|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 20, 2024 9:12:48 GMT
It's landlords charging ridiculous rents, second home owners leaving properties empty and artificially high property prices that are the problem. The solution is higher taxation on second homes to free up property for locals and a mass social housing program to increase the availability of affordable housing to drive down property prices and rents that is the solution. Your solution is just incentivising the rich to continue to exploit the poor. The whole dynamic of that sector of the economy needs changing not tweaking to benefit those who are already milking it.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Aug 20, 2024 9:24:49 GMT
It's landlords charging ridiculous rents, second home owners leaving properties empty and artificially high property prices that are the problem. The solution is higher taxation on second homes to free up property for locals and a mass social housing program to increase the availability of affordable housing to drive down property prices and rents that is the solution. Your solution is just incentivising the rich to continue to exploit the poor. The whole dynamic of that sector of the economy needs changing not tweaking to benefit those who are already milking it. And you'd have a chance of doing that if you weren't adding 750k to the population every year. A right proper conundrum ain't it..
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 20, 2024 9:30:35 GMT
There are not enough home owners nevermind houses. If we prioritise investors profits I'm not sure how that helps. Increase taxes on multiple home ownership and introduce rent controls is the right step. That will help put more money into renters pockets who are exploited enough. Then they can hopefully build up savings for deposits. Maybe more government schemes like help to buy to run too which help FTB get on the property ladder. I call it trickle up economics Could you explain the rationale to pay higher income taxes above that of ANY other employment or business in UK for owning multiple homes? People already pay more stamp duty tax on second homes.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 20, 2024 9:49:27 GMT
Could you explain the rationale to pay higher income taxes above that of ANY other employment or business in UK for owning multiple homes? People already pay more stamp duty tax on second homes. Easy to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 20, 2024 10:01:24 GMT
It's landlords charging ridiculous rents, second home owners leaving properties empty and artificially high property prices that are the problem. The solution is higher taxation on second homes to free up property for locals and a mass social housing program to increase the availability of affordable housing to drive down property prices and rents that is the solution. Your solution is just incentivising the rich to continue to exploit the poor. The whole dynamic of that sector of the economy needs changing not tweaking to benefit those who are already milking it. I take the opposite point of view. Disincentivising renting property will lead to a reduction in property rented and push up rents higher. If you force landlords to sell, that is a one off short term benefit followed by even greater shortage of property, as why should investors bother? There is currently record investment in build to rent in the UK. Make renting not economically viable and building to rent will stop. As I have already posted the root causes are a shortage of property and the slow planning process. The solutions are to speed up planning and provide incentives to builders to grow their businesses and encourage more landlords. It is only when supply exceeds demand will prices/rents start to rise less steeply or indeed stabilise. They will never come down except during short term financial crises. In my town there are lots of empty properties, (certainly not holiday homes which tend to where there is low employment), and many are former commercial properties that will never be occupied again. Councils are reluctant allow them to be turned in domestic use, in the vain hope shops will come back.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 20, 2024 11:31:11 GMT
Could you explain the rationale to pay higher income taxes above that of ANY other employment or business in UK for owning multiple homes? People already pay more stamp duty tax on second homes. This is not unique to Buy to Let Properties but all second or subsequent properties no matter what the purpose and how does this increases taxes beyond already paid now?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 20, 2024 13:02:13 GMT
People already pay more stamp duty tax on second homes. This is not unique to Buy to Let Properties but all second or subsequent properties no matter what the purpose and how does this increases taxes beyond already paid now? We have a homeownership crisis not a second home or landlord crisis wannabee. Well if the current rate is 3% and you change it to 5% then it increases the tax by 66.6%. I have to be honest I haven't thought through the schematics of it. Just thought that if home ownership has been reducing and second home ownership has been increasing then that's a bit of an indicator as to where the problem is. Appreciate you may think differently.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 20, 2024 13:48:10 GMT
This is not unique to Buy to Let Properties but all second or subsequent properties no matter what the purpose and how does this increases taxes beyond already paid now? We have a homeownership crisis not a second home or landlord crisis wannabee. Well if the current rate is 3% and you change it to 5% then it increases the tax by 66.6%. I have to be honest I haven't thought through the schematics of it. Just thought that if home ownership has been reducing and second home ownership has been increasing then that's a bit of an indicator as to where the problem is. Appreciate you may think differently. Of course there is a homeownership problem at its peak homeownership was at about 65%. There is always going to be a requirement for good quality rental properties at affordable prices This is what I said earlier in the thread "Supply Side Economics would work for the Housing Market and increase equality but successive Governments resist implementing it for fear of upsetting homeowners/voters/investors Increase the housing stock to meet demand and prices fall. Instead Government introduce gimmick incentives like stamp duty coupled with tight monetary rules on borrowing so only a small percentage benefit. Throw in a deliberately complicated planning system favoured by developers and NIMBYs to retain the status quo. Fixing the housing and affordability crisis would go a long way to improve social cohesion in this country."
