# Rules for non UK citizens buying houses in the UK?



## flanajb (18 May 2014)

Does the UK have a similar tax regime in place for non UK citizens for buying houses like those in Jersey or The Isle of Mann?

I don't think we do, and I find that staggering, especially, given the rate of house price inflation and the fact many people in and around London are unable to afford a house of their own. 

I do chuckle to myself when I hear the Governor of the BoE saying he is concerned about an over cooked housing market. I think the horse has bolted on this one. I think the gate opened around 10 years ago. 

I have a friend who lives in London with his Wife and 2 Children in Clapham, owns a one bed flat and cannot afford to buy a 3 bed property so he has to rent a 3 bed. He earns over 100k

Something is very wrong


----------



## NickWelford (18 May 2014)

Trouble is, the only way to bring house prices down is to vastly increase the supply. However, there are far too many vested interests in keeping prices high. I don't own a house, but pretty much everyone who does will not want prices to drop even 10%, let alone the 50% that is needed. 
One solution is to build many many houses to rent, making rents much cheaper, also make tenancies longer term. Then fewer people would be chasing houses to buy. There will be a bubble bursting some time soon, look at the huge drop in house prices in the states. However, where demand stays high, such as anywhere commutable to London, prices will stay high. I think rates for high price houses should be much greater. If you can afford a house over a million, then you can afford to pay 10k a year in rates. Can't be all that many old ladies living in houses they bought in the 60's!!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 May 2014)

The problem there is that it's London. I bought in November, and after a good re decoration I'm not going to get back what I paid - I have to move and this Cornwall, where we are told everything is going up.


----------



## Jacob (18 May 2014)

Too many incentives to buy property over and above the need for housing/workplaces. 
Taxation would help - inherited wealth to be treated the same as income frinstance. Rates to be related to value, increased if under occupied.
Buy to let is a crazy privilege - just makes things worse by giving the better off a free ride on the back of the worse off - who in turn become dependent on benefits and the tax payer i.e. we all subsidise landlords and inflate house prices. Half the people I know seem to live off rents without doing anything much to deserve it.
Crack pot free market theory makes it difficult to correct. We need to role forwards the state and take more control if the necessities of life.


----------



## petermillard (18 May 2014)

flanajb":3g52qhq6 said:


> ...I have a friend who lives in London with his Wife and 2 Children in Clapham, owns a one bed flat and cannot afford to buy a 3 bed property so he has to rent a 3 bed. He earns over 100k
> 
> Something is very wrong



I'd suggest that he could easily afford a 3 bed property, just not in Clapham; if he isn't prepared to move out of the area in order to buy a larger property, then it sounds like he's doing the next best thing - using the currently inflated market to let his 1-bed in order to subsidise their rental of a 3-bed, no?


----------



## RogerS (18 May 2014)

NickWelford":26vp7zdo said:


> ...... If you can afford a house over a million, then you can afford to pay 10k a year in rates.......!



That is such tosh. There are many many people...not necessarily OAPs who have lived in the same house all their life and the value could well be over a million. Now where are they going to find £10k a year in rates...which is £14k in actual pay before tax or £16k before tax and NI.

I would get rid of rates completely and then charge people for the services that they actually use.

The Buy-To-Let market is helping out considerably in making houses available for rent.

Of course there are some from the Loonie Left who think that the State should own everything.


----------



## Woodmonkey (18 May 2014)

I agree with Jacob, it's not non UK residents buying houses that's the problem, it's greedy buy to let landlords. Put a stop to that and there would be plenty of houses to go around.


----------



## t8hants (18 May 2014)

The plain answer as with all the consumption problems, is a planned and sever drop in population, say 1% per year for the next fifty years. With the demand gone house prices will drop to the point abandoned estates can be cleared and high density housing thinned out. The modern timber frame brick skin house has a planned life of 75 years, with an expected occupancy of 150 years so a fair few estates will be nearing the time for demolition anyway. Unless we are counting on a World War to thin out our population we don't need it, and in 40 years the pensions time bomb will have resolved itself as all us Baby-Boomers will be dead anyway


----------



## Jacob (18 May 2014)

RogerS":1g38uhdk said:


> .....
> The Buy-To-Let market is helping out considerably in making houses available for rent.......


What nonsense of course it isn't. 
Exactly the opposite - would be rentiers get in there first and out price the people who actually need to live in the houses, and get a free ride on their backs. Parasites. 
Would be different if they _built_ to let.


