Talk:Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom

message: I am not a smart property buyer, so please tell me how this relates to the US market, and what "price to income" ratio we have historically and what it is now.
thanks
Steve
:Hi Steve.  I don't know but these people may. JASpencer 17:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The US market is a misnomer, the US operates, at best 'regional markets' (and otherwise state markets). The US housing market is definitely looking like a bubble (defined as when people begin to purchase housing, regardless of cost and mortgage payments, purely for capital gains), but this depends heavily where the housing is available. The price-to-income rate has to be calculated on a local basis, but you also have to consider the location. New York City, like London (where I live) is much more compact than Alabama, as a whole, and will have many more wealthy people living in the centre of the city, as compared to a state as a whole. This means that, even within New York City, people living in Manhattan will have higher incomes and may throw off a price-to-income graph for the whole city. The US markets, in general, I feel are heading for trouble (due to several factors, not just housing), but it really depends where you live. If the area is cheap and hasn't appreciated for what appears little reason, you'll be fine (or better off). The trouble is that the US does not suffer from housing shortages (unlike Britain, which has household formation that exceeds new construction, meaning that property is often converted into flats, etc.). So the there is little reason for a housing boom, other than low interest rates and a perception of 'get rich quick'. Cheers, Nick Kerr 20:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housing 

message: This article should be updated to include information about the structure of the housing market, issues with things like planning permission and infrastructure, and also issues like the North-South divide, which produces scope for the increases we've seen in the past few years (where Scotland and the North of England have much faster rises in property values than London and the SouthEast). Also, mortgage reliefs were removed around 1992, but rental income is still taxed separately from Income Tax, making it more advantageous for those earning at the Upper Rate of income tax to own property for investment purposes, as compared to shares, bonds, or simple bank deposits. Nick Kerr 09:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: Could someone add information about prices earlier in the 20th century? mavhc 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationwide has data going back to 1952 (plotting a log of the index over time is quite interesting).  AFAIK there are no readily available older sources, which is a shame - I'd be especially interested to see the impact of the introduction of planning law in the 1920s. Calum (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Graph on page only goes back to 1975. I suspect the missing data would be an interesting addition to the long term trend shown on the graph, but if I am wrong that would all the more call for a graph showing as long a span of years as possible (since plainly I need to be educated too). Another interesting graph would be house prices compared to average household incomes.Sandpiper (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

text: This article plots the Bank of England dataset which goes back to 1845. 78.151.176.30 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older history 

message: The domain www.propertysearchnow.com ("UK Property Guide with Maps & Photos.") is really quite useless, full with google adwords and some completely irrelevant information such as Forex trading and tax havens! It is almost certainly spam. I seriously question its inclusion as an external link.
Not familiar with the wikipedia system so please excuse any mistakes here. 81.106.150.95 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising for "propertysearchnow.com" 

message: I have deleted the reference to a 'communist system of planning controls' since that is hardly NPOV. In fact, the actual communists in Eastern Europe were in fact rather keen on building - hence the vast number of ugly tower blocks you see there!
The way the article is phrased also fails to mention one of the main reasons why the deregulatory Conservative govt of 1979-1997 failed to liberalise the system. Existing middle-class home-owners don't like new developments going up in their area and so they like their local councils to have the power to block them! The article at the moment is written from far too much of a right-wing POV. Will try and make it more neutral. Vino s 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the particular cause of your upset has been edited out of the article by now, but it seems to me a couple of points need making in response to the above. I have no doubt that developers are unscrupulous, but that does not make them a bad thing. They represent public demand for property: If there were no consumer demand, there would be no business to conduct, whether scrupulously or otherwise. The contention within the planning system is precisely because the great weight of economic pressure is expressing a demand for more and better housing, none whatsoever for preservation of countryside. This begs the question of how the planning system has become so completely out of line with public demand. Britain long since passed the population level where it could be self sufficient in food production, so arguing to  preserve land to make it so is largely futile. Aside from this, the question is how we wish to best use the entire surface space of the british Isles for our own leisure usage, which is what preservation of countryside today is really about. It simply isnt true that more than a small proportion of land is developed in the sense of being built on, though almost all of it is covered by a man made environment, including all that is described as 'natural'. In general, the british Isles has a very unnatural flora and fauna because of its geologically recent coverage in ice, and more recently because we have chosen what to grow on virtually all of it. Sandpiper (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not NPOV 

message: Is this pressure group noteworthy enough to be mentioned? How big are they? Have they had any impact yet? I'm not necessarily saying they haven't, I just haven't heard of them outside this and they seem to get a few mentions. Andehandehandeh 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PricedOut