The problem is Supply and Planning and Developers holding land banks and only releasing them sparingly to keep land prices high plus Local Governments starved of cash so no Social Housing has been built since Maggie flogged off the existing stock Labour has a commitment to reverse that situation, Khan seems to have bought into it (as I said up the page) as he sees it more fundamental than just Price Caps which might be necessary. Let's see how they get on.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Aug 20, 2024 14:24:29 GMT
Me and my wife have a rental property - we both had houses when we got married so decided to keep the additional one as part of a retirement pot.
Some of the proposed changes are a major concern though as effectively they are giving unscrupulous tenants a way to simply not bother paying rent with no easy way to evict. We had a guy who decided he wasn't going to pay the rent anymore but nor would he leave the property and it took 10 months, a CCJ and the bailiffs to finally get him to vacate. New 'Hardship tests' etc will effectively mean you have people living rent free indefinitely - why would any landlord risk that?
If the aim isn't to kill the private rental market stone dead (which it might be) then reforms to the court systems need to take place along side it else there will definitely be a mass exodus from the market and not just from those with huge portfolios, but those who have a property or 2 as part of retirement plans.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 20, 2024 15:10:32 GMT
Me and my wife have a rental property - we both had houses when we got married so decided to keep the additional one as part of a retirement pot. Some of the proposed changes are a major concern though as effectively they are giving unscrupulous tenants a way to simply not bother paying rent with no easy way to evict. We had a guy who decided he wasn't going to pay the rent anymore but nor would he leave the property and it took 10 months, a CCJ and the bailiffs to finally get him to vacate. New 'Hardship tests' etc will effectively mean you have people living rent free indefinitely - why would any landlord risk that? If the aim isn't to kill the private rental market stone dead (which it might be) then reforms to the court systems need to take place along side it else there will definitely be a mass exodus from the market and not just from those with huge portfolios, but those who have a property or 2 as part of retirement plans. You could always sell it to a young couple looking to buy their first home and then you don’t have this first world problem.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 20, 2024 15:12:20 GMT
Me and my wife have a rental property - we both had houses when we got married so decided to keep the additional one as part of a retirement pot. Some of the proposed changes are a major concern though as effectively they are giving unscrupulous tenants a way to simply not bother paying rent with no easy way to evict. We had a guy who decided he wasn't going to pay the rent anymore but nor would he leave the property and it took 10 months, a CCJ and the bailiffs to finally get him to vacate. New 'Hardship tests' etc will effectively mean you have people living rent free indefinitely - why would any landlord risk that? If the aim isn't to kill the private rental market stone dead (which it might be) then reforms to the court systems need to take place along side it else there will definitely be a mass exodus from the market and not just from those with huge portfolios, but those who have a property or 2 as part of retirement plans. Or maybe trying to bully the small time landlords out so the property tycoons can slide in as they'd have the means to do the court cases and what not.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Aug 20, 2024 15:22:36 GMT
Me and my wife have a rental property - we both had houses when we got married so decided to keep the additional one as part of a retirement pot. Some of the proposed changes are a major concern though as effectively they are giving unscrupulous tenants a way to simply not bother paying rent with no easy way to evict. We had a guy who decided he wasn't going to pay the rent anymore but nor would he leave the property and it took 10 months, a CCJ and the bailiffs to finally get him to vacate. New 'Hardship tests' etc will effectively mean you have people living rent free indefinitely - why would any landlord risk that? If the aim isn't to kill the private rental market stone dead (which it might be) then reforms to the court systems need to take place along side it else there will definitely be a mass exodus from the market and not just from those with huge portfolios, but those who have a property or 2 as part of retirement plans. You could always sell it to a young couple looking to buy their first home and then you don’t have this first world problem. Providing for yourself in old age is hardly a 1st world problem unless you think we should be completely reliant on the government for it?