----------



## MIGNAL (18 May 2014)

Once again it's the South East that is overheating. Property prices elsewhere have only seen very modest increases, hardly keeping up with general inflation. Of course it may have a knock on effect and the so called feel good factor. Housing is one of the very, very few 'products' where increasing prices (inflation) is often seen as being a good thing. No one would welcome the price of bread or the price of cars increasing by 10% + per year. As stated previously, far too many vested interests - including governments that want to get re-elected. 
As far as the 'free market' in housing is concerned: it doesn't exist. Nor will it ever. It's about as free market as the Banks.


----------



## RogerS (18 May 2014)

Woodmonkey":k7exaidm said:


> I agree with Jacob, it's not non UK residents buying houses that's the problem, it's greedy buy to let landlords. Put a stop to that and there would be plenty of houses to go around.




That is such utter nonsense. How does that work? A house comes up for sale. If anyone wants to buy it and they have the money or can get a mortgage then its open to anyone. Doesn't matter if it is owner-occupied or buy-to-let. At the end of the day the house is going to be occupied.

If there was any case for concern then it would be the number of empty properties in London owned by rich Russians and Arabs.


----------



## Jacob (18 May 2014)

RogerS":10a0o8gd said:


> Woodmonkey":10a0o8gd said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Jacob, it's not non UK residents buying houses that's the problem, it's greedy buy to let landlords. Put a stop to that and there would be plenty of houses to go around.
> ...


It'd be occupied at a lower price if buy-to-let parasites weren't permitted - encouraged even.
Haven't you ever played Monopoly Roger? If someone buys a property you need then you know you are going to be f...ed over. Real economy very similar.
We have a whole generation of people now supplementing their pensions by screwing their neighbours.


----------



## Woodmonkey (18 May 2014)

> A house comes up for sale. If anyone wants to buy it and they have the money or can get a mortgage then its open to anyone.



So it's not open to anyone then is it Roger? If the demand wasn't so high, prices would be more reasonable and then it really would be open to anyone. Around where I live it's getting on for a quarter of a million quid for a 2 bedroom terraced house. That's just not sustainable. As Jacob said it's simple economics, if you could only buy a house if you were going to live in it then everyone could own their own home. Such a basic human need as shelter should not be used to make money out of people.


----------



## MIGNAL (18 May 2014)

It's not just supplementing their pensions though. An old friend now boasts to me that he's up to 15 properties (and rising) that he lets out. He does very little actual work because he also has a full time job! He's one of the true original self certified who could barely afford to pay the repayments on his car. His whole mini empire built on a pack of lies. He really should be doing time for fraud, that is both him and his mortgage agent. Both complicit. Instead they are both looking at a very tidy sum that will see them long into their retirement. They can't lose. My friend started buying property again a couple of years ago, he had come to the decision that house prices weren't going to go much lower. He's recently bought a 'trendy' apartment for £65,000. It's already let out. 7 years earlier the exact same apartment had sold for £175,000. Someone else had taken all the 'hit'.


----------



## RogerS (18 May 2014)

Oh my God....talk about wingeing. Sounds more to me like sour grapes.


----------



## MIGNAL (18 May 2014)

I take it you condone all the fraud then Roger? I guess that type of fraud supports your crooks 'free market' philosophy. 
As for sour grapes: afraid not. I don't haven't the slightest bit of envy for his riches. You see he's extremely 'poor' in pretty much every other aspect of life. I simply don't think that blatant lies should be rewarded. You obviously do Roger.


----------



## RogerS (18 May 2014)

What fraud? Where is your evidence of fraud? If you think there is a case of fraud then why haven't you reported it to the police?

And do not presume to lecture me or tell me what I might/might not be thinking.

You're dead right. Not sour grapes at all. Very sour grapes, more like.


----------



## MIGNAL (18 May 2014)

Oh!! We are getting rather upset aren't we.
Here Roger: a little lecture and definition for you to mull over:

Fraud: Deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. 

Grossly exaggerating your actual annual income to a financial institution counts as fraud. Does in my book. Perhaps if you are of the more laissez faire variety I guess you think it all fair gain and f. the rest. The only problem Roger is that the tax payer footed the bill.
Dabbled a bit yourself Roger?


----------



## Drudgeon (18 May 2014)

A lot of people seem to get very bitter about the buy-to-let market, perhaps I am one of the 'parasites' you talk of??? 

