House Prices?

WezV · May 2017

ToneControl said:

Sambostar said:

Agree it starts and ends with the banks and the moneymen. Wankers. The risk isn't the sam as remortgaging to put into a business startup though and is entirely selfishly motivated.

yes it is, I am yet to make a profit. a shite agent who did not pass on rents, tenants who do not pay, long gaps between tenants can cost a fortune - and you have to pay full council tax for an empty house, and repairs to damage from tenants

Each council sets their own rules on that. Some are now up to double for an empty property, and free periods during renovation are being reduced right down.

its all to try and prevent people sitting on empty properties, but they still need to know who owns them for that to work.

There are a surprising number of old empty properties that have been that way so long the council can do nothing at all.

Snap · May 2017

VimFuego said:

Snap said:

@VimFuego - indeed, but then I am a simple soul.

cool, but don't be surprised if you make simplisitic statements that you get corrected on them.

I have no problem with correction, I am after all a student of life, on a continual voyage of enlightenment and enrichment.

I also like chocolate digestives

rlw · May 2017

robgilmo said:

I think second homes, buy to lets etc should have the shot taxed out of them until its just not worth it anymore, this way hard working people like myself might actually be able to afford to put a roof over my families heads and no longer be subject to a ruthless renting market run by greedy landlords and despicable estate agents, seems only fair, there is a housing crisis and you are either part of the problem or it's victim.

Hard working people buy second homes too you know..............

jellyroll · May 2017

robgilmo said:

I think second homes, buy to lets etc should have the shot taxed out of them until its just not worth it anymore, this way hard working people like myself might actually be able to afford to put a roof over my families heads and no longer be subject to a ruthless renting market run by greedy landlords and despicable estate agents, seems only fair, there is a housing crisis and you are either part of the problem or it's victim.

Try having fewer families, that might help....

olafgarten · May 2017

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

ICBM would class the increase in value as an unearned windfall, to be taxed at 40%, so I assume if you wanted to buy a bungalow in your old age, you'd find that you only had 2/3 of the sale price of your house available to buy the next one. Clearly no-one would ever do this, it's unworkable

Why? Plenty of people sell up and buy a house worth much less when they get old. Why should they get to keep all the unearned windfall they made simply by sitting in a house for thirty or forty years, tax free?

What would actually happen is that very quickly it would dampen the housing market, so in fact prices didn't rise to anything like the same extent, and once you've deducted general inflation and any improvements, there would be little or no tax to pay.

The real point would not be to tax everyone, it would be to dissuade them from the extremely damaging economics of continually pushing house prices up in the first place. Tax is an extremely effective disincentive, more than any other type of cost because people resent paying it so much and will do almost anything to avoid it.

But it will never happen because it's politically unacceptable to deny people what they now think is their right to make a huge profit from simply owning a house for a while. So it will go on until no-one can afford any decent house, most of earning capacity goes to paying mortgage interest and the economy totally stagnates. And no-one dares pull the plug because that would cause negative equity…

It's an economic cancer, basically.

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft.

ThePrettyDamned · May 2017

rlw said:

robgilmo said:

I think second homes, buy to lets etc should have the shot taxed out of them until its just not worth it anymore, this way hard working people like myself might actually be able to afford to put a roof over my families heads and no longer be subject to a ruthless renting market run by greedy landlords and despicable estate agents, seems only fair, there is a housing crisis and you are either part of the problem or it's victim.

Hard working people buy second homes too you know..............

Yes. And this contributes to the destruction of local economy. See ghost towns in the lake district, Dorset coast etc.

It's not as simple as "I can afford a second house". There is a direct economic impact to the local area, which costs money. More than a bit of council tax.

ewal · May 2017

olafgarten said:

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

ICBM would class the increase in value as an unearned windfall, to be taxed at 40%, so I assume if you wanted to buy a bungalow in your old age, you'd find that you only had 2/3 of the sale price of your house available to buy the next one. Clearly no-one would ever do this, it's unworkable

Why? Plenty of people sell up and buy a house worth much less when they get old. Why should they get to keep all the unearned windfall they made simply by sitting in a house for thirty or forty years, tax free?

What would actually happen is that very quickly it would dampen the housing market, so in fact prices didn't rise to anything like the same extent, and once you've deducted general inflation and any improvements, there would be little or no tax to pay.

The real point would not be to tax everyone, it would be to dissuade them from the extremely damaging economics of continually pushing house prices up in the first place. Tax is an extremely effective disincentive, more than any other type of cost because people resent paying it so much and will do almost anything to avoid it.

But it will never happen because it's politically unacceptable to deny people what they now think is their right to make a huge profit from simply owning a house for a while. So it will go on until no-one can afford any decent house, most of earning capacity goes to paying mortgage interest and the economy totally stagnates. And no-one dares pull the plug because that would cause negative equity…

It's an economic cancer, basically.

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft.

Why is taxation theft? How else can governments invest?