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Aug 20, 2024 15:29:43 GMT
Me and my wife have a rental property - we both had houses when we got married so decided to keep the additional one as part of a retirement pot. Some of the proposed changes are a major concern though as effectively they are giving unscrupulous tenants a way to simply not bother paying rent with no easy way to evict. We had a guy who decided he wasn't going to pay the rent anymore but nor would he leave the property and it took 10 months, a CCJ and the bailiffs to finally get him to vacate. New 'Hardship tests' etc will effectively mean you have people living rent free indefinitely - why would any landlord risk that? If the aim isn't to kill the private rental market stone dead (which it might be) then reforms to the court systems need to take place along side it else there will definitely be a mass exodus from the market and not just from those with huge portfolios, but those who have a property or 2 as part of retirement plans. You could always sell it to a young couple looking to buy their first home and then you don’t have this first world problem. Or maybe just let the govt compulsory purchase it for buttons and let someone else have it. Mind you the way Starmer is going that might be one of his next policies 😆
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 20, 2024 15:38:54 GMT
Plenty of buildings lying empty, plenty of people needing reasonably priced housing to rent or buy, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to put the two together.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Aug 20, 2024 15:47:41 GMT
Me and my wife have a rental property - we both had houses when we got married so decided to keep the additional one as part of a retirement pot. Some of the proposed changes are a major concern though as effectively they are giving unscrupulous tenants a way to simply not bother paying rent with no easy way to evict. We had a guy who decided he wasn't going to pay the rent anymore but nor would he leave the property and it took 10 months, a CCJ and the bailiffs to finally get him to vacate. New 'Hardship tests' etc will effectively mean you have people living rent free indefinitely - why would any landlord risk that? If the aim isn't to kill the private rental market stone dead (which it might be) then reforms to the court systems need to take place along side it else there will definitely be a mass exodus from the market and not just from those with huge portfolios, but those who have a property or 2 as part of retirement plans. As ever, makes it easier for the scum. Decent people wouldn’t try and rip you off, but the scum have to be protected.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 20, 2024 16:12:06 GMT
You could always sell it to a young couple looking to buy their first home and then you don’t have this first world problem. Providing for yourself in old age is hardly a 1st world problem unless you think we should be completely reliant on the government for it? Most people use pensions rather than owning multiple properties.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 20, 2024 16:12:50 GMT
You could always sell it to a young couple looking to buy their first home and then you don’t have this first world problem. Or maybe just let the govt compulsory purchase it for buttons and let someone else have it. Mind you the way Starmer is going that might be one of his next policies 😆 Detached from reality
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 20, 2024 16:56:18 GMT
You could always sell it to a young couple looking to buy their first home and then you don’t have this first world problem. Providing for yourself in old age is hardly a 1st world problem unless you think we should be completely reliant on the government for it? Well done only sensible thing to do When governments are intent on freezing pensioners to death
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 20, 2024 17:02:53 GMT
Providing for yourself in old age is hardly a 1st world problem unless you think we should be completely reliant on the government for it? Most people use pensions rather than owning multiple properties. Says Mr Lefty Lawyer😉
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 20, 2024 17:38:52 GMT
Looks like a Simpsons character. Should be on his way to The Hague along with his boss and numerous other cronies.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 20, 2024 18:20:54 GMT
Providing for yourself in old age is hardly a 1st world problem unless you think we should be completely reliant on the government for it? Well done only sensible thing to do When governments are intent on freezing pensioners to death I am sure King Charles will survive