I am 35 yrs of age with 2 young's kids, 10yrs ago when we purchased our first house, I was working as a joinery for a company, we live in London, well actually just outside if you want to split hairs, after a couple of year, it became apparent to me that my wages as an employee would never increase at the same rate as the cost of living, I also realised that pensions would be worth little, if anything by the time I retired, and therefore took some saving left to me by my late father and but deposits on two flats which we have rented out ever since, yes we often use this income to subsidise our life when moneys short, and in the long term, these properties will be my pension, the very pension that I will have made NI contributions towards my whole life, but the pension that will be worth nothing, it will not even cover my bills in 30yrs time. 

So I really don't appreciate being classed as a 'parasite' thanks.

The problem in this country is population, there are too many people, unfortunately people are living for far too long, and immigration is too high, in the south east, you can barely get school places, doctors appointments are a 3 week wait and NHS dentists are non existent. 

Cut the population to the point that the supply/demand difference is not so bad, 

The other thing they can do, stop building in the south east, concentrate on building up north, if more properties are built, housing is more affordable, push more of the countries industry and business' up there, give them financial incentives to trade from the north, the population wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't concentrated and a section of land 10% of the size of the country.


----------



## Jacob (18 May 2014)

Sympathise about your pension but you aren't doing anything for anybody by being a landlord. You are not needed unless you actually build houses.
I notice that those who say the population is too big don't usually see themselves as surplus to requirements. Otherwise they could just throw themselves into the nearest pond. Simple!


----------



## pebbles (18 May 2014)

How is it possible for someone on benefits to find the deposit to buy a house?


----------



## Drudgeon (18 May 2014)

Jacob":1tce7sav said:


> Sympathise about your pension but you aren't doing anything for anybody by being a landlord. You are not needed unless you actually build houses.
> I notice that those who say the population is too big don't usually see themselves as surplus to requirements. Otherwise they could just throw themselves into the nearest pond. Simple!



Why am I not doing anything by being a landlord? I am providing affordable short term accommodation for people that either cannot or do not wish to buy.

I'm afraid as someone who is still fairly young, with a young family and someone who is contributing to the economy, no I do not consider myself surplus to requirements, people surplus to requirements would include those who are contributing nothing to the economy, i.e. not contributing anything in tax, that would be either those of above retirement age, and more importantly, those with no inclination to work. 

I tend to agree with Roger that those who are so heavily against buy-to-let etc tend to appear rather bitter about it.

So are you saying you do not think the population is too large for the country?


----------



## Jacob (18 May 2014)

Drudgeon":c67zq7nz said:


> Jacob":c67zq7nz said:
> 
> 
> > Sympathise about your pension but you aren't doing anything for anybody by being a landlord. You are not needed unless you actually build houses.
> ...


No you are not. The building (the accommodation) was provided by somebody else. You are just an opportunist taking a profit. NB don't be offended by that, we are just having a grown up conversation - some of my best friends live off the backs of their neighbours in the same way.


----------



## Drudgeon (18 May 2014)

I see your point, but not everyone would wish to buy even if they could, I agree that house prices are waaay too high, I couldn't give a monkeys what my house is worth, or that flats for that matter, I don't intend on selling, so if prices dropped by 30,40 or even 50% it would bother me.

I just think that there are too many people, especially in the South East, perhaps if we stoop building houses all together people would be forced away? Maybe an extreme view, but the way I see it is our governments over the years tend to be far to reactive, they wait for a problem and then try to solve it when it's realistically too late. 

I just worry for my kids, and their kids, I believe their will be a big bubble burst in the next 10 years and prices even in the south east will drop hugely. Let's still not forget that as soon as the BOE start raising interest rates that half the home owners in the country will not be able to afford their repayments, there's an almighty problem looming, and there is not an answer for it, it will be a recession like no other, that's what I think anyway, just hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Harry 48 (18 May 2014)

Drudgeon
People above retirement age don't pay tax I WISH


----------



## MMUK (18 May 2014)

NickWelford":3dm6i95z said:


> Trouble is, the only way to bring house prices down is to vastly increase the supply.



Wrong.

The way to bring prices down and aleviate the shortfall is to stop letting ******* immigrants in and GIVING them houses at OUR expense. Even worse when they then bring family over in double figures and get given multi million £ mansions in Chelsea, Sunningdale, at al. again at OUR expense. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## Woodmonkey (18 May 2014)

Oh dear, the daily mail rears its ugly head again.


----------



## themackay (18 May 2014)

The house builders have no incentive to build substantially more houses than they do if prices drop so do there profits a 350,000 3/4 bed house probably cost less than 100,000 to build.