message: At the same time as removing pejorative comments about planning departments and greenbelt, I have removed a misconception about the 'buy to let' investor (of which I am not BTW). The assertion that these people amplify the lack of housing supply is patently ridiculous. They do nothing of the sort. When they buy a house it does not magically disappear, it becomes available for lease as a home. It may stop someone else from buying it, but they can always rent it. Demolition experts and possibly those buying second (and third) homes in this country amplify the problem, as do developers who prefer to develop 5 bed executive homes on the same footprint that 2 flats and a 2 bed starter home could be built.
*Yes I would agree that buy-to-let doesn't necessary affect availability of housing, but there is also the area a buy-to-leave where investors are buying up property off plan, then not letting and just looking to make money on capital gains. Even then it could hardly be said to 'cause' the crisis, because numerically it still must be a drop in the ocean compared to demand.Andehandehandeh 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buy to Let 

message: I have removed several blatantly untrue and POV statements from this section of the article, which has resulted in the loss of the first paragraph. The second I have left in as I cannot definitely refute them. The T&CP Act 1947 DID NOT introduce greenbelts, they were introduced by Sandys in around 1955 and the act was not put in place to encourage people to move to the new towns, that is patently not what it was for. In short the paragraph became at this point untenable so I removed it.Scorzon 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of the Crisis 

message: The housing crisis has caused high levels of homelessness in recent years (no proof and no citation), especially for critical personnel (nurses, teachers, police, firepersons, etc.) Policemen are living in cardboard boxes now? Who's going to move them on? --Dilaudid 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homelessness? Priceless

message: I see that there is much on this page about Buy-to-let and home building, yet nothing that mentions bubble mentality and low interest rates. Surely these deserve a mention on this page? I am happy to put them in but am so surprised they're not here already I thought it best to check to see whether concensus is they'd improve the article or not Speedything (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bubble mentality?

message: I wonder if the person who added this appalling piece of misrepresenatation would like to justify it -
"An admitted error on the part of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, led it to cut interest rates in August 2005."
BBC NEWS | The Reporters | Evan Davis
-- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation 

message: Would it not be appropriate for a significant mention of the predicted property crash/stagnation? (Mythiran (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It would likely conflict with too many of WP policies and guidelines which was the problem with the article prior to cleanup. Thanks for asking though <g> ! -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 09:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Such a shortage of housing supply that prices have fallen every month for the last 12 months. This article is surely a credit to wikipedia. --Dilaudid (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Housing Crash

message: I have to agree that this is a dreadful article. I dont think it contains anything that warranted the creation of a specific article on this issue. Unless someone can provide some structured, researched, viable information on the subject is it not better to delete it?   Paulmallon (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: Why has this changed?  This used to be about the British Property Bubble.  The US one (and those for other countries) have a whole host of useful information.  Has someone with a vested interest damaged or deleted the original British Property Bubble?
What is needed may include:-
Historical norms
  House prices to wages (gross, net, disposable)
  Renting being generally more expensive than buying (because owners have to factor in repair and risk).
  Capital appreciation averages over long periods.
  Average rental returns
  
Reasons For Bubble
  Other investments poor performance
    Tech Stock
    Pensions 
    Endowments
  Bubble mentality
    Houses as pensions
    Seminars (Inside Track etc)
      Purchases of multiple properties by people who have never visited the city or town
    Builders' incentives - inflating price and lowering stated loan-to-value by paying deposit      
    Chasing capital appreciation instead of rental returns (or rental substitution if buying for yourself)
    Fear of being left behind
    Greed of getting money for nothing
    Low interest rates
    Spin
      Stated lack of housing while in excess of half a million properties are vacant (800,000+, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/707942.stm)
    Lenders chasing market share, ignoring risk and not checking documentation
    Fraud 
      Self-certified lies/exaggeration
      Fake payslip companies
      BBC documentary (2002?) on in-branch mortgage advisors recommending mis-stating income
      Overpaying, splitting difference then cashback from lender
      Money from crime proceeds
      Pressures on brokers not to be strict
Also
  Aversion to other investment types on ethical or mistrust basis
  Planning regulations
  'Builders'  as land bank companies, subcontracting building to others.
  FSA's responses
  Bank Of England (BOE) 
    Inflation - 
      Previously Retail Price Index (RPI)
      Then RPIX (excludes mortgages, includes renting I believe)
      Finally CPI (Consumer Prices Index) - excludes mortgages, includes rents
    Do not target asset bubbles 
References
  Fred Harrison 
  Robert Beckman ('Crashes' - book 1988, predicting 89-95 housing slump and Japanese housing crash).
  Housepricecrash.co.uk
  Empty Homes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/707942.stm
  Empty Homes Agency
That's all I can think of for now.  But I'm sure this could be expanded and prove useful.  The current article is pointless other than seeming (to me) to be biased in favour of increased prices.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.71.227 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted and redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British property bubble. In short, it failed basic Wikipedia standards. People have to decide whether they are going to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if not, Wikipedia is not the place for them. -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 11:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This used to be about the British Property Bubble. 

