Tory Monopoly (13 Viewers)

[cloughie]

Quote shimmee

Try looking a bit beyond what they say and check what they do. You'll be hard pushed to find an economist that thinks Osborne has been doing a great job.

This is correct and truthful but the gullible will believe the daily mail etc and believe it all

 

---

[mrtrench]

Yes, if they are creating a problem for everyone else. Other countries have rent control

Rent control is certainly fairer than what they have done. I'm guessing that as you have started this you don't know about the BTL tax. From 2017, landlords must pay tax on the money they have borrowed to buy the investment. So, for example, if someone borrows £200,000 to buy a house for £250,000 and obtain a 5% yield in rent:

Their rental income is £12,500 per year.
Their tax (assuming 40%) is £5,000
And their mortgage interest (assuming 4% for now - but this will go up in future years) is £8,000.

So their expense is greater than their income. These are not ridiculous figures, they are probably quite typical.

It's not the BTL investor's fault that the population is growing and not enough houses are being built. Further, the vast majority of these landlords are good honest people.
Now consider the impact of this tax hike:

- No new investors, so house prices fall (not a bad thing)
- Existing BTL investors sell. Many of these houses are HMOs for students etc. So the number of people accommodated falls (a BTL house with six students is now owned by a family of 4).
- Rents go up from those that remain due to lack of rented accommodation.

 

[mrtrench]

Quote shimmee

Try looking a bit beyond what they say and check what they do. You'll be hard pushed to find an economist that thinks Osborne has been doing a great job.

This is correct and truthful but the gullible will believe the daily mail etc and believe it all

Interesting, on what basis do you claim that "You'll be hard pushed to find an economist that thinks Osborne has been doing a great job."?

 

[chiefdave]

I'm guessing that as you have started this you don't know about the BTL tax.

Except that's not really what's happening is it? All that ischanging is what tax relief can be claimed on, ie: you can no longer claim onyour BTL mortgage interest.

So as an example a flat I've had my eye on has just sold for£120K, lets assume a 90% mortgage. That's payments of £457 a month or £5,484 ayear. Rent charged is £800 a month or £9,600 a year. So even if they are a toprate tax payer, which of course means they have a large income, they are stillup £4,116 a year. And of course there are plenty of other related costs thatare still tax deducible so with a half decent accountant they wouldn't bepaying that much tax.

No one is saying is BTL that is causing the population togrow. The issue is the sheer volume of properties that are BTL coupled with thedifficulty of a regular working person obtaining a mortgage.

 

[chiefdave]

Interesting, on what basis do you claim that "You'll be hard pushed to find an economist that thinks Osborne has been doing a great job."?

http://www.theguardian.com/business...attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...support-Osborne-s-deficit-reduction-plan.html

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.cz/2015/06/the-academic-consensus-on-impact-of.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/views-differ-on-shape-of-macroeconomics-2/?_r=0

 

[fernandopartridge]

You really should do stand up.

This post is comedy genius.

Refute some of the things he's posted then, with evidence.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Rent control is certainly fairer than what they have done. I'm guessing that as you have started this you don't know about the BTL tax. From 2017, landlords must pay tax on the money they have borrowed to buy the investment. So, for example, if someone borrows £200,000 to buy a house for £250,000 and obtain a 5% yield in rent:

Their rental income is £12,500 per year.
Their tax (assuming 40%) is £5,000
And their mortgage interest (assuming 4% for now - but this will go up in future years) is £8,000.

So their expense is greater than their income. These are not ridiculous figures, they are probably quite typical.

It's not the BTL investor's fault that the population is growing and not enough houses are being built. Further, the vast majority of these landlords are good honest people.
Now consider the impact of this tax hike:

- No new investors, so house prices fall (not a bad thing)
- Existing BTL investors sell. Many of these houses are HMOs for students etc. So the number of people accommodated falls (a BTL house with six students is now owned by a family of 4).
- Rents go up from those that remain due to lack of rented accommodation.

