Sunday, June 19, 2005

Not your money to spend

The Government not supported by 78% of the registered electorate is now considering further restrictions on how you spend your money. They are looking at ways of preventing city dwellers from buying second homes in rural villages. Whilst acknowledging the impact this must have on certain villages, Government should not be allowed to legislate on an entirely legitimate means of spending your own money.

Will potential second home owners be fined or imprisoned for buying a second house? Will villagers be banned from owning flats or houses in the City? No doubt ministers will be exempt from the proposed legislation, it would be unfair to expect them to choose between their constituency home or their London pad.


Aiden Truss said...

I wouldn't worry - seeing as so many MPs have property portfolios that would be threatened by such legislation. They won't do anything too drastic!

Then again, the buy-to-let brigade and second homers are a major contributing factor in the high house prices we are stuck with at the moment. Lack of purchasable property is forcing up prices - someone has to do something. While there's money to be made, who's going to rein in their opportunity to make a profit for the good of anyone else?

On the one hand, it looks like government interference - on the other, when you can't even afford to buy a house in the village you grew up in - who you going to turn to to address the situation?

Interesting blog by the way - will be book-marking it!

Snafu said...

Astolath, this week's Economist suggests that house prices are destined to tumble significantly as the Buy-to-let brigade join first time buyers in withdrawing from the the housing market. It is now cheaper to rent than buy as rents have not risen nearly as much as house prices suggesting we are in the midst of an asset price bubble yet to pop.

Many people cannot afford to buy homes in the villages, towns or cities they grew up in, why should only village communities receive special protection?

To prevent people profiting from the situation, should villagers prevent other villagers from selling their properties to people prepared to pay the most?

Thanks for the support by the way!!

Aiden Truss said...

It's a tricky one to call - especially as you say, villagers are going to sell at a healthy profit and are pulling the rug from under their neighbours.

There was a great article on this in the New Statesman a while ago - their pages are subscriber only, so I can't post the link. It also tied the housing problem in with land ownership - how there is no shortage of land to build new homes in the UK, it's just that 90% of the land is owned by the richest 2 or 3% who pay no land tax and whose holdings have never been surveyed since the land registry act came into force decades ago. There is no political will to upset this small percentage either.

There don't seem to be any rights and wrongs in this one. It also seems that some have been predicting this tumble for a while now. I suppose we'll have another negative equity nightmare on our hands.

But hey! What a great and robust economy we have at the moment!

Serf said...

Meanwhile, planners stop new houses being built that would go a long way to solving the problem.

Anonymous said...

This might be quite popular with a lot of rural Tory voters who don't like "townies" coming to their villages and then complaining when cows wake them up at 5am.

Snafu said...

Steve, I have always struggled with those complaints. If you move to the country, you should expect funny smells and noises at anytime day or night!!

Labour 'concern' about rural Tory supporters!?! What are Labour's real motives?