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Aug 20, 2024 18:30:33 GMT
Me and my wife have a rental property - we both had houses when we got married so decided to keep the additional one as part of a retirement pot. Some of the proposed changes are a major concern though as effectively they are giving unscrupulous tenants a way to simply not bother paying rent with no easy way to evict. We had a guy who decided he wasn't going to pay the rent anymore but nor would he leave the property and it took 10 months, a CCJ and the bailiffs to finally get him to vacate. New 'Hardship tests' etc will effectively mean you have people living rent free indefinitely - why would any landlord risk that? If the aim isn't to kill the private rental market stone dead (which it might be) then reforms to the court systems need to take place along side it else there will definitely be a mass exodus from the market and not just from those with huge portfolios, but those who have a property or 2 as part of retirement plans. Or maybe trying to bully the small time landlords out so the property tycoons can slide in as they'd have the means to do the court cases and what not. I have no pension. I chose to invest in property. I treat my tenants very well. I am aware of the cost of living and my rents are 20-25% below market value. I think I am a good landlord but I have to say the govt sees me as the villan. I have had 3 instances of tenants misbehaving and each time it has cost me 1-2 years rent to evict them. The govt keeps adding more regulations to improve the tenants rights but seems not to care that there will inevitably be rent increases to cover those costs. Simply put, they don't really care. I have sold a couple of properties in the last few years because of the hassle,but they have been bought by other landlords not by young first time buyers. The problem is not 90% of landlords. The problems is government, house builders, housing associations and 'slum' landlords.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Aug 20, 2024 18:39:47 GMT
Providing for yourself in old age is hardly a 1st world problem unless you think we should be completely reliant on the government for it? Most people use pensions rather than owning multiple properties. Some people don't have pensions and had little choice but to invest in property (at vastly increased risk). Some people don't have regular jobs and cannot take advantage of subsidised pensions or tax free ISA's. Some people could lose everything if they were to fall sick or suffer serious injury. You have no idea as to why people invest in property you just assume that everyone who does so is loaded.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 20, 2024 18:42:47 GMT
Well done only sensible thing to do When governments are intent on freezing pensioners to death I am sure King Charles will survive And I’m sure you wish winter deaths on our pensioners, must of whom worked their bollocks off for their working life to be hit with the most draconian of measures from this scumbag
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 20, 2024 18:47:53 GMT
Most people use pensions rather than owning multiple properties. Some people don't have pensions and had little choice but to invest in property (at vastly increased risk). Some people don't have regular jobs and cannot take advantage of subsidised pensions or tax free ISA's. Some people could lose everything if they were to fall sick or suffer serious injury. You have no idea as to why people invest in property you just assume that everyone who does so is loaded. I know that anyone who owns more than one property is suffering from first world problems if they are worried about their investment value because their tenants, who would kill to own just one property, are being given some more rights. If someone falls sick and owns two properties, I have a lot of sympathy for them. What about the person who falls sick but owns no property?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 20, 2024 18:50:42 GMT
I am sure King Charles will survive And I’m sure you wish winter deaths on our pensioners, must of whom worked their bollocks off for their working life to be hit with the most draconian of measures from this scumbag Lord Sugar has worked hard, but does he really need state benefits? What about Tony Blair? I agree the threshold where the benefit is lost is too low, but given, on average, pensioners have a higher average income than workers these days, universal benefits for them seems mental. Why not give young families universal income instead? They are generally poorer and more in need than pensioners. Obviously the answer is to give to the poor and needy only. Not everyone.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 20, 2024 18:52:09 GMT