Good. There should be measures in place to ensure that houses are homes and not investment vehicles. I couldn't give two hoots about people with their 'property portfolios' - they're relying on low interest rates which are to the detriment of savers.

 

[mrtrench]

http://www.theguardian.com/business...attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...support-Osborne-s-deficit-reduction-plan.html

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.cz/2015/06/the-academic-consensus-on-impact-of.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/views-differ-on-shape-of-macroeconomics-2/?_r=0

The question wasn't "are there any economists that disagree with Osbourne". You could find 50 economists that agree with almost anything, and there are hundreds and thousands of them. The question was to support the claim that "you'd be hard pressed to find one who agreed"

 

[Grendel]

Refute some of the things he's posted then, with evidence.

I could but given he hasn't provided any evidence why bother.

The house owning bit was the real rib tickler. Labour hate the working classes getting home ownership as much as they defeat them receiving a decent education

 

[Sick Boy]

Britain is fast becoming a country which is geared more and more towards the wealthy within society.

We are already looking at moving back to Bella Italia after being back for just over a year.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

This really annoys me. Its so pointless. Why get £30K plus of debt to do a degree that gives you zero chance of getting a job?

When I went to uni (back in 92) you went to do something relatively academic, science, engineering etc. It was bloody hard work, our lectures started at 7am and went on till 9pm some days! Numbers were lower but it was sustainable, no need to pay fees and all students were on campus in halls so no issues for local residents.

A mate of mine sent his 18 year old daughter to some agencies to get some office admin work over the summer and couldn't even get signed up without a degree. Why on earth do you need a degree for that?

Haha, I graduated 2 years ago with a first class Masters in chemistry with industrial experience and extra curriculars and couldn't get a job in the industry because either the jobs weren't there or were in very short supply. Without the last minute offer of a PhD I'd have been up the creek without a paddle and in £25k of student debt to boot. And even those with science PhDs are hardly rolling in it.

 

[skybluetony176]

Britain is fast becoming a country which is geared more and more towards the wealthy within society.

We are already looking at moving back to Bella Italia after being back for just over a year.

Bye

 

[cloughie]

The question wasn't "are there any economists that disagree with Osbourne". You could find 50 economists that agree with almost anything, and there are hundreds and thousands of them. The question was to support the claim that "you'd be hard pressed to find one who agreed"

Well I'm sure you will provide those economists that agree with him

 

[stupot07]

Haha, I graduated 2 years ago with a first class Masters in chemistry with industrial experience and extra curriculars and couldn't get a job in the industry because either the jobs weren't there or were in very short supply. Without the last minute offer of a PhD I'd have been up the creek without a paddle and in £25k of student debt to boot. And even those with science PhDs are hardly rolling in it.

I had the similar experience after my degree and masters. It's soul destroying, couldn't afford to do a PhD as I had to start paying back the career development loan I took out for the masters the month after I graduated. I don't feel I gained a lot given my £20k debt I've paid back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Grendel]

Well I'm sure you will provide those economists that agree with him

The Shadow Chancellor agreed with him...oh then changed his mind

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I had the similar experience after my degree and masters. It's soul destroying, couldn't afford to do a PhD as I had to start paying back the career development loan I took out for the masters the month after I graduated. I don't feel I gained a lot given my £20k debt I've paid back.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

My PhD is fully funded and is actually a little higher than usual because it is industrially sponsored. But the point stands, my masters degree is insufficient for most meaningful roles in the industry and for all the time and money spent achieving it that is a grand shame. It means another 4 years in academia which I know I do not want a future in but must do to get the job I ultimately want.

Doesn't help that pharma is shedding tens of thousands of jobs in the UK and the oil industry has followed.

 

[Sick Boy]

Bye

Don't worry, Tony. They have the Internet there too.

 

[mrtrench]

Well I'm sure you will provide those economists that agree with him

It's not me making ridiculous statements.