Immobilier : nouvelle hausse des taux

"Le début de l'année 2011 s'annonce haussier" pour les taux des crédits immobiliers aux particuliers, selon le courtier en ligne Empruntis, qui anticipe une progression de 0,10 à 0,15 point. "Ce qui se passait en fin d'année continue", observe Joël Boumendil, directeur général du courtier ACE, évoquant les premières hausses de décembre.

Indicateur phare du coût de financement pour les banques, les obligations de l'Etat français (OAT) à 10 ans ont connu un augmentation quasiment continue de leur taux, passé de 2,46% fin août à près de 3,40% aujourd'hui. De ce fait, "une hausse prochaine est plus que probable", indique-t-on chez LCL.

"On ne peut pas parler de hausses significatives", tempère M. Boumendil. Pour Philippe Taboret, directeur général adjoint du courtier Cafpi, la stabilisation actuelle du taux de l'obligation d'Etat française devrait induire celle des taux des crédits immobiliers.

ATTENTION OFFRE DES FRAIS D AGENCE à 50 euros LIMITEE A QUELQUES APPARTEMENTS pour les lots :
C22 et A211
EN PLUS 2 MOIS DE LOYER HC OFFERTS SI ENTREE AVANT LE 31 DECEMBRE 2010

Mis en ligne par AKERYS Services Immobiliers le 6 jan à 16:49.

...
The issue is surplus housing – the remarkable growth of space that people don't need. Between 2003 and 2008 (the latest available figures), there was a 45% increase in the number of under-occupied homes in England. The definition of under-occupied varies, but it usually means that households have at least two bedrooms more than they require. This category now accounts for over half the homes in which single people live, and almost a quarter of those used by larger households. Nearly 8m homes – 37% of the total housing stock – are officially under-occupied.
 
The only occasions on which you'll hear politicians talk about this is when they're referring to public housing. Many local authorities are trying to encourage their tenants to move into smaller homes. But public and social housing account for only 11% of the problem. The government reports that the rise in under-occupation "is entirely due to a large increase within the owner-occupied sector". Nearly half of England's private homeowners are now knocking around in more space than they need.
 
Why is this happening? I've spent the past few days wading through official figures to try to find out. None of the most obvious explanations appear to fit.
 
Though the proportion of homes occupied by just one person rose sharply between 1961 and 2001, there has been no increase since then. The formation of single households can't account for the growth in under-occupancy between 2003 and 2008. The proportion of couples without children has also remained stable since 2001. Fertility rates have increased over this period – from 1.63 babies per woman in 2001 to 1.96 in 2009 – so a general absence of children doesn't explain it either. Nor can it be blamed on the elderly: except through devastating war, no population can age by 45% in six years. The divorce rate fell in 2008 to its lowest level since 1979. Marriage has declined, but cohabitation has risen. The overall rate of household formation rose only slightly during the period in which under-occupancy has boomed.
 
This appears to leave just one likely explanation: money. My guess, though I can find no research or figures either to support or disprove it, is that the richest third of the population has discovered that it can spread its wings. A report by the International Longevity Centre comes to the same conclusion: "Wealth … is the key factor in whether or not we choose to occupy more housing space than is essential."
 
While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality. The UK appears to have chosen the second option. We have allowed the market, and the market alone, to decide who gets what – which means that families in desperate need of bigger homes are crammed together in squalid conditions, while those who have more space than they know what to do with face neither economic nor social pressure to downsize.
 
The only answer anyone is prepared to mention is more building: let the rich occupy as much space they wish, and solve the problem by dumping it on the environment, which means – of course – on everyone. I think there's a better way.
 
While reducing under-occupancy can't solve the crisis of provision by itself, and there will still be a need for new construction, a better distribution of the housing we've built already would help to relieve the pressure on both people and places. First, we need to see the problem. I suggest a new concept: housing footprints. Your housing footprint is the number of bedrooms divided by the number of people in the household. Like ecological footprints, it reminds us that the resource is finite, and that, if some people take more than they need, others are left with less than they need.
 
The next step is to reverse the UK's daft fiscal incentive to under-occupy your home. If you live by yourself, regardless of the size of your property, you get a 25% council tax discount. The rest of us, in other words, subsidise wealthy single people who want to keep their spare rooms empty. Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation. If it prompts them either to take in a lodger or to move into a smaller home in a lower tax band, so much the better.

 Ah oui, et si tu as acheté en 1998, ça compte pas

Il y en a plein qui arrivent à payer des loyers, à vivre très convenablement en location, et à mettre une épargne non négligeable de côté.
C'est cependant plus faisable à partir de la classe moyenne sup