Or maybe trying to bully the small time landlords out so the property tycoons can slide in as they'd have the means to do the court cases and what not. I have no pension. I chose to invest in property. I treat my tenants very well. I am aware of the cost of living and my rents are 20-25% below market value. I think I am a good landlord but I have to say the govt sees me as the villan. I have had 3 instances of tenants misbehaving and each time it has cost me 1-2 years rent to evict them. The govt keeps adding more regulations to improve the tenants rights but seems not to care that there will inevitably be rent increases to cover those costs. Simply put, they don't really care. I have sold a couple of properties in the last few years because of the hassle,but they have been bought by other landlords not by young first time buyers. The problem is not 90% of landlords. The problems is government, house builders, housing associations and 'slum' landlords. I know it's quite common for tradesmen, who may be self employed and don't have access to the same company pensions, to invest in property. I don't begrudge small-time landlords as it was/is very much incentivised and seen as a smart investment. English Private Landlord Survey 2021 says: "43% of landlords owned one rental property, representing 20% of tenancies. A further 39% owned between two and four rental properties, representing 31% of tenancies. The remaining 18% of landlords owned five or more properties, representing almost half (48%) of tenancies." If the small time landlords are selling up and it's the 18%, referenced above, whom are buying them then it's not doing anyone any favours.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 20, 2024 18:52:28 GMT
And I’m sure you wish winter deaths on our pensioners, must of whom worked their bollocks off for their working life to be hit with the most draconian of measures from this scumbag Lord Sugar has worked hard, but does he really need state benefits? What about Tony Blair? I agree the threshold where the benefit is lost is too low, but given, on average, pensioners have a higher average income than workers these days, universal benefits for them seems mental. Why not give young families universal income instead? They are generally poorer and more in need than pensioners. Obviously the answer is to give to the poor and needy only. Not everyone. Reward for hard work is something that’s lost on the give everything to the do nothing brigade.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Aug 20, 2024 18:58:17 GMT
Some people don't have pensions and had little choice but to invest in property (at vastly increased risk). Some people don't have regular jobs and cannot take advantage of subsidised pensions or tax free ISA's. Some people could lose everything if they were to fall sick or suffer serious injury. You have no idea as to why people invest in property you just assume that everyone who does so is loaded. I know that anyone who owns more than one property is suffering from first world problems if they are worried about their investment value because their tenants, who would kill to own just one property, are being given some more rights. If someone falls sick and owns two properties, I have a lot of sympathy for them. What about the person who falls sick but owns no property? I could own one property, work in the public sector and have a govt subsidised pension pot of £1m which gives me £40k a year guaranteed plus a lump sum and early retirement. Or I could work as a self employed person with no support system,take all the risk,and own 2 rental properties worth £800k which returns £25k a year. Your argument carries no weight with me.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 20, 2024 18:59:31 GMT
Some people don't have pensions and had little choice but to invest in property (at vastly increased risk). Some people don't have regular jobs and cannot take advantage of subsidised pensions or tax free ISA's. Some people could lose everything if they were to fall sick or suffer serious injury. You have no idea as to why people invest in property you just assume that everyone who does so is loaded. I know that anyone who owns more than one property is suffering from first world problems if they are worried about their investment value because their tenants, who would kill to own just one property, are being given some more rights. If someone falls sick and owns two properties, I have a lot of sympathy for them. What about the person who falls sick but owns no property? I think we have a landlord problem, but not every landlord is a problem. We also have an increasing airbnb problem too which probably isn't helped by the number of unprocessed asylum seekers in hotels.
|
|