Do you want to discuss boring politics? (203 Viewers)

[Grendel]

What other answer to my question are you expecting other than the house prices to income ratio chart?!?

Interest rates, taxation policy as its gross not net income, utility charges

 

---

[fatso]

Thats still not the answer though is it as I would also assume we have more multi people rentals in this country (different families) than some others - especially in large cities house sharing is very common for renters

I personally see zero point in renting at all unless it’s a massive high interest economy.

Those days here are long gone. Property value escalates and over a period of time and you can downsize can be a significant contribution to your retirement income if you over pay mortgages and bring it down as quick as you can

Renting has zero asset value for you or your family. As an investment strategy it’s bonkers

Germany have a low price rental market and also has had negative interest rates so it costs you to have money in a bank.

Private renting in the uk is I would assume penalised more than in Europe - CGT tax disadvantages and strict regulation. I looked at buying a couple of houses and renting out but the red tape was just a nightmare. Literally not worth doing.

Germany also has a far higher state pension than here in the UK.
As ive already said, How are uk pensioners supposed to pay their rent on the ridiculously low pensions we receive here.
If you don't own your property by the time you retire, you may have big financial problems.

 

[shmmeee]

Germany also has a far higher state pension than here in the UK.
As ive already said, How are uk pensioners supposed to pay their rent on the ridiculously low pensions we receive here.
If you don't own your property by the time you retire, you may have big financial problems.

This and something to leave the kids are my main reasons for buying.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I have my bingo card waiting with the answers and who will say them...

Well to be fair it is funny seeing people say ‘this should be taught in school’ when they don’t know what gets taught in school.

 

[clint van damme]

Thats still not the answer though is it as I would also assume we have more multi people rentals in this country (different families) than some others - especially in large cities house sharing is very common for renters

I personally see zero point in renting at all unless it’s a massive high interest economy.

Those days here are long gone. Property value escalates and over a period of time and you can downsize can be a significant contribution to your retirement income if you over pay mortgages and bring it down as quick as you can

Renting has zero asset value for you or your family. As an investment strategy it’s bonkers

Germany have a low price rental market and also has had negative interest rates so it costs you to have money in a bank.

Private renting in the uk is I would assume penalised more than in Europe - CGT tax disadvantages and strict regulation. I looked at buying a couple of houses and renting out but the red tape was just a nightmare. Literally not worth doing.

Many people haveno option but to rent. Even if for short to mid term period

 

[SBAndy]

Perhaps introducing prohibitive taxes on income from second homes would encourage people to off load those properties, and therefore going some of the way to redressing the demand vs supply issue that's pushing up prices.

Tried that to a degree with the tax amendments that meant you can’t claim interest relief against your rental income. However, it just saw people setting up in Ltd Co structure instead and it would be nigh-on impossible to correctly legislate against this.

 

[fatso]

Tried that to a degree with the tax amendments that meant you can’t claim interest relief against your rental income. However, it just saw people setting up in Ltd Co structure instead and it would be nigh-on impossible to correctly legislate against this.

There's still plenty of scope for taxing income from second properties. Including the closing of whatever loop holes allow ltd companies to abuse the system.
In short, as soon as it becomes non profitable to own more than 1 property you can bet your life they will be off loaded.

 

[RegTheDonk]

The UK needs to get out the idea that you need to own a house, as the idea is mostly driven by the idea that you need it as an investment.

I get the advantage of you don't have upkeep/repair worries, hopefully it would be a landlord that actually fixes problems, so sorry Fernando do you mean investment and then renting out, or 2nd homes, rather than having your own gaff to live in? We paid off our mortgage a couple of years ago and though we're not rolling in dosh, we're at the point where we don't have any major money worries (other than the latest cost of living, gas and petrol going up). Got another 10 years until I retire, so thats a lot of money which we'd be chunking away on rent. Plus our kids will benefit when we crock and they can sell it. I'm probably missing the point but I encouraged my kids to buy a house (only one left at home now, he's saving for a deposit).

 

[PVA]

Johnson getting booed on another public appearance today.

