Monday, 2 May 2022

Well I never!

UK house price growth slows as cost of living crisis starts to hit market says the Grauniad, then, in a rare burst of realism, follows on later with:

“Let’s be honest, growth slowing from 14 to 12% is still an insane rate of growth,” said Rhys Schofield, managing director at Peak Mortgages and Protection. “What we may see is some of the lunacy around house price rises ease off.”

followed by

In March, Nationwide said that UK house prices were growing at their fastest rate since 2004, when the UK experienced a housing boom that preceded the financial crisis.

Exactly eighteen years ago, funny that.

4 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Wadsworth said...
Exactly 18 years ago? Wow, who would have seen that coming?

Kes said...

KLN:


Now that I got the tl;dr… Your insinuation that a landowners effort does not at all contribute to the value of land is absolute bullshit.

Example: everyone in my neighborhood has the same grandfathered flood irrigation rights. Some choose to exercise this right, whereas others don’t and the price per acre is less for those that don’t use their flood irrigation than those who do. It’s all the same neighborhood, everyone has the same irrigation rights, they’re all 1.25 acres(with a couple expeditions), the only difference in the price per acre is whether or not the owner puts in the effort of irrigating their property or not. That’s it.

No it’s not because grass is more aesthetically pleasing, no it’s not because the grass keeps your property cooler, no it’s not because the irrigated properties aren’t dusty fuckholes, though all are true, it’s because there’s less effort in keeping up the lawn rather than establishing it from nothing.

Kes said...

Wow

"Because its his/her property and you chose to enter into a rental agreement.

Seriously, are you THIS dense or are you just 13yo?"

Mark Wadsworth said...

Kes, first comment.

You appear to be labouring under some misunderstandings, so allow me to allay your fears:

1. LVT is a tax on the location value, not the current use to which any plot is being put.

2. Individual valuations of all plots is of course a stupid idea, for the reasons you mention and because far too time consuming and prone to silly arguments.

3. I have always explained, LVT would be based on averaged out values for all homes in any area with the same geographic advantages. So you'd average out all plots, the ones with buildings and garden in good repair, poor repair and derelict. Ideally, a few thousand homes at a time - this also gives you a big enough sample of recent transactions (sales or rentals).

4. By interpolation, you can then subtract away the value of buildings and improvements to arrive at pure location value.

5. Of course, landowners mainly influence the value of surrounding plots. Estate Agent lore is "better to buy the worst house on the best street than the best house on the worst street". Would you rather buy a house on a street where all other homes are well maintained and inhabited, you just have to keep yours up to scratch, or an identical house on a street where the other houses are derelict or unoccupied? No matter how much you spend on the latter, it's selling price will always be dragged down by 'the neighbourhood'.

Having cleared that up, I turn to your second comment. Top tip - in blogging world, you respond to something in the original post or somebody else's comment, you don't just start ranting gibberish out of context.