----------



## pebbles (18 May 2014)

There are plenty of affordable houses in the country. They're just not where the work is, and many are empty. Bring work into the depressed areas and things will improve.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 May 2014)

Jacob":3ta6rkcm said:


> Too many incentives to buy property over and above the need for housing/workplaces.
> Taxation would help - inherited wealth to be treated the same as income frinstance. Rates to be related to value, increased if under occupied.
> Buy to let is a crazy privilege - just makes things worse by giving the better off a free ride on the back of the worse off - who in turn become dependent on benefits and the tax payer i.e. we all subsidise landlords and inflate house prices. Half the people I know seem to live off rents without doing anything much to deserve it.
> Crack pot free market theory makes it difficult to correct. We need to role forwards the state and take more control if the necessities of life.



Rates increased if under occupied...
Sounds like a bedroom tax.


----------



## NickWelford (18 May 2014)

Ooooh. What have I started?


----------



## flanajb (18 May 2014)

Given I started this topic, I thought I would post my 2 cents worth. Firstly, I think the horse bolted far too long ago now and house prices are vastly inflated to where they should be. The Governments will not allow a massive readjustment as the banks will suffer another very large credit crunch as people will most likely just walk away from their mortgages. This is what happened in the US during the 2007 credit crunch.

1. Mortgages should have been much more tightly regulated. None of this moving the lending multiples up to 6 / 7 times as house prices increased. People over leveraged and just kept borrowing more and more. A tight cap of 4 time salary would have helped peg house prices as most people only have a finite income.

2. Stop overseas investors from buying property in the UK. The Chinese and Middle Eastern's have been helping London's property boom

3. Heavy taxation on 2nd homes.


----------



## finneyb (18 May 2014)

Well, I think you are all missing the main point - the problem is overheated parts of the UK eg London and the SE. Distribute the jobs elsewhere in the UK and the demand for houses goes with the jobs and the house prices settle. As an example in 1996 I bought a 1 bed flat - near Bloomsbury (because I worked in London but kept the family home up North) at that time it was the same price as my family home a 3 bed largish semi 10 miles outside Liverpool. Today that flat is at least twice the price of the semi. The reason, people need to live near the job.

Redistribution of the jobs is the only answer. 

Brian


----------



## finneyb (18 May 2014)

flanajb":sq55m48i said:


> Given I started this topic, I thought I would post my 2 cents worth. Firstly, I think the horse bolted far too long ago now and house prices are vastly inflated to where they should be. The Governments will not allow a massive readjustment as the banks will suffer another very large credit crunch as people will most likely just walk away from their mortgages. This is what happened in the US during the 2007 credit crunch.
> 
> 1. Mortgages should have been much more tightly regulated. None of this moving the lending multiples up to 6 / 7 times as house prices increased. People over leveraged and just kept borrowing more and more. A tight cap of 4 time salary would have helped peg house prices as most people only have a finite income.
> 
> ...



1. As I understand it tightening is already happening as of last week mortgage suppliers have to justify their lending.
2. Don't see how you do that in a free market - you could add a purchase surcharge eg 30% of the market price as a tax - but the politicos will lack the balls.
3. You only get capital gains relief on your primary residence - the profit on the sale of a second home is taxed as capital gains ie 40% but there are means off legally offsetting some of that I understand. 

Brian


----------



## RogerS (18 May 2014)

MIGNAL":378xovtt said:


> Oh!! We are getting rather upset aren't we.
> Here Roger: a little lecture and definition for you to mull over:
> 
> Fraud: Deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
> ...



Evidence? Or just your embittered wishful thinking? If the former then step up to the plate and go and report it instead of wingeing about it.


----------



## RogerS (18 May 2014)

Drudgeon":24o91i66 said:


> ......
> I just worry for my kids, and their kids, .



You're right there. I'm just glad that I won't be around in 2050....it won't be fun.


----------



## MIGNAL (18 May 2014)

RogerS":3hlqtfk9 said:


> MIGNAL":3hlqtfk9 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh!! We are getting rather upset aren't we.
> ...



Now you are getting desperate. No evidence. Not really needed, he readily admits that he lied on the forms. Boasts about it!
I'm astonished that you find it hard to believe. Most of the country now knows what was going on, they probably knew it 7 years ago. . . or perhaps you really have lost your moral compass and find it acceptable. 
I blame Thatcher myself. Now there's a complaint for you Wodger.