He was never a fan of them anyway, except pre planned photo ops in a hi vis vest, but he literally can't go anywhere public now without being booed

 

[Grendel]

Johnson getting booed on another public appearance today.

He was never a fan of them anyway, except pre planned photo ops in a hi vis vest, but he literally can't go anywhere public now without being booed

Wow that’s then end of him then.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

well it can’t

it’s really just a council house which the purchaser is paying half via a mortgage

They have to seek council approval to sell in effect will be leasehold tenants - couldn’t improve the property as half value would go to the council

The councils are appallingly slow at dealing with single simple tenancy transactions

there is no incentive to buy

At least you added reasoning this time.

And I agree to a point with what you say - it's not a fully formed solution and there are bureaucratic obstacles that would need to be worked around, not least the amount of time it takes public bodies to deal with housing issues. But it works towards a basis of where we need to be headed if we want a fairer housing market that doesn't just favour those with tons of money.

Seeking council approval for a sale, it could be more that council doesn't involve itself unless in exceptional circumstances so they can sell as they wish. It would be on the new owner to meet the stipulations of its co-owner (i.e. not letting, not able to renovate into HMO etc.) which would put off that kind of buyer which is entirely the point. As with improving property as I said before cost of repairs and renovations (not decorating and superficial things) would be shared with council and thus both parties gain equally in realtion to their outlay. Council properties remain in decent nick and less likely to end up with council estates that have little value and cost a fortune in policing/anti-social behaviour etc.

As for no incentive, the fact is instead of renting, either privately or via council, if they leave they get something back from the property they've lived in to help them with their next move. Plus it gives them some security as part homeowners rather than being in a position whereby a landlord can tell them to leave in a month. So people would have a route onto the ladder, more security in their accomodation and a fairer share of returns from housing rather than ending up with nothing despite having spent more in the rental market. That for me would be a much better position than where we are now.

 

[Grendel]

At least you added reasoning this time.

And I agree to a point with what you say - it's not a fully formed solution and there are bureaucratic obstacles that would need to be worked around, not least the amount of time it takes public bodies to deal with housing issues. But it works towards a basis of where we need to be headed if we want a fairer housing market that doesn't just favour those with tons of money.

Seeking council approval for a sale, it could be more that council doesn't involve itself unless in exceptional circumstances so they can sell as they wish. It would be on the new owner to meet the stipulations of its co-owner (i.e. not letting, not able to renovate into HMO etc.) which would put off that kind of buyer which is entirely the point. As with improving property as I said before cost of repairs and renovations (not decorating and superficial things) would be shared with council and thus both parties gain equally in realtion to their outlay. Council properties remain in decent nick and less likely to end up with council estates that have little value and cost a fortune in policing/anti-social behaviour etc.

As for no incentive, the fact is instead of renting, either privately or via council, if they leave they get something back from the property they've lived in to help them with their next move. Plus it gives them some security as part homeowners rather than being in a position whereby a landlord can tell them to leave in a month. So people would have a route onto the ladder, more security in their accomodation and a fairer share of returns from housing rather than ending up with nothing despite having spent more in the rental market. That for me would be a much better position than where we are now.

The proposal is just a third division version of a shared ownership scheme in a less desirable residence

 

[PVA]

Wow that’s then end of him then.

Well I mean it led to a VONC so yeah it's pretty significant

 

[Grendel]

Well I mean it led to a VONC so yeah it's pretty significant

Im referring to booing I mean - who cares - it’s hardly the road to ruin

 

[PVA]

Im referring to booing I mean - who cares - it’s hardly the road to ruin

Yes and I'm saying the booing led to the VONC.

Obviously there was a whole heap of shit before that, but being booed at the Jubilee seemed to tip it over the edge.

The Tories aren't going to stand for having their leader get booed every time he shows his face. He couldn't even greet a world leader the other day so as to avoid any scrutiny.

 

[Grendel]

Yes and I'm saying the booing led to the VONC.

Obviously there was a whole heap of shit before that, but being booed at the Jubilee seemed to tip it over the edge.

The Tories aren't going to stand for having their leader get booed every time he shows his face. He couldn't even greet a world leader the other day so as to avoid any scrutiny.

So Margaret thatcher was never booed in her first second and third victory?

You do realise at one point she had an 83% negative approval rating, had the whole of the unions trying to take her on, battle scenes at mining towns and gets “booed” long after shes dead

Throughout her whole time in office she had a below average poll rating and often polled far lower than the party

She kept winning as the opposition leaders were viewed as unfit to govern

Johnson sadly isn’t Margaret Thatcher but then dull and anti union Mr Starmer isn’t Neil Kinnock either - bland insurance salesmen with zero passion rarely get the gig. Did once but rarely do against Lord Flashman

 

[PVA]

So Margaret thatcher was never booed in her first second and third victory?

You do realise at one point she had an 83% negative approval rating, had the whole of the unions trying to take her on, battle scenes at mining towns and gets “booed” long after shes dead

Throughout her whole time in office she had a below average poll rating and often polled far lower than the party

She kept winning as the opposition leaders were viewed as unfit to govern

Johnson sadly isn’t Margaret Thatcher but then dull and anti union Mr Starmer isn’t Neil Kinnock either - bland insurance salesmen with zero passion rarely get the gig. Did once but rarely do against Lord Flashman

I was 18 months old when Thatcher left office, so I have no idea.

That's a long time ago, none of that is really relevant to Johnson. I think he'll be gone by the end of the year.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But surely you would need to pay rent on the part of the property you didn't own, and if so how are you going to have any excess money left for upkeep?
Especially when (presumably) you've had to find an initial deposit, and mortgage interest rates are increasing.
And would you be restricted to when and to who you could eventually sell your home to? And who is going to buy half a house and be forced to pay rent to a third party for the privilege of doing so.
The whole thing just looks like a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction to me.

That's the beauty of it being through social housing/local government, because the incentive is not on a profit motive for the person/company co-owning, but to ensure accommodation for people. So the other half is retained by social housing, but the co-owner is not charged for that half (or a 'peppercorn'). The group benefits over time because part owners are more likely to keep the house in better condition, thus reducing costs to the housing association having to repair houses (of which the costs will be shared with the co-owner anyway) and reduced intangible costs like social disorder. If the person sells and moves on, they will only get half the value of the house (or there estate will upon death).

The thing about deposits, interest etc is a fair point. I think deposits are a bit of a fallacy, because the banks say it proves people can afford it and manage money, but often if you're renting you're paying more than you would a mortgage anyway, yet making it harder to save to get one. If you've proven you can pay the equivalent or more in rent for a while that should be just as reasonable as a deposit. Then working out how much someone can afford it's basically about setting longer or shorter repayment periods to the mortgage and thus the lender gains from longer interest payments. Perhaps the local government could help provide such terms, often being able to loan money more cheaply.

Either way, when the mortgage lender pays them for the 50% up front or as the co-owner pays the mortgage back, that funding goes into building more houses, added to by the reduced upkeep costs and savings from other areas like anti-social behaviour etc. as well as higher taxes on second homes/empty properties.

Someone else mentioned about who/when selling, and the idea is that it will assume a position of non-interference from the council, as any new owner will be subject to the conditions and so those looking to rent it out or turn into a HMO would not be able to, thus the number of people doing that reduces because they no longer have the opportunity. So more property ends up being owned by those wanting a home rather than those wanting to make money from it.

I've admitted it's a seed of an idea and there are many complicated factors and potential loopholes that would need to be very carefully considered, and even then it would be far from perfect because there is no such solution. But it's ultimate aim is far better than the current situation which is basically if you've not got any money you're not just fucked, you're gangbanged.

 

[fatso]

That's the beauty of it being through social housing/local government, because the incentive is not on a profit motive for the person/company co-owning, but to ensure accommodation for people. So the other half is retained by social housing, but the co-owner is not charged for that half (or a 'peppercorn'). The group benefits over time because part owners are more likely to keep the house in better condition, thus reducing costs to the housing association having to repair houses (of which the costs will be shared with the co-owner anyway) and reduced intangible costs like social disorder. If the person sells and moves on, they will only get half the value of the house (or there estate will upon death).

The thing about deposits, interest etc is a fair point. I think deposits are a bit of a fallacy, because the banks say it proves people can afford it and manage money, but often if you're renting you're paying more than you would a mortgage anyway, yet making it harder to save to get one. If you've proven you can pay the equivalent or more in rent for a while that should be just as reasonable as a deposit. Then working out how much someone can afford it's basically about setting longer or shorter repayment periods to the mortgage and thus the lender gains from longer interest payments. Perhaps the local government could help provide such terms, often being able to loan money more cheaply.

Either way, when the mortgage lender pays them for the 50% up front or as the co-owner pays the mortgage back, that funding goes into building more houses, added to by the reduced upkeep costs and savings from other areas like anti-social behaviour etc. as well as higher taxes on second homes/empty properties.

Someone else mentioned about who/when selling, and the idea is that it will assume a position of non-interference from the council, as any new owner will be subject to the conditions and so those looking to rent it out or turn into a HMO would not be able to, thus the number of people doing that reduces because they no longer have the opportunity. So more property ends up being owned by those wanting a home rather than those wanting to make money from it.

I've admitted it's a seed of an idea and there are many complicated factors and potential loopholes that would need to be very carefully considered, and even then it would be far from perfect because there is no such solution. But it's ultimate aim is far better than the current situation which is basically if you've not got any money you're not just fucked, you're gangbanged.

But that's a piss poor business model, holding 50% shares in property but getting no return on it! Really? Who would possibly do that, and presumably they'd still be responsible for half the cost of any major repairs, which they would pay for out of what income exactly?

I still maintain that no individual should be allowed to profit by owning more than 1 home.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Agree with some of this but my point is that there needs a number of things addressed as we have a shortage of all types of housing stock for a variety of reasons. my best mate has got a build to rent business (booooo ! I know). They’ve been trying to get something through planning in the north west for 18 months

The planning official wanted a roof garden/living wall on the 12 flat development (I shit you not)…it’s opposite one of those cash only car washes so hardly in a fancy area. They’re now stuck with town hall planning committee one of which was arguing for 20+ car spaces…which would make it impossible to build (again I’m not kidding)

This would’ve put more stock on the market and is now bordering on uneconomic to build due to inflation of building material prices, let alone the planning related issues.

It’s a shitshow.

More stock on the market, but only designed to benefit a very small number. I very much doubt your mate driving aim was to provide the housing to people and more to make a very tidy profit out of it. Would it be impossible to build, or just that they wouldn't get as high a return as they wanted? And that's the problem - it should be about making sure people have places to live, not how much money can be made from doing it.

My mates never come across two spaces per flat requirement and he’s got a few developments up there and neither have I down here. I’ve lived in a few flats around city centre and many don’t even have one per flat these days as a lot of people who live in centres don’t have/want cars as they’re a younger demographic and live close to work.

This proves the point. It's not that the parking isn't required, it's that other developments haven't had to have them. Fuck providing what the people living there actually require, what's the minimum I can get away with providing so I can make a bigger return.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The UK needs to get out the idea that you need to own a house, as the idea is mostly driven by the idea that you need it as an investment.

But then who does own all the houses instead? Unless every single house is owned by the state it just increases the wealth divide.

I agree the obsession with house prices and increasing value of property is ridiculous and is a mindset we need to work away from, but that isn't going to happen soon. Housing should be about the shelter it provides, not the monetary gain that can be achieved from it.

if you don't own where you live you're always at the mercy of others. Someone else decides whether you can stay or not and for how long, what you can and can't do with the place, how much it's going to cost. Imagine the house you have now, and someone said "we'll pay more than you to live there" and so just kick you out because you've got no say in the matter.

You don't need to own a house, but you're at a bloody massive disadvantage if you don't.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

There's still plenty of scope for taxing income from second properties. Including the closing of whatever loop holes allow ltd companies to abuse the system.
In short, as soon as it becomes non profitable to own more than 1 property you can bet your life they will be off loaded.

300% council tax in Wales next year for second homes. Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd , where most holiday homes are , will most certainly implement it. Estate agents are bracing themselves for a huge sell off after the summer.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Two per flat though, even in the old days, no chance. As I say, around Birmingham these days many developments don’t even have one per flat.

