Yes we do and it serves no-one but the banks. I think we have twigged that and prices continue to fall (another possible reason for not being able to do anything with a property - equity trap). Be that as it may but a private house is not a social resource.
If you want it so, be prepared to own and manage every house in the country because if I must offer it to Caesar, Caesar can carry the can. In the extremes, that's why we have derelict estates ringing the city. That's why some people don't lift a finger. Too often you hear - not my problem, Council should fix it.
div>
And because we also live in a society that accounts for individual circumstances and eschews an Orwellian totalitarianism that says you do this or we'll kick you in the nuts for having the temerity to own a property which for no fault of your own you cannot sell and you cannot maintain and you cannot occupy!
This is just envy. Worse, a kind of wealth envy where there is actually no wealth! And worse again because it's counterproductive. Both ideologically unsound and impractical. I think we've seen that before (anyone for Hatton?).
We would do rather better to extend rather than restrict 'ownership' (actual or beneficial) and at the same time, to restrict the flow of credit to sustainable levels, to have people lend only as much as they can afford and can be sustained by the market ie., lower value, lower rents and sustainable growth.
Bookmarks