Evilmags · May 2017

ewal said:

olafgarten said:

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

ICBM would class the increase in value as an unearned windfall, to be taxed at 40%, so I assume if you wanted to buy a bungalow in your old age, you'd find that you only had 2/3 of the sale price of your house available to buy the next one. Clearly no-one would ever do this, it's unworkable

Why? Plenty of people sell up and buy a house worth much less when they get old. Why should they get to keep all the unearned windfall they made simply by sitting in a house for thirty or forty years, tax free?

What would actually happen is that very quickly it would dampen the housing market, so in fact prices didn't rise to anything like the same extent, and once you've deducted general inflation and any improvements, there would be little or no tax to pay.

The real point would not be to tax everyone, it would be to dissuade them from the extremely damaging economics of continually pushing house prices up in the first place. Tax is an extremely effective disincentive, more than any other type of cost because people resent paying it so much and will do almost anything to avoid it.

But it will never happen because it's politically unacceptable to deny people what they now think is their right to make a huge profit from simply owning a house for a while. So it will go on until no-one can afford any decent house, most of earning capacity goes to paying mortgage interest and the economy totally stagnates. And no-one dares pull the plug because that would cause negative equity…

It's an economic cancer, basically.

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft.

Why is taxation theft? How else can governments invest?

Why is sex not rape? Consent.
Why is work not slavery? Consent
Why is tax not theft? A big magic animal in the sky?????

ICBM · May 2017

olafgarten said:

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft.

Taxation is not theft. Taxation is essential to the operation of a civilised society, as I think Fretwired said earlier.

If you think a society without taxation is a good idea, perhaps you'd like to try living in Somalia?

jellyroll · May 2017

Taxation to fund public services = good
Taxation as means of redistributing wealth = bad

Evilmags · May 2017

ICBM said:

olafgarten said:

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft.

Taxation is not theft. Taxation is essential to the operation of a civilised society, as I think Fretwired said earlier.

If you think a society without taxation is a good idea, perhaps you'd like to try living in Somalia?

US had no tax untill the first world war. Taxation is clearly theft. It is the action of forcing somebody, under threat of incarceration or violence, to relinquish the product of their labour, thus forcing them ito partial slavery. The results of mass taxation are very clear in the orgy of violence that was the 20th century, when the state harnessed the wealth created by industrialisation to unleash levels of mass murder that were unprecedented. Somalia seems equally shit with or without a government frankly. And Somali´s do pay taxes, just to warlords. Taxfarms just fund violence.

sweepy · May 2017

I'm hoping to sell my place for a tidy profit and go and live on a boat, so bugger you all

Bridgehouse · May 2017

sweepy said:

I'm hoping to sell my place for a tidy profit and go and live on a boat, so bugger you all

Watch out for pirates

Axe_meister · May 2017

Evilmags said:

ICBM said:

olafgarten said:

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft.

Taxation is not theft. Taxation is essential to the operation of a civilised society, as I think Fretwired said earlier.

If you think a society without taxation is a good idea, perhaps you'd like to try living in Somalia?

US had no tax untill the first world war. Taxation is clearly theft. It is the action of forcing somebody, under threat of incarceration or violence, to relinquish the product of their labour, thus forcing them ito partial slavery. The results of mass taxation are very clear in the orgy of violence that was the 20th century, when the state harnessed the wealth created by industrialisation to unleash levels of mass murder that were unprecedented. Somalia seems equally shit with or without a government frankly. And Somali´s do pay taxes, just to warlords. Taxfarms just fund violence.

So how else to you expect a government to pay for essential services, an army?

sweepy · May 2017

Bridgehouse said:

sweepy said:

I'm hoping to sell my place for a tidy profit and go and live on a boat, so bugger you all

Watch out for pirates

Have you seen the cost of Boat bits at a Chandlery, it's like Gibson Custom Shop

Bridgehouse · May 2017

sweepy said:

Bridgehouse said:

sweepy said:

I'm hoping to sell my place for a tidy profit and go and live on a boat, so bugger you all

Watch out for pirates

Have you seen the cost of Boat bits at a Chandlery, it's like Gibson Custom Shop

Indeed I have... most of the pirates work in chandlers..

VimFuego · May 2017

sweepy said:

I'm hoping to sell my place for a tidy profit and go and live on a boat, so bugger you all

I know a few "canal gypsies", they spend their time wandering up and down the canal network, some do odd jobs, some do ary type stuff they sell, some do transport services. Seems not a bad way of life to me, tho there is a limit to how many stacks and guitars you can get in a narrow boat.

ToneControl · May 2017

ewal said:

olafgarten said:

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

ICBM would class the increase in value as an unearned windfall, to be taxed at 40%, so I assume if you wanted to buy a bungalow in your old age, you'd find that you only had 2/3 of the sale price of your house available to buy the next one. Clearly no-one would ever do this, it's unworkable

Why? Plenty of people sell up and buy a house worth much less when they get old. Why should they get to keep all the unearned windfall they made simply by sitting in a house for thirty or forty years, tax free?