----------



## pebbles (18 May 2014)

Self-certification of salary was ludicrous for lending on ppr's. And the _banks_' readiness to lend way over and above their own lending criteria for btl's was bordering on the criminal.


----------



## themackay (18 May 2014)

My grown up kids are still at home cant afford their own place Aberdeen is very expensive due to the oil.
Regarding mortgages when I bought my first house 1979 cost 17300 I borrowed £15000 I was earning @£12000 a year with a lot of overtime ,it was with great difficulty I was able to borrow the money and only after a letter from my employer saying my overtime was guarranteed that they would take this into account.If the banks etc had stuck to this formula house prices may not have risen as they have ,obviously we need more built as supply and demand has an effect on prices but if you cant borrow the money you cant chase the value of property continually upwards.


----------



## RogerS (18 May 2014)

MIGNAL":6fexixy2 said:


> RogerS":6fexixy2 said:
> 
> 
> > MIGNAL":6fexixy2 said:
> ...




What part of the phrase 'if you believe it is fraud then do something about it' do you have difficulty in understanding? It's not that hard to comprehend, surely. But then...you'd not have anything to moan about, would you?


----------



## MIGNAL (18 May 2014)

Oh I get it. You are still sore from when I said you complained a lot!!  
It's not a matter of me believing. He admits it. What part of that don't _you_ understand? I'm shocked you aren't absolutely furious, indignant about what was going on. I'm sure the Blue rinse brigade were. 

Here Wrodger, read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm

It's only from February of 2004!! Do keep up Wodger!!!  

And to cap it all. . . I read it in the. . . Daily Mail!! (LOL!!! Classic!!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... loans.html


----------



## pebbles (19 May 2014)

The uk housing situation is complex and requires a multi-solution response. It won’t only be solved by building more houses, though more will help in some areas. Equally important is bringing back into use vacant properties that became vacant for a multitude of reasons. In some areas inventive schemes are already appearing to do just that - can’t remember exactly but is Liverpool one place where houses can be bought for £1 with inexpensive loans available to renovate them? Imaginative and very sensible.

But as has been said before, bringing work into the (typically but not exclusively, northern) depressed areas is the only sustainable way of ensuring housing is where it’s needed. There is still a significant number of houses costing less than £20k available to buy in such areas for those who can finance a deposit. 

It’s too easy and lazy to blame btl landlords absolutely. For sure - just as in any business - there are the good and the bad. Where it does go wrong - i.e. the reason for many of the vacant properties, it’s mostly naivety which causes some landlords to underestimate how much to keep in reserve to cover void periods or general repairs, or potentially dealing with break-ins or arson attacks. 

Just as equally there are good and bad tenants. Landlords may be parents to their own children, but they are not parents to the tenant. Arrears can be a massive problem for some landlords, as is the wilful neglect or trashing of properties. The system is weighted heavily in favour of the tenant with the landlord rarely being able to recoup what has been lost.

The majority of landlords will be decent people running a decent business, as the majority of tenants are decent people keeping up their end of the contract. For it _is_ a legal contract with responsibilities on _both_ sides. 

I’m not really sure why it’s such an emotive subject, other than Britain has had a longer history than elsewhere in Europe of home-ownership. Elsewhere, there’s less of a stigma attached to renting at all professional levels, tenancies are often for far longer and with the tenant being responsible for far more by way of general maintenance. A vested interest in their own home (even if the house bricks and mortar belong to someone else) brings about a completely different mindset to the one which too often exists in the uk. Healthier and beneficial for all.

The reason I’m uncomfortable with the notion of large tracts of - say - London being bought up by foreign oligarchs is that I feel there’s a significant danger of creating a Pottersville (that’s Henry rather than Harry) which would in no way benefit the country.

I have less of an issue with migrant work/new life seekers. The uk has been created from many nationalities, over the millennia. Go back far enough, all of us originated from somewhere else. It’s not so much that the country is overcrowded, just that the distribution needs shifting. One thing that struck me driving up from the tunnel to Yorkshire the last time, was how much green there is as far as the eye can see either side of the motorways, rarely punctuated by significantly built up areas. 

I’m not suggesting it should all be instantly built upon, but accurate, balanced perception is critical in any situation.


----------



## devonwoody (19 May 2014)

To be honest I have not read all the posts above, got the gist from the first few.

But I can honestly state this point.

My granddad was offered his rented property in North London as a sitting tenant for £550 around 1952, he would not buy, looking on the internet at the same property today it was sold for £750,000 recently. 

So buy buy buy.


