skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
And at a pace that ensures that the market price keeps rising.
And at a pace that ensures that the market price keeps rising.They’ll build what sells at the highest margin.
That last sentence is the point. They are poisoning the chalice so much that the next government will succumb within one term. Or at least they hope soHunt has paid for tax cuts with unrealistic spending cuts which create huge problems for next chancellor, IFS says
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has released its full assessment of the autumn statement. In his summary, Paul Johnson, the IFS director, says Jeremy Hunt’s tax cuts are “paid for by planned real cuts in public service spending” which are not credible. He says this means Hunt has left a huge problem for whoever is chancellor after the next election. He explains:
The net result is that Mr Hunt is, by the narrowest of tiny margins, still on course to meet his (poorly designed) fiscal rule that debt as a fraction of national income should be falling in the last year of the forecast period. In reality debt is set to be just about flat at around 93 per cent of national income over the whole period. And that is on the basis of a series of questionable, if not plain implausible, assumptions. It assumes that many aspects of day to day public service spending will be cut. It assumes a substantial real cut in public investment spending. It assumes that rates of fuel duties will rise year on year with inflation – which they have not done in more than a decade and they surely will not do next April. It assumes that the constant roll over of “temporary” business rates cuts will stop. It assumes, of course, that the economy doesn’t suffer any negative shocks.
Like his predecessors Mr Hunt has taken a modest improvement in the public finance forecasts and spent most of it. He has spent up front and told us he will meet his targets largely by unspecified fiscal restraint at some point in the future. What he will do in March if the OBR downgrades its forecasts we do not know. Any such downgrading would leave him with a big headache. More importantly he or his successor is going to have the mother and father of a headache when it comes to making the tough decisions implied by this statement in a year or two’s time.
And here is Johnson’s conclusion.
The fiscal forecasts have not in any real sense got better. Debt is not declining over time. Taxes are still heading to record levels. Spending is also due to stay high by historic standards, not least because of high debt interest payments. But those payments plus pressures on health and pension spending mean current plans are for some pretty serious cuts across other areas of public spending. How did Mr Hunt afford tax cuts when real economic forecasts got no better? He banked additional revenue from higher inflation, and pencilled in harsher cuts to public spending.
I’m not sure I’d want to be the chancellor inheriting this fiscal situation in a year’s time.
Labour are fooked if they get in to power.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
So a company that benefits from higher selling prices if they limit supply isn't going to limit supply at all?This just isn’t true.
Lack of house building is pretty much entirely down to planning law and lack of workers. There no evidence of land banking on any scale.
They make big profits because they don't build enough to meet the demand. Increase supply - price goes down.The big house builders make obscene profit on each house, there's no way they're drip feeding new builds to keep prices high.
He'd be better admitting it, anybody who's been there world just nod and agreeRather than admit it he tries to lie his way out of it bit by bit.
James Cleverly admits calling Labour MP 'unparliamentary' word
James Cleverly says he used a swearword to refer to a Labour MP, not to describe Stockton North.www.bbc.co.uk
Or traditionally,move up and empty the space below .The traditional way people got on the housing ladder was start small and upgrade when they can afford.
So if there's a problem with people getting on the ladder, give them what they can afford.
That's fair. Have to start the process first thoughOr traditionally,move up and empty the space below .
So a company that benefits from higher selling prices if they limit supply isn't going to limit supply at all?
While these things are an issue, the housebuilders use them as a convenient get out clause to keep everything going solely. I'm not saying they're not building at all, but they're not building as fast as they could even with those constraints.
Same as every development gets the number of affordable homes slashed because the development isn't viable otherwise. Then same housebuilders post ever larger profits.
That's a nonsense. Take centralised control and build what's needed instead of chase profits at the expense of everything else.
Rather than admit it he tries to lie his way out of it bit by bit.
James Cleverly admits calling Labour MP 'unparliamentary' word
James Cleverly says he used a swearword to refer to a Labour MP, not to describe Stockton North.www.bbc.co.uk
So it's fine for him to apparently call an MP shit, but it's against the rules to call him a liar. It's nuts.
Well it could be a brown moment if the press chose?Who cares?
Well it could be a brown moment if the press chose?
Its so trivial - even the MP in question was sniggering on national TV - admitted he hadn’t a clue if it was said - but was having a lovely time anyway
I’ve been to Stockton - it’s a shit hole
So it's fine for him to apparently call an MP shit, but it's against the rules to call him a liar. It's nuts.
Who cares?
Who calls a person a shithole?
Of course they're building at a consistent rate. A rate that is consistent with them having houses to put on the market and sell but not so many that it'd bring the prices down. They will supply less than the demand - it's in their interests to do so. Wasn't it the owner of Persimmon who basically admitted doing this, saying why would they build faster when it's not conducive to their business model of maximising profit?Private house builders have built at pretty consistent rates since the TCA came in, the big drop has been council build. But it’s the planning law that’s limited private building.
There’s no surplus of land with planning permission. There’s a lot of speculative buying that caused by planning law, especially the green belt.
Of course they're building at a consistent rate. A rate that is consistent with them having houses to put on the market and sell but not so many that it'd bring the prices down. They will supply less than the demand - it's in their interests to do so. Wasn't it the owner of Persimmon who basically admitted doing this, saying why would they build faster when it's not conducive to their business model of maximising profit?
I'm not saying they're hoarding land and doing absolutely nothing. I'm saying they're building on them at a pace that could be higher if they chose. They choose not to.
But they haven't. They've always produced far less than required (and are able to). The changes in planning law just gave them another excuse to control the supply even more, should it suit them. Which it does.Why did they suddenly decide to start this hoarding at the exact same time as we changed planning law? That’s one hell of a coincidence!
And no as far as I’m aware you’ve made that up about Persimmon.
But they haven't. They've always produced far less than required (and are able to). The changes in planning law just gave them another excuse to control the supply even more, should it suit them. Which it does.
If they're producing less houses, how come their profits are going up? I guess it's just an unfortunate consequence that producing less houses due to planning law pushes the price and profit margin up for them isn't it? But they're sitting there cursing that they can't build loads more houses which they'd end making less profit from?
How are you calculating "roughly the same amount"?Profits are up because house prices keep rising because supply is constrained.
The Persimmon story was about materials and labour shortages and planning backlogs. If they could make money today why wouldn’t they?
For your theory to be credible (and I’m telling you having worked in property development it’s not), there would have to either be a massive conspiracy that involves every builder large and small, or the level of house building would correlate with market conditions. It doesn’t. Check the data. House builders have been building roughly the same amount since the 50s.
Because they need to make more next year and the next year and the next year etc etc when shareholders will be expecting more dividends. I worked for Westburys as a sub contractor when Persimmons brought them out. Talking to the management I knew at the time Directors couldn’t believe what was being offered to them it was so high, the reason persimmons wanted them was for their land bank which at the time was believed to be the largest in the industry. Within a decade that high price they paid for it looked like a steal.Profits are up because house prices keep rising because supply is constrained.
The Persimmon story was about materials and labour shortages and planning backlogs. If they could make money today why wouldn’t they?
For your theory to be credible (and I’m telling you having worked in property development it’s not), there would have to either be a massive conspiracy that involves every builder large and small, or the level of house building would correlate with market conditions. It doesn’t. Check the data. House builders have been building roughly the same amount since the 50s.
View attachment 32489
the big drop off is LA builds. But otherwise it’s been around the same level give or take a few ten thousand. You aren’t going to get the numbers without either lots of LA building or planning reform. Blaming house builders is a nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?