Saturday, 17 December 2011

Effortless Switch Of The Week

We've had quite a few episodes of "We own land! Give us money!" (often disguised as "They own land! Give them money!" when the banks are doing it) in the past few weeks, the government want to 'help' first time buyers onto the ladder and want to 'help' property developers finish their 'stalled projects'.

The government proposed scaling back the 'help' it gives 'hard pressed home owners who have fallen on hard times' (i.e. unemployed people who tried to speculate on rising house prices) but fakecharity Shelter sprang to the defence of such people, i.e. what we have is an organisation ostensibly campaigning against homelessness but in fact trying to prop up the whole system which causes homelessness in the first place.

The Powers That Be have now identified yet another group of land 'owners' who need 'help', the so-called Second Steppers. Here's the PA press release (Spotter's Badge: Anon in the comments to an earlier post):

Homeowners hoping to take their place on the second step of the property ladder face a "very tough challenge" as home affordability for so-called second-steppers is at its least favourable level for over 25 years. With recent falls in house prices affecting the equity in their homes, Lloyds TSB estimates that this year will also see the lowest annual number of house moves since 1974, with a 9% fall on 2010.

It warned the issue of struggling second-steppers was significant in terms of trying to get the housing market moving again. As buyers often stay in their first home for a period of about four years, many potential second-steppers bought their first home at the peak of the market in 2007, paying up to 23% more than first-time buyers now. The second stepper affordability measure in the UK now stands at the highest level since records began in 1987 - 5.2 times gross annual average earnings. This has nearly doubled from three in 2001 and is significantly above the long-run average of 3.3, based on the average price of a second stepper home.

This leaves a whole host of homeowners in a negative equity position of almost £10,000, therefore making attempts to climb the ladder much more difficult... The findings of the review are more positive for first-time buyers as their affordability ratio (4.1) is now more favourable than the potential second-steppers. This marks a vast change from the situation at the peak of the housing market in 2007 when home affordability for second steppers (4.1) was much more favourable than for first-time buyers (5.7).

Suren Thiru, housing economist at Lloyds, said: "The issue of second stepper affordability is a key one in trying get the housing market moving again with the current difficulties in this segment of the market restricting the supply of starter properties for first time buyers as well as preventing many of those who need to move from doing so."


So they're not actually asking for money yet, but The Powers That Be are trying to soften up public opinion a bit, so that hopefully, one day, Second Steppers will be on the Protected Species list, somewhere behind the Poor Widow In A Mansion, The People Who Don't Want To Lose The Family Home When They Are Taken Into Care, Hard Pressed Homeowners Who Have Fallen On Hard Times, First Time Buyers etc etc.

15 comments:

Antisthenes said...

Keep it simple stupid has been drummed into me from time to time to the point that I realised to do so does means that the return on effort is much greater than doing something in a complex manner. Politicians, economists, bureaucrats and the like never seem to take this excellent bit of advice on board. The housing market is a point in question as many different actions are being used to address a problem that has a very simple solution. That solution is to make the housing market a truly free market that of course needs the planning process to discard it's restrictive practices and leave it to locals to decide how development happens in their particular area. Those who maintain restrictive practices will soon learn from those who do not that doing so is economically harmful. In this type of environment subsidies and other sticking plaster type remedies would be totally unnecessary.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anti: "Those who maintain restrictive practices will soon learn from those who do not that doing so is economically harmful."

Well, no they won't. Firstly because proper Homeys don't give two hoots about the economy. All hey care about their relative wealth, as long as they are twice as 'wealthy' as the people at the bottom, they don't care how poor the people at the bottom are. So they'd rather that the people at the bottom have £1 and they have £2, than everybody having £3.

Secondly, the links between planning liberalisation and a successful economy are all fairly indirect, it's the slow truth which will always be trumped by the quick lie.

If you want to stamp out NIMBYism, then LVT would do the trick. If people do things merely to prop up the (relative) value of their own homes, then they will pay tax accordingly.

Antisthenes said...

MW I accept your premise that Homeys will fight tooth and nail to maintain the wealth tied up in their property. However by doing as I suggest it will be the thin edge of the wedge and will over time erode Homeys tight grip on the market. I believe the government is actually in the process of freeing up planning regulations. As for LVT I admit I do not really understand it but anything that aids freeing up the housing market I am for. What little I can glean from your articles it appears that LVT has many other benefits especially in the area of taxation in as much it replaces many bad taxes.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anti, I would like to think you are right, but I sorely doubt it.

For sure, there are countries or states with good planning reg's (i.e. reg's on fire safety etc only but no restrictionst on quantity) and those places have more successful economies, less house price bubbles etc. That's all good stuff.

But

a) if you allow 'local' people to decide, then a majority, existing homeowners, will always be against.

b) having LVT would reduce the incentive to be a NIMBY, or, at least people will be putting their money where their mouths are. I for one am quite happy to pay a couple of grand extra if they keep nasty stuff away from me - I'm a tenant at the moment so at least half of my rent is being paid simply for the fact there's lots of nice stuff and not much nasty stuff round where I live.

c) Even if we achieved the optimum use of land, with no NIMBYism and everything allocated as efficiently as possible (which can be done - see Germany where they hardly have NIMBYs) then we would still have lots of wealth flowing up the chain from tenants and first time buyers to the land owners and banks. So LVT would still have a role.

