TheFatBigot opined here:
Buying a higher quality of stuff, be it housing or anything else, is an obvious consequence of increased income. But even then, once a home has been bought that is suitable to current (and anticipated future) needs and of a quality that is thought acceptable to someone of a certain income, there is little likelihood of change unless circumstances alter radically.
When it comes to stuff other than housing it is rather different, not least because the cost of dumping what you have and getting something better is so much less.
And we should never exclude or denigrate the emotional attachment people have to their homes. It has an effect on their willingness to move and, for those with such an attachment, makes housing anything other than normal goods.
*ahem*
While anecdotal evidence and people's impressions are relevant (for example, after my parents got married they owned/occupied the same house for thirty years before they moved; whether or not they will move again in their lifetimes is an unknown), let's look at actual real-life figures:
According to HM Revenue & Customs statistics on residential property transactions (Excel), there were 6,181,000 purchases/sales in the five years August 2005 to July 2010. That's an average of 1,236,000 purchases/sales per year; and according to NSO statistics on housing tenure (pdf), in 2000-01 there were 20,342,000 privately owned homes in the UK*.
Therefore average turnover is about 1,236,000 ÷ 20,342,000 = 6% of total stock per year**. If we assume that an average housing 'career' is about fifty years (from being a first time buyer to shuffling off this mortal coil), the average number of homes owned/occupied by any individual during his or her lifetime (whether jointly or solely) will be 50 years x 6% per year = 3.
In other words, on average, people in the UK will have owned/occupied three properties in their lifetimes; they start by buying a flat; then they buy a house when they get married and children are on the way; half of marriages end in divorce***; people move abroad**** and come back; people move because of their jobs or to trade up or down; people lose their jobs and have to sell up because they can't afford mortgage repayments; people buy themselves retirement homes in the countryside or at the seaside etc etc.
The figure looks perfectly plausible to me (I'm in my forties, I'm on my second marriage and have so far owned/occupied three houses and one flat, for example, as well as the five places where I've been a tenant since I left home at 18).
*/ahem*
* (27 + 41 + 7 + 3)% x 24,838,000 = 19,374,000 GB, plus 5% for Northern Ireland = 20,342,000.
** The sales figures might include social housing, which is occasionally transferred from one branch of government to another; but they exclude sales under £40,000 so let's assume the net effect of these two adjustments would be nil, for sake of argument.
A further possible adjustment is the fact that the 1,236,000 figure includes sales of new builds of about 200,000 per year. If these were all sold to first time buyers, then the turnover figure might be only 5% (1,036,000 ÷ 20,342,000) but there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. My parents' first house was second hand but they bought their current house brand new, for example.
*** There are about 150,000 divorces per year in the UK.
**** About 300,000 people emigrate from the UK each year, which is at least 150,000 households.
Elevate their cause?
2 hours ago
13 comments:
There is a considerable difference between a voluntary move - new job, new relationship, new child on the way, and being forced to move for tax reasons. TFB makes a very good point on peoples emotional attachment to their homes, and I think you underestimate it at your peril.
I personally know several OAPs whose children are trying to get them to move out of the family home into sheltered accomodation (not for financial reasons, but because they need more looking after, and the family are too far away) and the old folk are adamant they want to stay in their own house that they lived in with their spouses, and brought up their families in. That is the strength of the bond we are talking about.
"That is the strength of the bond we are talking about."
Some people don't feel that way about their homes (I don't, nor does MW by all appearances), others do, very strongly, I suspect more so as they get older.
Unfortunately for LVT the majority of people who feel that way are in the politically active middle classes - I doubt you will find many people nostalgic about a council flat in a tower block - and that, combined with its "in-your-face" nature means that it will never make political sense, however much it would be desirable economically.
Mark.
A bit off topic, but I just tried to comment on housepricerash.co.uk and for reasons I don't understand why my comment was deleted.
It concerns this: Nick and Dave should ponder this one
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/subprime-2-0-is-coming-soon-to-suburb-near-you-commentary-by-edward-pinto.html
The existing commentators clearly haven't read the article.