message: Hi. I changed the name, to reflect the specific subject matter of this article. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without any consultation, which was arrogant behavior, at odds with WP policy. This has now resulted in a confused merge proposal to try and sort out the mess. -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: I have removed the more blatant examples of PoV, but this section still needs a re-write and citations to support most of the assertions. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housing crisis 

message: I have proposed that British property bubble be merged with this page, as they seem to cover substantially similar topics and duplicate some of the same information. It is possible that we could have two separate articles, but in that case this one would have to be rewritten to be explicitly about the 2008 house price crash, while the other one concentrates on the bubble up to 2007. I think covering both topics in the same article would be easier. Terraxos (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this suggestion. My vote is for moving content from this page to the "bubble" article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose The AFD redirect to this articles previous name should be enforced (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British property bubble). It was overturned by this edit. This article was moved without consultation from 'Residential property market in the United Kingdom'. It should be returned to something similar I propose 'United Kingdom Property Market' to include commercial property for which there is not enough information yet for a separate article. Then it should be developed with, amoungst other things, balanced coverage of all significant booms and busts eg 1930s decline, 1940s increase, 1950s decline, 1970s increase and decline, 1980s decline and increase, 1990s decline & 2000 increase. Unbalanced concentration on just one aspect of the subject, as occurs presently, is unencyclopedic. -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: There has always been a housing shortage crisis, worldwide, so we need some history on that, if anyone can help. Stars4change (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about an issue which is time- and place-specific: the undersupply and affordability of housing in contemporary Britain. Affordable housing or even house would be a better place for discussion of the global issues.Pondle (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Need history

message: I'm adding a link to Anti-Rent War because renting causes poverty, obviously, & crime because it is oppression  (slavery). Stars4change (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your addition because an article about an incident in US history has little connection to the contemporary undersupply of housing in the UK. And your statement about renting is opinion - Wikipedia isn't the place for polemics. Renting has advantages and disadvantages, and believe or not some people in certain circumstances prefer it to actually buying a home. In any case, the proper place to discuss all this is the actual renting article.Pondle (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Rent War

message: The graph is dated 2009. It may be worth updating to 2012 - the raw data has moved to here - http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/datadownload/data_download.htm 86.21.255.166 (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 Graph

message: If this article was really about affordability then it would include discussion of changes in mortgage rates (and hence average mortgage payments) compared to average incomes over time. As none of these are mentioned at all (at the time of writing) then the article just appears to be a rant or moan. The Halifax, as far as I recall, publishes an Affordability Index, and others may as well, but this is not mentioned at all. Houses or flats are always going to be expensive because they require a lot of resources materials labour and land to make them. 2.101.12.56 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs great improvement or deletion 

message: I think the Halifax do an affordability index, perhaps other lenders too. Here are links to two others I have just found: 
http://data.london.gov.uk/housingmarket/ Scroll down the page and eventually you will see a graph. It shows that a typical repayment mortgage is currently (2 Feb 2015) about 21% of income and surprisingly that this figure has been unchanged since 2009.  
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/4103 Scroll down to table 3 and chart 3. Cost of repayment mortgage currently only 18.4% of income. 
The conventional norm has been that housing costs are around 33% of income, so way below this currently. My theory was that as the cost of food and clothing has plummeted over the decades (people used to spend 1/3 of their income on food 70 or so years ago I understand) then people would choose to use this surplus to spend more on better housing.  2.97.209.137 (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some affordability indicies 

message: This article is entirely about the affordability of houses for sale.  It doesn't address homes for rent at all — except from the perspective of the landlord!  Very poor balance.  --Gerrit CUTEDH 14:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rent? 

message: This article had been tagged as outdated for many years. Much of the copy/data related to the situation eight years ago in 2007. I have put in recent information, but the article is far too short and requires expanding. Tomintoul (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to update article 

message: Tomintoul please note firstly that a Wiki is not a reliable source as per WP:RS and secondly that the page you have linked to does not contain the content you have added. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Land values

message: Absolutelypuremilk I agree the the 'Empty Homes' section should really be an article in its own right; it is somewhat tangential to the issue of affordability, but is a subject worthy of report. Tomintoul (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I will consider doing that soon. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutelypuremilk Are you going to create Empty Homes in UK? Meanwhile, I think 'Buy To Leave' should probably be moved to a section within Buy to let. What do you think? Tomintoul (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will see how busy I am in the next few weeks, feel free to start it in your sandbox if you wish. Yes that would be fine with me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutelypuremilk  In advance of 'Empty homes' being created as an article in its own right, I think it should be a section in Housing in the United Kingdom as it is not really anything to do with affordability. Tomintoul (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty Homes 

