The policy proposed by the PP for this problem is typical of the ultraliberals: reduce the retentions of the IRPF so that with that money families assume the rise of mortgages. Pure deception, injustice and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy because they demand that taxes be paid to all, including the vast majority of families who do not pay mortgages, instead of touching the housing deductions that actually affect those affected;
Injustice because the lower incomes do not pay IRPF and therefore would not benefit from the reduction and would not have more liquidity to pay the mortgage; And deception because the objective would never be achieved, since on average it is necessary to lower the IRPF by approximately 30% to neutralize a rise of 1% of the interest rate of the average mortgage. In reality, the proposal of the PP wants to use the subject of mortgages to empty the coffers of the State and avoid social improvements such as “baby check”, aid to dependency or rent subsidy.
If we really want to tackle the housing problem seriously we have to assume that we have to solve two issues: the situation, which until now is a financial problem, and structural, which consists of reducing the price of housing. For the former, the strategy is financial. As the problem stems from the rise in interest rates, it is reasonable to propose legislation to facilitate the extension and automatic shortening of repayment periods to keep the share more or less constant and a pact with financial institutions to apply it The loans in force. In fact have been the financial institutions with their aggressive easy money policy and the Bank of Spain agreeing to extend the repayment terms that have been inflating the housing market and overspending the families, so it is logical that they are those Entities that participate in the solution of the problem, while lower interest rates.
Different is the long-term solution. The proposal of the Junta de Andalucía is probably one of the most daring that have been presented so far: make the right to housing enforceable for families who enter less than 3,000 euros. This means that for the first time a real public solution to the problem of housing (planning, production and supply) will be tried, since to provide cheap housing to these people, who are the majority, a Protection housing that does not exist until now. Those who say that there will be no cost to the Junta de Andalucía will not succeed, because sooner or later will have to create an Andalusian Housing Service to manage this public provision, in the style of the SAS but much smaller, and also have to finance the Houses of lower income layers, who with their income can not pay a mortgage that covers the cost of production of the home and must be given for rent. Town councils will also have costs, as they will have less margin of negotiation with the promoters, although they have already assumed this because the LOUA has been in force for some time.
As for the private sector, the first beneficiaries will be the families, who will be able to obtain lower-priced housing, both affected and others, since all will benefit from less demand pressure. Also, will be benefited the builders, companies and workers, who will have more work contracted with the public sector, which is a guarantee of collection and activity. In fact, protective housing can act as an automatic stabilizer of the sector, guaranteeing more activity in opposing situations like the one that is looming. And the disadvantaged are most likely to be banks, promoters and speculators. The banks because the mortgages are going to be smaller, although they probably are also more and that compensates them; The promoters because they are going to be replaced by the aforementioned service and by the inevitable great public promoter to be promoted; And speculators because lowering the pressure of demand will reduce the price of the land and therefore its speculative surplus value.
Against this housing policy the CEA has already manifested itself. This is striking, since a priori benefit the builders (real economy) and injured the promoters (intermediaries), and therefore is not understood to turn to the side of developers, which generate much less employment and wealth. However, what really can operate against this policy are the trips that are going to suffer both from the lobbying of landowners and from the boycott of municipalities that for ideological reasons paralyze the supply of it. In addition, there is POTA and its limits to growth, which can also operate against the availability of land if they are not modified or interpreted in an economically rational way. Time will tell if the proposed public solution is effective, what we know today is that it is at least brave.