What would actually happen is that very quickly it would dampen the housing market, so in fact prices didn't rise to anything like the same extent, and once you've deducted general inflation and any improvements, there would be little or no tax to pay.

The real point would not be to tax everyone, it would be to dissuade them from the extremely damaging economics of continually pushing house prices up in the first place. Tax is an extremely effective disincentive, more than any other type of cost because people resent paying it so much and will do almost anything to avoid it.

But it will never happen because it's politically unacceptable to deny people what they now think is their right to make a huge profit from simply owning a house for a while. So it will go on until no-one can afford any decent house, most of earning capacity goes to paying mortgage interest and the economy totally stagnates. And no-one dares pull the plug because that would cause negative equity…

It's an economic cancer, basically.

I don't think that more tax is the answer to anything. Taxation is theft.

Why is taxation theft? How else can governments invest?

Ever watch Walking dead?

When Negan and his merry band turn up and demand that you give them half of your food and medicine, that's taxation

ToneControl · May 2017

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

ICBM would class the increase in value as an unearned windfall, to be taxed at 40%, so I assume if you wanted to buy a bungalow in your old age, you'd find that you only had 2/3 of the sale price of your house available to buy the next one. Clearly no-one would ever do this, it's unworkable

Why? Plenty of people sell up and buy a house worth much less when they get old. Why should they get to keep all the unearned windfall they made simply by sitting in a house for thirty or forty years, tax free?

What would actually happen is that very quickly it would dampen the housing market, so in fact prices didn't rise to anything like the same extent, and once you've deducted general inflation and any improvements, there would be little or no tax to pay.

The real point would not be to tax everyone, it would be to dissuade them from the extremely damaging economics of continually pushing house prices up in the first place. Tax is an extremely effective disincentive, more than any other type of cost because people resent paying it so much and will do almost anything to avoid it.

But it will never happen because it's politically unacceptable to deny people what they now think is their right to make a huge profit from simply owning a house for a while. So it will go on until no-one can afford any decent house, most of earning capacity goes to paying mortgage interest and the economy totally stagnates. And no-one dares pull the plug because that would cause negative equity…

It's an economic cancer, basically.

I would like to see you articulate your objective (which I am guessing is affordable housing), and then discuss hypotheses on how to achieve that

I'm not convinced that taxing capital gains would be fair or help reach the outcome you want

I suspect that enforcing more stringent rules on mortgage lending would be far more effective, and fair

When Ireland had 10 times your salary mortgages, things went crazy

the UK used to be 3 times salary for mortgages, with a 10% deposit needed
It went up to 6 times I think, with no deposit
Currently I think it's 4 times, plus 1 times the second salary

I think the correct balance is 3 or 4 times
I think 3 times is OK with no deposit needed for first time buyers

The current practice of requiring 25% deposits for BTL removes the previous risks of massive leverage in the BTL market, and the rules on claiming tax rebates on mortgage payments reduce the appeal of BTL where the mortgage payment is almost as large as the rent.

In addition to this, I think that planning and housing need to take a more active role in setting a safety net for how many people can be crammed into a house: HMOs for adults over 25 seem like a bad idea, and push up prices
The informal version could be that a mortgage on a residence cannot be based on the salary of more than 2 occupants, and only one lodge is allowed per house

Aside from that: massive house building projects are needed: a constant stream of attractive housing being made available, with proper planning for infrastructure and local services. This would act as a safety-valve, the extra supply would make large price increases for existing properties unnecessary. If the delivery were timed well, none of this would reduce existing prices, and over time, inflation and salary increases would make prices more affordable.

thomasross20 · May 2017

Everybody knows my feelings on this matter!
One house for everybody, no more! Fully agree with what @ICBM says.

Please note, though.... Now that I'm getting one in June... Just watch prices fall! And honestly.. I'd be ok with that.

As I was in the show-home making rough measurements yesterday there was a couple in with an advisor in the process of buying the show home to let to others, it just feels wrong. There's a guy at my work has a place back in China, one in Oxford and another 3 in Edinburgh he lets out!

The money would be better placed in "actual business" or invested in equities. It removes homes and drives prices up for others, it creates an inbred economy waiting to blow etc etc ad infinitum. I know many here do this but it's one thing I'll never back down on, I think it's self-serving and long-term damaging. However, no laws against it so what can you do. And I realise not everybody that does it is evil

It's funny how pretentious people can get taking about homes, and also how many folk have had the same opinion as me up until they buy a home (actually... They don't own until the bank is paid back so they don't "own" it at all) and then all of a sudden they are rampant about prices going up. And prices going up does not benefit 99% of ordinary folk - it's real brainwashing how people think that is good news....

So, get your timers at the ready.. end of June lol..

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

House Prices?

Comments