The stock of mortgage lending now stands at almost £1260bn, up from £1150bn when the run on Northern Rock occurred. The increase in lending is mirrored by the decrease in lending to businesses. The size of the average mortgage granted has been over £150,000 (BoE Bankstats Tab 5.4, by division), against an average house price reported by Hali/Wide lenders at around £160,000. The increase in mortgage lending since 2000 has been funded by the “customer funding gap” – borrowing abroad. Affordable houses are the same houses as bubble priced ones – just sold at sensible prices, not bubble prices. Why does the government not recognise that money lent to prop up house prices (as in Funding for Lending) simply backs out funding of business, and that therefore lower house prices are in the interests of the wider economy, future house buyers and the country?

The supply of start of chain buyers willing and able to pay bubble prices is limited. It appears to consist of rich foreigners speculating in London property, and BTL Landlords speculating that Housing Benefit will continue to subsidise the rents they charge at a level that will leave a handsome profit over subsidised mortgage interest rate costs. Neither of these groups deserve to be protected against falling house prices – nor do those who wilfully overpaid or overborrowed. Neither do landbanking speculators – many with over five years’ supply of building land. Why is there not a levy on undeveloped building land held longer than 3 years (a generous time allowance for pursuing planning) to promote its sale to those who will develop it?

We can’t sort out our banks until we sort out the property market.

Why does the government have no interest in protecting private tenants? I pay just under £900 per month on rent for a property that if it was a car would not pass an MOT.

Why is the government doing everything it can to support house prices when in reality it would be better for the UK for house prices and rents to fall to a level that allows the working man to have money in his pocket for luxuries like food ?

There was a report recently suggesting councils could use pensions to build up to 300K affordable homes for sale and rent. What are your thoughts on this policy.

What in the government view is affordable homes? Please be specific with regards average property prices and average salary ratio?

Regards
A very frustrated working professional who is a slave to the government.

Was/is it the government’s and the BoE plan to purposely price out all future generations out of the housing market in order to:

1. Comply with the rest of the EU balance of house ownership against rented accommodation. Brown did hint at big housing associations being formed in order for a certain %age of the population to rent. Is this why Buy to Let is being is being massively supported at the expense of the younger generations? Apart from the fact that Mp’s are Buy to Letters.

2. Halt native population growth because young couple’s have no stable housing to start a family.

3. Just make people’s lives a misery and to keep them enslaved and “on their toes”. Make people dependent and without land to grow their own food so that they are easier to control?

It is obvious to me that this purposely long ago thought out plan to price people out has very devious intentions.

Is this Agenda 21 in action?

1. Vince Cable suggests empty nesters downsize then the government introduces a stamp duty hike and threatens a wealth tax on houses which freezes house sales. Where is the sense in this contradictory set of polices?

2. Stamp Duty rates ought to be smoothed to avoid large steps at different price bands. Is it beyond the Treasury’s ability to create such graduated banding – which may even be manipulated to raise more tax at the band boundaries? The desired aim of grading/altering the bands would be to remove selling price distortions, ie. ceilings and price clustering, which are produced by such banding. What is stopping this happening?

3. Stamp Duty has made it so expensive to move that many find it cheaper to stretch their properties upwards, outwards out and downwards. More transactions and a freer flowing housing market would enable those stuck with large mortgages to downsize and those who want larger properties to upsize. Current tax greed is distorting the natural ebb and flow of the market trapping those financially underwater, how can this be sensible?

4. A two year Stamp Duty holiday would give a much needed boost to house sales and perk up the whole economy by breathing life into the market and resuscitating the local builder, DIY outlet, drapery and carpet seller etc. Once people feel their houses are saleable they may well get out there and spend more providing work. Does the minister support such a policy?

5.Where is the logic in a property wealth tax solely on houses? Has the government considered the ramifications? If the world’s rich take a dislike to this they will simply invest in other less easily taxed status symbols such as art and antiques. Also, once such a tax is introduced, how long before it is extended to include us all, £2m, £1m, 500k, 250k… How does such a policy sit with Conservative values? Are you trying to lose the next election?

Oh one more thing, could the Minister comment on whether he thinks it’s sensible to sucker gullible first time buyers into ‘affordable’ shared ownership schemes for ‘starter homes’ when ALL the evidence is that moving on from these homes is fraught with difficulty and rarely results in a good financial outcome? (Unless you are on the board of a housebuider of course).

Wouldn’t effort be better spent finding ways to reduce prices for all new home buyers by increasing supply of cheap land while ensuring housebuilders don’t profiteer from this?

Indeed could the housing minister comment on whether he things current high house prices (still way above historic averages by around 40%, when compared to household income) are a good thing for the government to spend money propping up via these sorts of housbuilder subsidy schemes as well as asset support arrangements like QE?

Or will he be like his predecessor doing lots of pretend handwringing about the plight of young people looking for an affordable roof over their heads, while at the same time being only genuinely concerned with housebuilder profits?

Housebuilding figures don’t need to get healthy again; we need to get rid of the 300,000 illegal immigrants (apparently) living here, which would free up some space, and then decide if we need to continue importing people to do unskilled work, while we have unemployed people already living in the current housing stock. We cannot continue to build new homes, schools, roads and shops all over the South-East, in order to house extra people we don’t need. So, my question is, are you going to look at the root causes of the housing shortage, or are you going to do your best to cure the symptom, regardless of the cost to the country?