Figures don’t reveal the full damage of Help to Buy

 

Editorial
Thursday 29 May 2014 13:48 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Government’s Help to Buy scheme, providing mortgage guarantees to housebuyers, appears to have had very little impact. Only 7,300 people have taken it up since October – barely enough to register a blip in a country of 63 million, let alone to inflate the property price bubble.

But this is not the entire picture. Dig deeper and you see that volumes of Help to Buy mortgages are increasing rapidly month by month.

Furthermore, when considering the impact of all this financial engineering on the property market, we should factor in the thousands of other first-time buyers now stretching themselves to get on to the ladder quickly for fear of new competition from Help to Buy rivals.

Fundamentally, though, as with all state interventions, it is not just the actual amount of money involved that matters but the message it sends. In Help to Buy’s case, the message is simple: this Government supports the current housing market, even though it is unaffordable to millions. Rather than giving more people the ability to borrow – stimulating demand and driving up prices – the Government should be increasing the supply of new homes. That means easing planning restrictions, offering incentives to turn dying high streets into homes and restricting the time developers are allowed to sit on their acres of unused land.

Boosting supply need not be all about construction. Homes for more than a million people are currently unoccupied, largely, in the case of London, foreign-owned investment properties. We should encourage their owners to sell up, or at least subsidise new builds.

But it should not all be sticks for the wealthy – carrots should be offered in tax breaks for people to invest in housebuilding. Finally, when we talk of “affordable” housing, we should mean a blend of cheaper private homes, shared ownership properties, and – most important of all – council housing.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in