message: Most glaringly, the section on planning restrictions reflects an entirely anti-planning restrictions POV. No balance is given to either opposing views that planning restrictions are not the problem, or if that's not a reasonable kind of balance, to the argument that planning restrictions are worth the cost. Since planning restrictions continue to exist, surely not everyone is on the same side of this.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still a POV tag on this article. Is any bias still apparent in the article today? Jarble (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Categorization of the article as being about a "bubble" and inclusion of the Bubble template (and inclusion of the article on the bubble template) seems to be a NPOV issue. The word "bubble" isn't actually in the article text. And the existence of a UK housing bubble is disputed.--Jahaza (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , OK if I go ahead and remove those items then?--Jahaza (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Jahaza Thanks. I've already done some and so have you.Tomintoul (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubble 

message: Article is heavily skewed towards owner-occupiers. I have started a section on 'Rented homes', but this requires considerable expansion.Tomintoul (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rented homes 

message: In 2015, the Bow Group, a conservative think-tank, produced a report suggesting a reduction in international investment demand of property. The report proposed limiting foreign residents to the purchase of single new-build properties, with penalties if sold within five years. In 2016, London mayor Sadiq Khan launched an inquiry into housing costs in the city, also highlighting the impact of foreign investment.
:Why the Bow Group, what is their importance on this issue. Why are there no other organisations used as a source. Why is the Bow Group importance not explained. This is a form of synthesis, as it take a report on an issue, in this case ownership by non-UK nationals, places it in this article, and makes out that that is having an affect. This is synthesis. It could simply be an immigration rule. There is nothing here backing up the assertion of one being related to the other. It is nothing more than synthesis, and its inclusion is POV pushing that one does affect the other. Sport and politics (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing international investment demand

message: The government  set up a £60 million fund to help councils deal with high levels of second home ownership.https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/fund-launched-to-tackle-second-home-ownership-problem In 2016, a referendum in St Ives, Cornwall found 83.2% of voters in favour of new housing projects being reserved for full-time residents, as many tourists frequent the area and Cornwall is popular for second home and vacation property ownership. 
:This is a single local authority area, and should not be given undue weight as it is being given by being included as it is such. This gives an impression that this endemic across the whole country, and is a reflection of the country as a whole. This information belongs in an article on St Ives, and that's about it. Potentially it could be included as part of an article on second home-ownership. But second home ownership covers everyone who owns two homes, or more. This is but-to-let landlords- people who have inherited a property, people who are living in one house while building a second. People who own holiday lets, and so on and so on. This section gives an impression second home ownership is people buying a house in a part of the country visiting it one week of the year, and abandoning it fifty-one weeks of the year. This is a terrible section. Sport and politics (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The additions do not address the synthesis being implied here, that Second home ownership is related to housing affordability. This has not been demonstrated by the text or the sources provided. A government inquiry is a political issue, this does not address anything but the politics of the issue. More is needed. Sport and politics (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Second home ownership

message: From April 2016, a Stamp Duty surcharge of three per cent of the purchase price was required for those buying to let. From April 2017, buy-to-let mortgage interest payments will have higher rates of income tax relief phased out by the government. Although, companies would not be affected by the new rules.
::is well sourced (apart from the Land Value Tax stuff, but there are plenty of references in the relevant article which I am happy to move across if you wish). I'm not sure how it is POV? Could you explain further? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tax issue, not a housing affordability issue. The way it is worded is not related to the article currently worded. It is synthesis. IT is information on the tax of buy-to-let, in an article on affordability of housing in the UK, being used to imply that one affects the other. There is not substance to this claim and it is not supported by the text or the sources. As it is synthesis, and therefor POV, it is a not for this article unless that issue is rectified. Sport and politics (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Buy-to-let tax changes

message: This article is a catch all for the United Kingdom and this article should contain the whole of the UK and a separate wales article is superfluous. Sport and politics (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose on the grounds that housing is broader than affordability of housing, and that even if a merge were considered a better target would be Housing in the United Kingdom, noting that Housing in England also redirects there. Klbrain (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose The article discuss mostly Wales specific issues such as the language difference and action taken in Wales related to the housing problems. This wouldn’t fit well into either of the targets mentioned. I do however approve of adding a short summary similar to the London section on this page. Trialpears (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Housing in Wales]] into this article 

message: Each attempt at making the article more neutral seems to be countered by another move taking it back to a particular perspective. Tomintoul (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you expand on which content you think is causing the problem? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutelypuremilk The recent minor edit wars in relation to Land Value Tax is a perfect example. All negative comment in relation to LVT has been deleted and only positive comment remains – this section and much of the whole article has a very left-wing bias. Tomintoul (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing issues of lack of neutrality 

message: Response to third opinion request:
Whether the comments about the subject are positive or negative, they shouldn't be in the article if there are no reliable sources to back them up. (SN: , when you add an entry to WP:3O, sign the entry with five tildes (~~~~~), not four; so that your username won't show.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion