littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Maybe people will learn that house price inflation running at 10% is not a good thing for any but a very fortunate few.
Rent now buy later
- Thread starter Badgers
- Start date
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
It's always anything except simple, straightforward flats to rent at a cheap rent, eh? 
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep, it is not government's place to put money into a private market like this.It's always anything except simple, straightforward flats to rent at a cheap rent, eh?
Perhaps if they had continued building instead of selling all their stock it might have made a difference. The other thing that is happening right now is that when people are made redundant they turn to the government for housing benefit. Equally if they need to house someone they are also are turning to private landlords to rent properties from
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The way that private landlords have been made rich through housing benefit has been a massive problem for well over a decade. It's a case of the Thatcherite anti-state provision dogma disallowing alternative solutions no matter how many billions of pounds are put into private hands every year as a result.Perhaps if they had continued building instead of selling all their stock it might have made a difference. The other thing that is happening right now is that when people are made redundant they turn to the government for housing benefit. Equally if they need to house someone they are also are turning to private landlords to rent properties from
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, I agree. but an even better thing for them to do would be to build high-quality housing just for rent.
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
Is that even possible these days? Does the right-to-buy policy cover all social housing or do the rules allow for state owned rental property that can't be bought by tenants?
Or both?
I would be happy to rent for two years with an option to buy a share at the end of the tenancy. Right now without this scheme I am certain that I will be renting for two years anyway but with no option to buy a share from my landlord.
If my only option was to rent then I agree that I would rather rent from the government or local council.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Good question. I also think that the so-called right to buy should be scrapped immediately. It's completely wrong-headed and has also contributed to rising housing prices - again, a scheme that is brilliant for those who can take advantage of it, but has negative consequences for others. It is those with no access to social housing who are not 'key workers' and have no special needs who are fucked over by all these schemes.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm absolutely not saying that you shouldn't go for it - you should. You haven't arranged this shitty situation and the only alternative is to make a private landlord rich. Those who have been excluded from the housing market are entitled to do what it takes to escape private renting. But that doesn't make this policy right.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
How would you change it? I'd scrap stamp duty and replace it with a tax paid by the seller on the profit made from a sale.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And of course, buy-to-letters should not be able to set their mortgages against the rent they charge - that's a ludicrous tax loophole.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Even if not "possible" now, it could be with a few changes to the law - something this legislative-happy govt has no trouble doing when it suits it on other matters.
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
This is the problem with any scheme aimed at helping people onto the property ladder, the right-to-buy idea sounds laudable until you realise that it can only ever help a limited number. Forcing developers to include a proportion of "affordable" houses in their schemes is similarly affected. As will this "rent now, buy later" proposal be. The specifics differ, the end result is the same - those that can take advantage of them benefit from a cheaper route into home ownership, and then eventually sell up at prevailing market rates, not at a level commensurate with the discount they benefited from.
Whereas if there was masses of genuinely affordable social housing for rent, which was guaranteed to remain forever rental only, the whole situation could be avoided. People could chose to rent indefinitely, or rent for some years then move into the private market. The market for private rentals would be tiny - who'd pay private rental rates when decent quality state run stuff was available? - so the buy-to-let market would implode. The only people buying houses would be those who wanted to actually live in them. The scrabble to get on the housing ladder would be unnecessary, and prices would fall to reflect that.
Lot of things spring to mind but would need to research a little harder. Something like this might help a little:
No stamp duty on your place of residence
2.5% on the second home you purchase
5.0% on the third, fourth and fifth homes you purchase
10.0% on all additional properties
The issue with tax is similar to that of mortgages. I would guess that if you tax private investors more they will simply try and make this money back from their tenants. This is another reason why I strongly support this scheme as it will reduce demand for private rentals and as a result drive down private rental prices as landlords seek to fill properties.
It would be interesting to see what would happen. If you owned several properties then you would probably be forced to sell some to 'prop up' the others. This would mean a lot of rental focused properties would hit the market potentially (almost definitely) creating an oversupply and sale prices would fall. This would also force housebuilders to drop prices to sell the stock they had or even sell them to the government?
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
^^
This.
Plus I would heavily tax prices gained through speculation. Adding value to a property by fitting a new kitchen and doing it up is one thing. But just to flip it and take home 30k for doing nothing is ridiculous -especially when it comes to an essential like a roof over a head. Taxing it at say 80% would really knock speculation on property on the head.
It is tricky...
How do you clarify what is speculative increase? It would simply mean all investors buying delapidated properties to renovate and sell on. This would increase demand for this type of property and increase prices as a result.
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
I'm probably being hopelessly naive, but I don't see why it should be tricky. How about this: when selling your primary residence and using the proceeds to buy your next primary residence, any profit made on the sale as a result of house price rises (allowing for normal inflation), is not taxed at all. Under any other circumstances, such profits are taxed at 80%.
That way no one is penalised for owning a home or moving up the property ladder, but property speculators, investors, etc, pay through the nose.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That is exactly how I see it working.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Zactly... speculators can speculate in any non-essential market as far as I am concerned.
I agree.
However there are endless tax loopholes in this country. There are also endless companies who specialise in guiding you through these loopholes (for a fee of course).
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
While we are on this topic, an interesting video regarding taxes and unfair weath distribution is here:
I think I might read this book. Sounds like an interesting concept.
Edit:
This video questioning the unexamined principle that some few of us have the God given right to charge the rest of us for access to our own planet. That people have been reduced to virtual slavery by those who own the playing field who then tax our labour to pay for public services that make their land more valuable.
I think I might read this book. Sounds like an interesting concept.
Edit:
This video questioning the unexamined principle that some few of us have the God given right to charge the rest of us for access to our own planet. That people have been reduced to virtual slavery by those who own the playing field who then tax our labour to pay for public services that make their land more valuable.
Very good watch.
I have read and researched a fair bit on land/property but being on the 'wrong side' of the fence means that often things like this pass me by. I will investigate this fellow more and read his work.
Oddly I was speaking to one of the (few decent) estate agents I know today and they are already in discussion with developers to implement a rent to buy scheme. Not quite the same set up as the first post as it is still private (obviously) but they are claiming that the structure would be something like this:
I have not got details yet but the properties will be built before they are marketed, surveyed to ascertain value and then a lender will simply transfer the mortgage from developer to tenant/new owner.
The first thing that sprung to mind was that is the starting value was £200k and then the price increases a lot during the two year tenancy, the developer would not simply pass over the mortgage. The agent I was talking with was not 100% clear but seemed to think that the changing market would have to be accommodated for in the terms. If the property doubled in price and the £24k deposit was not enough then you are back to square one. Putting the shoe on the other foot, if the property halves in price then the tenant may be in a position to buy a £100k asset for £200k or be back to square one.
This is a tricky one isn't it but sadly I can't see a 'land tax' arriving in this country anytime soon so it is best to try and plan. As it was made clear in the video we have (collectively) more buying power than the rich.
I have read and researched a fair bit on land/property but being on the 'wrong side' of the fence means that often things like this pass me by. I will investigate this fellow more and read his work.
Oddly I was speaking to one of the (few decent) estate agents I know today and they are already in discussion with developers to implement a rent to buy scheme. Not quite the same set up as the first post as it is still private (obviously) but they are claiming that the structure would be something like this:
- £200,000 flat
- Rent for two years at £1,000pcm for two years fix term contract
- At the end of the two years you can move out or you can reclaim £24,000 incentive to use as a deposit
I have not got details yet but the properties will be built before they are marketed, surveyed to ascertain value and then a lender will simply transfer the mortgage from developer to tenant/new owner.
The first thing that sprung to mind was that is the starting value was £200k and then the price increases a lot during the two year tenancy, the developer would not simply pass over the mortgage. The agent I was talking with was not 100% clear but seemed to think that the changing market would have to be accommodated for in the terms. If the property doubled in price and the £24k deposit was not enough then you are back to square one. Putting the shoe on the other foot, if the property halves in price then the tenant may be in a position to buy a £100k asset for £200k or be back to square one.
This is a tricky one isn't it but sadly I can't see a 'land tax' arriving in this country anytime soon so it is best to try and plan. As it was made clear in the video we have (collectively) more buying power than the rich.
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
Interesting snippet on the beeb today:
So not quite an apocalyptic crash just yet then!
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
well not if you spin it like that... it is the BBC tho so I pay little attention to it.
The month on month rate of decline at the moment is staggering. remeber that these year on year indices still have the gains of last summer on them. Considering that a few months ago the london indices was +12% it's a staggering decline in just a few months.
The month on month rate of decline at the moment is staggering. remeber that these year on year indices still have the gains of last summer on them. Considering that a few months ago the london indices was +12% it's a staggering decline in just a few months.
zenie
>^^<
Yeh this is the thing I don't like with Shared Ownership if your property goes down in price you still have to pay the agreed shgare price don't you?
