Three year emergency brake would prevent rents rising above CPI, wage growth or 2% – whichever is lowest Zack Polanski will today [2 Oct] unveil the Green Party’s plan for an emergency brake on private rents to put an end to the ‘fear and uncertainty’ plaguing renters and tackle the runaway rents which have outstripped […]
Honestly, this is an absolutely stupid use of statistics.
That’s 3% of homes vacant. Have you literally never moved houses before? Homes sitting vacant for a few months is pretty normal. That’s homes on average being unoccupied 3-4 months out of every ten years. It would be strange if 3% of homes weren’t vacant at any given point,
It would be strange if 3% of homes weren’t vacant at any given point,
You haven’t said anything different than dehaga, and well, look where that got them. Poor thing couldn’t even tell me whether they thought abandoned houses counted as unoccupied.
Further down someone provided a more detailed source, with data of long term unocupancy, which is still staggering. Add that to Airbnbs, which aren’t entirely included, as they’re taxed differently, and the outlook is pretty bleak.
If you’re interested they break it down by long-term, excepted empty homes, not yet long-term, second homes and holiday lets.
Perhaps we’re at an impasse. I see a staggering number of unoccupied homes, a staggering number of people I would like housed, and an obvious start to a solution.
Would you like to try again, perhaps without accusations of stupidity? When we poors fight only the wealthy win, and the wealthy are winning, look at wealth inequality over time.
Said no serious person. You didn’t say that with a straight face did you? Really? Come off it.
I make a perfectly reasonable claim (3% vacancy rate is perfectly explainable through ordinary real estate churn.)
You reply pretending you can dismiss a perfectly reasonable explanation with no justification, simply by blustering and pretending something reasonable isn’t.
Seriously, really. Why in God’s name wouldn’t a 3% vacancy rate be perfectly reasonable? Do you have no idea how homes work? Do you think that every time a home is sold or re-rented, that the new occupants can just move in the day the old occupants leave? It’s very normal for homes to sit vacant for months while they sell.
You’re completely detached from reality here buddy. If you think the 3% vacancy rate isn’t reasonable in an ordinary market.
I think you’ve just never rented or sold any kind of home or real estate before. Your attitudes make more sense for someone who still lives with their parents and who has never done anything with real estate of any kind.
Yeah, I removed that for civility. You haven’t said anything that dehaga, hasn’t said, and look where that got them, poor thing. Honestly, go check, they tried the exact same line of argument.
Now for your acusation of bluster:
Do you have no idea how homes work? Do you think that every time a home is sold or re-rented, that the new occupants can just move in the day the old occupants leave? I think you’ve just never rented or sold any kind of home or real estate before. Your attitudes make more sense for someone who still lives with their parents and who has never done anything with real estate of any kind.
You’re wrong on all counts, that’s what is called bluster. Be better.
I think we’re at an impasse, I see a staggering number of unoccupied homes, even just included long-term unoccupied. Then add holiday lets, then add holiday homes. I also see a staggering number of people I would like housed. I then see a start of a solution.
Go away until you can be the slightest bit more respectful. You complaining that anyone who disagrees with you, because of the data mind, lives at home with their parents (like that would make them wrong, that’s called an Ad Hominem), is embarrassing.
You’ve written a lot of words without making any points.
You mean you ignored everything I have said then? Ok we’ll go point by point.
Point 1: you are disrespectful to others, and use bad faith arguments such as ad hominems. Makes sense to start here, ignoring everything someone says is fairly disrespectful.
Adjacent point: when we poors fight, only the wealthy win. The wealthy are winning, look at wealth inequality. This is mostly for anyone reading after, the point dear reader is to make the conversation toxic, and WoodScientist absolutely has. While them and I are bickering, we’re not taking about wealthy… The people with all the cookies. Their first sentence to me in this conversation: “Honestly, this is an absolutely stupid use of statistics.” Screams ‘I’m going to have a productive conversation with you.’ Look out for these people, any time anyone says anything about the wealthy there will be one.
Why do I believe you are disrespectful of others:
You have suggested, because I disagree with you, based on the evidence, I must not know anything about housing. I cannot possibly be speaking as an equal right? Here’s an example of you:
Do you have no idea how homes work? Do you think that every time a home is sold or re-rented, that the new occupants can just move in the day the old occupants leave?
Do I have no idea how homes work? You see how that isn’t attacking an argument, it’s attacking a person?
Now for ad hominems.
Your attitudes make more sense for someone who still lives with their parents and who has never done anything with real estate of any kind.
You see how this is an ad hominem? A person living with their parents could absolutely know how housing works, nothing about living with parents excludes them from that knowledge.