Robin Smith said...

Speech time:

The Matrix. The 100% versus the 0%
http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2011/12/matrix-100-versus-0.html

The more deeply we investigate all this, the more insane society in general appears to be.

See here for infinite evidence:

Killer arguments against LVT. Not!

That money grows on trees. Financing private property in land. Mortgages. Pyramid selling on a global scale. All legal. The monstrous effects so obvious. That harm everyone. Even the culprits. The whole world now a victim of its own ignorance and selfishness.

The exact same thing that toppled Israel, Rome, China, etc. . . Soon the whole modern world?

The 100% of good guys versus the 0% of bad? I dont think so. Its the other way around surely?

I have yet to find an exception among all leaders in politics and commerce. And all the public. Occupiers even! (with a few exceptions where theological audit was practiced at painful lengths)

I used to think we were bluffing for political or personal gain. But no. We all really believe we can all steal more than we produce and things will still work out fine.

Superstition maybe? Or mental illness? Either way requires a psychologist, not an economist.

Or is it all a mistake and its me who is insane? I ask myself this question every morning. And every morning I find the evidence has intensified the nightmare reality even further.

I call this situation: The Matrix.

Please let me wake up and find it was all bad dream. So I can get on with my life of cycling.

Richard said...

More softening up for we own land gibe us money.

http://www.scotsman.com/business/personal-finance/more-stories/owners_struggle_to_take_next_step_up_the_property_ladder_1_2013813

Mark Wadsworth said...

RS, indeed.

R, that's a good rehash of a press release, the journo has gone to the trouble of changing all the words and phrases but so that they mean exactly the same thing. From an Eng Lit point of view, top marks.

Bayard said...

RS, have you read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518 )? If Charles Mackay was still around, I am sure Homeownerism would be in there.

Anonymous said...

And yet more "shock horror ! No they couldn't, they wouldn't dare, surely" reported in the Wail - and yes all come from the same article ..

'Up to a million borrowers could be turned down for mortgages under a tough new crackdown on lending announced by the UK’s financial watchdog today.

The Financial Services Authority’s wide-ranging shake-up will call for tougher restrictions on how home loans are approved to prevent a return to irresponsible lending'.

which you might consider a mildly sensible approach - but oh no it isn't !

'But the watchdog’s own impact assessment has revealed that the plans could hamper growth by stripping £2.9billion out of the economy and lead to a dramatic drop in mortgage applications.

An estimated 225,000 mortgage holders would be turned down for mortgages or be granted a smaller one than they need if the new proposals already applied.

This could hit one million – more than a tenth of the country’s nine million mortgage holders – if Britain were to experience the sort of housing boom seen between 2005 to 2007'.

Oh those were the days ! Still, with a little bit of luck soon have them back ... and what on earth motivated these blinkered idiots conducting this review to come up with the plainly looney proposals they have ?

'The review comes amid fears that rising unemployment and increased pressure on household budgets will lead to more borrowers falling behind on their mortgages.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that 45,000 homes could be repossessed next year – up 20 per cent from an estimated 37,000 in 2011.

The FSA said that while low interest rates have helped some borrowers, there are ‘real dangers’ that problems are being stored away for the future, with home owners being unable to meet repayments when rates start to go up.

The review warned that loans should only be given if there is a reasonable expectation that the customer could repay the loan without relying on ‘uncertain’ future house price rises.

Under the plans, lenders would have to consider the impact of increases in interest rates in line with current market expectations'.

and when might these stupid new measures be implemented, assuming the moving of heaven and earth to get them dustbinned fails ?

'The FSA plans to publish final rules next summer and does not plan to implement the proposals before the summer of 2013'.

Phew ! So a full 18 months for that "dustbin these crazy proposals now" campaign - hurrah !

Robin Smith said...

Bayard thanks downloaded onto kindle.

Yes I guess they had slavery back then too.

See my blog for a new form of bailout merchant: Savers who invest in feckless banks.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, it's an outrage! Do you mean there are people who own land and the banks are refusing to give them money? That undermines our whole social and economic system! Money must flow to land owners - that is our basic constitution, and if the land owners can't afford to repay a loan then it must be waived.

Anonymous said...

"The issue of second stepper affordability is a key one in trying get the housing market moving again"

Note the missing word at the end - 'upwards'. The market currently is moving - down a bit, up a bit, down a bit more.

What they mean is to get it moving upwards rapidly again, so the whole corrupt party can resume.

Anonymous said...

Or rather, between 'moving' and 'again'...

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, that's the genius of the Home-Owner-Ist magical money tree, house prices can only ever go up, people get richer if house prices rise and if people get richer they can move up the ladder. It's a logic free zone.

Robin Smith said...

"Immune from reason"