They claim the article blames Obama for the sub prime disaster. Yet in the article there is this paragraph:
Quote: Substituted was a scam of liberalized lending standards that turned out to be no standards at all. In 1990, one in 200 home-purchase loans (all government insured) had a down payment of less than or equal to 3 percent. By 2003, one in seven home buyers had such a low down payment, and by 2006 about one in three put no money down.
That is clearly putting the cock up on Bush's watch.
I just went to point this out.
I've been reading housepricecrash for years and commented only once of twice in that time.
Is it just a lefty nonsense site?
I should have added just in case anyone is mystified by my comment, that I know you often comment there.
I respect your opinion and wondered what your thoughts were?
they'll be even more mystified now.
S, let's look at working age first. I have explained elsewhere that the entire tax system will be replaced with a flat 8% tax on averaged out land/property values, and half of this will be dished out as a CI anyway.
Even if we take an extreme example of a 90th decile house costing £320,000, once you factor in VAT, income tax, NI, council tax, TV licence fee etc, a couple in such a house will be better off, after tax, if they currently have £40,000 or more employment income (which for most couples in £320,000 houses will be the case).
And if they earn less than that, their tax bill goes up, but so what? Why should they be paying less tax than the couple next door who earn more? Don't they get more or less exactly the same benefit from society as the higher earning couple?
And if your statement about 'emotional attachment' is correct, then why wouldn't the lower earning couple spend a bit less on other stuff, or go and do some tax-free overtime in order to stay living where they are? LVT is an entirely voluntary tax.
B, thanks for back up. As I explained above, 'middle class' couple will not suddenly be worse off (that is not the point of tax simplification) anyway.
HPCer, tell me what your comment was/would have been and I'll try posting it myself. No, HPC is not a leftie nonsense site, as a rule. The blame for US sub prime is in fact shared equally between Clinton, Bush and Obama.
As to pensioners, the idea is to replicate the current tax system as closely as possible with LVT, so as far as I am concerned, they can have massive exemptions, discounts or deferment options - the revenue shortfall will have to be made good with cuts to extra services for older people, like healthcare, libraries etc. You get what you pay for in this world.
B, I would add that replacing state education system with education vouchers is also part of the plan, and all parents who send their kids private can be pretty chuffed with that.
All I know is that my Son was clever enough to be born on the 31st of July. That meant got a £250 trust fund payment rather than a £50 payment. He's a genius. It's my one bright spot in all the darkness of all the recent cuts.
Strictly speaking, shouldn't that be "the average number of houses owned" rather than "the average number of houses owned/occupied"? Presumably privately-rented housing is included in the purchase/sale figures you quoted?
Interesting stuff here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/is-housing-overvalued/62674/
I'm afraid MW you exist is some perfect LVT world, rather than the real one. What you suggest (remove most taxes on people, introduce LVT, pay a citizens dividend etc etc) is a cogent package as a whole, which has zero chance of ever being implemented. All your trumpeting of LVT does is introduce the idea to politicians (CF Andy Burnham) to new ways of taxing us, without removing the other taxes. Did AB suggest getting rid of income tax? No, of course not. And no politician ever will, instead will just use LVT to take an even larger percentage of our money, this time from our capital rather thanour incomes.
2011D, good stuff.
AC, sure, we can adjust that final 3 to the n-th degree. Maybe the answer is 3.035, maybe it's 2.938. But 3 is accurate to one or two sig figs.
AC, the Home-Owner-Ists say "Location, location, location", the economists say "Ricardo's Law Of Rent".
S, I am a great espouser of Lost Causes, such as leaving the EU, a Georgist tax/welfare system, legalising drugs, fighting back against Islam, turning off the traffic lights, education vouchers etc etc :-)
"Did AB suggest getting rid of income tax? No, of course not."
To be fair, he suggested replacing Council Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax and Inheritance Tax with LVT, which is pretty good going, certainly much better than what Uncle Vince had to offer with his 'Mansion Tax'.
Post a Comment