We also live in a time when car ownership is changing, especially around town/city centres.

That is because of the problems with parking etc. which was designed in to try and make people use public transport. Now it's been accepted that that often isn't feasible for various reason and a private vehicle is pretty much necessary for many.

Provide the parking and car ownership would increase.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Thats still not the answer though is it as I would also assume we have more multi people rentals in this country (different families) than some others - especially in large cities house sharing is very common for renters

Swings and roundabouts.

If someone abroad rents an entire house but here four people share one, the equivalent cost is still those four people combined. Plus we've got much smaller houses than abroad so chances are in sq m it's actually even more than that.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But that's a piss poor business model, holding 50% shares in property but getting no return on it! Really? Who would possibly do that, and presumably they'd still be responsible for half the cost of any major repairs, which they would pay for out of what income exactly?

I still maintain that no individual should be allowed to profit by owning more than 1 home.

What are you talking about getting no return? When they move, they keep the proceeds of their 50% stake. So say a house is worth £200k - they would sell their half for £100k and keep it.

I agree entirely about owning more than one home.

 

[fatso]

What are you talking about getting no return? When they move, they keep the proceeds of their 50% stake. So say a house is worth £200k - they would sell their half for £100k and keep it.

I agree entirely about owning more than one home.

I was referring to the landlord owning 50% of a property but getting no (or very little) rent. Where is the business model for the landlord?

 

[shmmeee]

I was referring to the landlord owning 50% of a property but getting no (or very little) rent. Where is the business model for the landlord?

I don’t see how this sort of thing would work in the private sector. Didn’t Corbyn have some RTB for private renters policy proposal, how did that work?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I was referring to the landlord owning 50% of a property but getting no (or very little) rent. Where is the business model for the landlord?

The 'landlord' is the local authority, so the 'business model' isn't about financial gains.

Otherwise they'd own 100% of the property for a minimal rent and be entirely responsible for all upkeep. Plus with this type of housing there's often many other problems locally associated with it in terms of crime and behaviour. Creating a part owner-occupier creates more pride/financial gain to be had from looking after the property and building and maintaining a community around it, which reduces costs in other areas for the 'landlord'.

 

[fatso]

I don’t see how this sort of thing would work in the private sector. Didn’t Corbyn have some RTB for private renters policy proposal, how did that work?

I can't see this working in the public sector either, with local authorities under increasing pressure to manage ever dwindling resources, the very last thing they'd want is money tied up in properties which offer no rental return.

 

[Grendel]

I was 18 months old when Thatcher left office, so I have no idea.

That's a long time ago, none of that is really relevant to Johnson. I think he'll be gone by the end of the year.

well it’s entirely relevant actually as is the fact Blair the snake oil salesman managed a third term despite being reviled by a lot of the public

 

[shmmeee]

I can't see this working in the public sector either, with local authorities under increasing pressure to manage ever dwindling resources, the very last thing they'd want is money tied up in properties which offer no rental return.

Id expect it to be separate funding pot entirely from normal council budgets.

 

[Grendel]

The 'landlord' is the local authority, so the 'business model' isn't about financial gains.

Otherwise they'd own 100% of the property for a minimal rent and be entirely responsible for all upkeep. Plus with this type of housing there's often many other problems locally associated with it in terms of crime and behaviour. Creating a part owner-occupier creates more pride/financial gain to be had from looking after the property and building and maintaining a community around it, which reduces costs in other areas for the 'landlord'.

Its a pound shop share ownership scheme

 

[Grendel]

300% council tax in Wales next year for second homes. Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd , where most holiday homes are , will most certainly implement it. Estate agents are bracing themselves for a huge sell off after the summer.

That’s what happens when an inept tosser like Drakesford is in charge - he makes Sturgeon look competent

 

[clint van damme]

Well to be fair it is funny seeing people say ‘this should be taught in school’ when they don’t know what gets taught in school.

So are you saying some, at least, rudimentary financial advise wouldn't be helpful?
And if its on the curriculum its only been added in the last years.

 

[clint van damme]

That’s what happens when an inept tosser like Drakesford is in charge - he makes Sturgeon look competent

It's better than setting fire to them!