And that's not going to help the actual problem, really, right? It'll inflate the cost of first-time-suitable houses.

No stamp duty for first time buyers on houses under £300k; no stamp duty on the first £300k on houses up to £500k.

Definition of "first time buyers", like Help To Buy and the Lifetime ISA, is "people who have never owned property." I bought a house in Wales in Jan 2006 which I had to sell at a loss to move to London; I have no equity, yet am excluded from all these schemes.

Those growth prediction cuts are savage. Real world pay cuts for all for at least another 4 years.

Those growth prediction cuts are savage. Real world pay cuts for all for at least another 4 years.

"You're all too stupid to understand me" is hardly an argument that can be levelled at this forum.

EXCEPT ZARDOZ OBVS.

As regards today's budget I am principally on the look out for further IR35 reforms being rolled out to the private sector effectively ending the industry I currently work in.

You may have missed it, but in the Red Book they've acknowledged for the first time that this is definitely going to happen.

And that's not going to help the actual problem, really, right? It'll inflate the cost of first-time-suitable houses.

On this basis, post-SDLT prices paid by FTBs would actually be higher with the relief than without it. Thus the main gainers from the policy are people who already own property, not the FTBs themselves. For some potential FTBs with smaller deposits, who are constrained by loan-to-value lending criteria, the relief will enable them to borrow a multiple of their SDLT saving, allowing them to buy properties that they otherwise could not afford – but more expensively.

"You're all too stupid to understand me" is hardly an argument that can be levelled at this forum.

EXCEPT ZARDOZ OBVS.

As regards today's budget I am principally on the look out for further IR35 reforms being rolled out to the private sector effectively ending the industry I currently work in.

Every new government housing scheme is the same: it prioritises preserving value for existing owners over lowering prices for new buyers. In favouring the first, the effect on the second is at best weak and at worst unnoticeable.

Short of engineering a crash there's not much else they can do, is there?

Build a fuck ton of housing?

Build a fuck ton of housing?

Build a fuck ton of housing?

Wouldn't a crash put interest rates through the roof?

Not really. Interest rates rise to control inflation, and a housing crash wouldn't necessarily cause an inflation spike

Wouldn't a crash put interest rates through the roof?

Never in Mali's back yard

Round me would cause traffic issues to further worsen, rainwater run off would cause havoc and subside the remnants of the open cast coal pits. There would be huge pressure on already over subscribed schools and other infrastructure and why build on green belt when there are loads of brownfield sites in Bradford proper?

No, but it would put a substantial number of people in negative equity.

Too easy

Is it just supply and demand or the increase in buy to let that's fucking everything up?

Blaming rich people is utterly valid though.

All rich people?

Short of engineering a crash there's not much else they can do, is there?

Blaming rich people is utterly valid though.

Not All Rich People klaxon

People are quick to blame the latter but I do often wonder if that's not just "blame the rich people".

For what, exactly?

For someone to get rich other people have to become poor, that's capitalism for you.

That's not even a tiny bit close to being true.
Capitalism allows people to become rich while systematically tilting the odds in their favour against those who are poor.

There's no 'have to' in capitalism. That's human nature doing that.

I'm convinced, and putting everything I own into okra.