picking up soon. A crash in house price values may be good for those wanting to get on the housing ladder, but comes at the cost of those that have managed to get on the ladder in the past 5 years or so, as they will go into negative equity and we have been there before on that one!

 

In the medium term, wages will pick up and will close the gap on the house prices if the market remains stagnant. I saw a report which said the bank of Mum and Dad was now the 7th biggest lender in the UK, as those with high value property try to assist their kids getting going.

  

 

  

 

 

[eggsarascal]

15 minutes ago, difflock said:

Eggs, Simon is it?, 

Anyway, despite our philosophical differences, we too started out with an previously owned and run-down 1100 sqft timber frame bungalow and very second hand furniture, plus a small(1100cc) self maintained 2nd hand car.

I improved the dwelling with CH and a garage, all done with my own labour, and we sold it to buy another dwelling nearer both our places of employment,

 

From where we took the gamble of buying bare agricultural land at public auction,

land that no-one else was interested in bidding seriously on btw.

 

Nowhere in the first 2 house purchase and sale transactions did we "make" any money.

Our current, and quite unfinished  25 odd years later build ,was also the receipt of much of my own labour.

And was not planned with any forethought as to maximize any likely aftersale, which would be a proper nightmare.

 

Nowt in life is free.

 

And again, I was discerning or fortunate(but madly and passionately in love nonetheless) in my solid choice(well her choice I suppose, as in I chased her until she caught me!) of a mongrel bred Army-brat lover and wife.

Marcus

Yes, it is Simon, but Egg will do. My first house in Stoke cost 3 and sixpence, could I afford it, could I hell, unless there was 100% mortgages , trying to pay the mortgage and paying dad back the little he lent me was torture but I got there, it taught me I couldn't run before I could walk. My last place is probably somewhere between £350k-£400k. Could I start over if I wanted to?  probably, but it would be in a small terrace or cottage if I want to stay around Sudbury. Cutting ones cloth accordingly springs to mind.

[ESS]

1 hour ago, Squaredy said:

 

 

 

 

 Sustainable profitable forestry is not allowed, yet unsustainable animal agriculture is encouraged and heavily subsidised. 

Why do you say sustainable forestry is not allowed? The way I see it the people willing to invest in land, pay their own establishment etc without grants is the thing that's not sustainable.

What direct subsidy payments are farmers receiving for livestock ? the subsidies livestock farmers are receiving, particularly hill farms are environmental payments for reducing stock numbers for the benefit of the birds and the bees, flowers and grouse.

Arable farmers receive subsidy for taking land out of production, buffer strips, set aside, for the same reason as above.

[Squaredy]

12 minutes ago, ESS said:

Why do you say sustainable forestry is not allowed? The way I see it the people willing to invest in land, pay their own establishment etc without grants is the thing that's not sustainable.

What direct subsidy payments are farmers receiving for livestock ? the subsidies livestock farmers are receiving, particularly hill farms are environmental payments for reducing stock numbers for the benefit of the birds and the bees, flowers and grouse.

Arable farmers receive subsidy for taking land out of production, buffer strips, set aside, for the same reason as above.

I am no expert I will admit, but farming in the UK makes more money from subsidies than selling their products.  And to be specific, don't small farms receive something called the Single Farm Payment?  A relative of mine who is a cow farmer certainly does and it is very important to him.  So as I said livestock farming is heavily subsidised.  Who do so many farmers neglect their woodlands and work their fields hard?  Because the agriculture is so much more heavily encouraged financially than the forestry.  Wales alone has around 150,000 acres of unmanaged hardwood woodland.  When did you last see a field that has not been touched for 70 years?