So, your attitude needs some work, agreed? This isn’t even an exhaustive list. But, given that, can you see why I might not be inclined to have any conversation with you, I just don’t see how it can be productive.
Can you see it, within yourself, to treat me as an equal deserving of respect? You came to me, you could have read all the conversations in this thread, you could have seen I wasn’t taking about houses recently bought and not yet moved in to.
So that’s point 1, if we can work through that, and I’m not hopeful, we can get to point 2.
Honestly, this is an absolutely stupid use of statistics.
That’s 3% of homes vacant. Have you literally never moved houses before? Homes sitting vacant for a few months is pretty normal. That’s homes on average being unoccupied 3-4 months out of every ten years. It would be strange if 3% of homes weren’t vacant at any given point,
You haven’t said anything different than dehaga, and well, look where that got them. Poor thing couldn’t even tell me whether they thought abandoned houses counted as unoccupied.
Further down someone provided a more detailed source, with data of long term unocupancy, which is still staggering. Add that to Airbnbs, which aren’t entirely included, as they’re taxed differently, and the outlook is pretty bleak.
If you’re interested they break it down by long-term, excepted empty homes, not yet long-term, second homes and holiday lets.
Perhaps we’re at an impasse. I see a staggering number of unoccupied homes, a staggering number of people I would like housed, and an obvious start to a solution.
Would you like to try again, perhaps without accusations of stupidity? When we poors fight only the wealthy win, and the wealthy are winning, look at wealth inequality over time.
I make a perfectly reasonable claim (3% vacancy rate is perfectly explainable through ordinary real estate churn.)
You reply pretending you can dismiss a perfectly reasonable explanation with no justification, simply by blustering and pretending something reasonable isn’t.
Seriously, really. Why in God’s name wouldn’t a 3% vacancy rate be perfectly reasonable? Do you have no idea how homes work? Do you think that every time a home is sold or re-rented, that the new occupants can just move in the day the old occupants leave? It’s very normal for homes to sit vacant for months while they sell.
You’re completely detached from reality here buddy. If you think the 3% vacancy rate isn’t reasonable in an ordinary market.
I think you’ve just never rented or sold any kind of home or real estate before. Your attitudes make more sense for someone who still lives with their parents and who has never done anything with real estate of any kind.
Yeah, I removed that for civility. You haven’t said anything that dehaga, hasn’t said, and look where that got them, poor thing. Honestly, go check, they tried the exact same line of argument.
Now for your acusation of bluster:
You’re wrong on all counts, that’s what is called bluster. Be better.
I think we’re at an impasse, I see a staggering number of unoccupied homes, even just included long-term unoccupied. Then add holiday lets, then add holiday homes. I also see a staggering number of people I would like housed. I then see a start of a solution.
Go away until you can be the slightest bit more respectful. You complaining that anyone who disagrees with you, because of the data mind, lives at home with their parents (like that would make them wrong, that’s called an Ad Hominem), is embarrassing.
You’ve written a lot of words without making any points.
What exactly do you think a reasonable vacancy rate is, if not 3%? You’re not even trying to justify your answer.
You mean you ignored everything I have said then? Ok we’ll go point by point.
Point 1: you are disrespectful to others, and use bad faith arguments such as ad hominems. Makes sense to start here, ignoring everything someone says is fairly disrespectful.
Adjacent point: when we poors fight, only the wealthy win. The wealthy are winning, look at wealth inequality. This is mostly for anyone reading after, the point dear reader is to make the conversation toxic, and WoodScientist absolutely has. While them and I are bickering, we’re not taking about wealthy… The people with all the cookies. Their first sentence to me in this conversation: “Honestly, this is an absolutely stupid use of statistics.” Screams ‘I’m going to have a productive conversation with you.’ Look out for these people, any time anyone says anything about the wealthy there will be one.
Why do I believe you are disrespectful of others:
You have suggested, because I disagree with you, based on the evidence, I must not know anything about housing. I cannot possibly be speaking as an equal right? Here’s an example of you:
Do I have no idea how homes work? You see how that isn’t attacking an argument, it’s attacking a person?
Now for ad hominems.
You see how this is an ad hominem? A person living with their parents could absolutely know how housing works, nothing about living with parents excludes them from that knowledge.
So, your attitude needs some work, agreed? This isn’t even an exhaustive list. But, given that, can you see why I might not be inclined to have any conversation with you, I just don’t see how it can be productive.
Can you see it, within yourself, to treat me as an equal deserving of respect? You came to me, you could have read all the conversations in this thread, you could have seen I wasn’t taking about houses recently bought and not yet moved in to.
So that’s point 1, if we can work through that, and I’m not hopeful, we can get to point 2.