----------



## Jacob (19 May 2014)

pebbles":1zuphfx1 said:


> ........
> I’m not really sure why it’s such an emotive subject, .......


1 Because the quality of one's home is a major factor in the quality of life. 
2 because there's a very artificial bubble inflating prices - my first house (1974) cost £3000, 6 times what it had been a few years earlier, now worth 1/4 million - ridiculous - it's still a dump!
3 The mad prices means that for most people property takes up 1/3 to 1/2 of their income and dominates their lives - for no good reason except inflation.
4 Self employed also have to find work space which is very pricy and near impossible for start ups, so it's bad for business. This affects all of us - small businesses can't pay High St or town centre prices so we have estate agents, charity shops and supermarkets instead. 
5 The community as a whole suffers from the rentier economy which limits our access to land and property and the things we might do with them if we could.
could be a very long list!


----------



## pebbles (19 May 2014)

People have always moved to go where the work is, why should that be any different today? Much of what you're saying is area specific, for there are grants and help available for start-ups in a great number of areas. Maybe just not where you'd want to be.

There's a different attitude towards disposable income these days, with people not wanting to spend as high a proportion of their income on the roof over their head. But with many northern rents pegged at something like £10-£12 per day you can hardly suggest that's a large percentage of an income! How much is a packet of cigarettes these days?!

Inflation is a fact of life which rises and falls according to many factors - many outside of the uk's control - i.e. early 70's oil crisis - which largely affected your house price of 1974. What year did you sell the house, or if you still have it - haven't you benefitted from the increase? Could you not sell it to move to a less expensive area...? There are always - _always_ - choices - even if it means we can't always have exactly what we want when we want it.

The _quality_ of your home is not determined by outside factors but rather what you put into it by way of personal investment (not only financial)


----------



## RogerS (19 May 2014)

MIGNAL":38wj7mv1 said:


> Oh I get it. You are still sore from when I said you complained a lot!!
> It's not a matter of me believing. He admits it. What part of that don't _you_ understand? I'm shocked you aren't absolutely furious, indignant about what was going on. I'm sure the Blue rinse brigade were.
> 
> Here Wrodger, read this:
> ...



Calm down, dear, calm down. You'll give yourself a heart attack the way you're hammering those keys. I can hear them from here. 

I dunno....your posts are getting more and more splenetic. I think the best thing to do is to put you with Jacob on the Ignore list. You should get on very well with each other. You can share your bowl of gruel together and mither about the nasty Tories to your heart's content.


----------



## RogerS (19 May 2014)

Very well said, pebbles. Unfortunately, you will find that Jacob will not accept your very sound reasoning as he will be on his usual bandwagon.


----------



## pebbles (19 May 2014)

That's alright... everyone's entitled to their opinion. Every word I've written, is only my view to be taken or left as someone sees fit. I'm not out to convert anyone :lol:


----------



## Jacob (19 May 2014)

pebbles":2v1c8tmm said:


> .....
> There's a different attitude towards disposable income these days, with people not wanting to spend as high a proportion of their income on the roof over their head. But with many northern rents pegged at something like £10-£12 per day you can hardly suggest that's a large percentage of an income! ........


What rents where? Pegged by whom? £10 a day wouldn't get you a one bedroom terrace around here - starts at about £400 a month at the bottom. 3 beds would be £1000 ish. People are having to spend a higher proportion of their income on property nowadays than they ever did. Property prices going up at about 10% pa at the moment, incomes aren't!
You might be a bit out of touch in "a middle bit of France".


----------



## pebbles (19 May 2014)

:lol: Pegged by market forces. Prices may be rising at that rate, but in localised areas. Elsewhere they remain static, or are even falling further.

It seems evident that you live in a more exclusive part of the country, but the majority of 2-3 bed houses in the real-world northern areas I am very familiar with (Hull, Doncaster, Burnley etc etc etc), rent for around £75-£80 per week. Today. Trust me, I'm not out of touch :lol:


----------



## MIGNAL (19 May 2014)

I don't doubt that you can find _some _ 2 bed houses that rent out at that level but there aren't many. To call it 'a majority' is far from the truth. It will be a very tiny minority at those prices. They are almost certainly located in run down parts of the inner city. Of course you will find endless flats and sharing schemes at 300 - 350 pcm. 
Even in the atrocious area that I live in a typical 2 bed terrace will be a minimum of £100 per week and that's in one of the poorest areas in one of the poorest cities in the UK. Just go on Rightmove, the rental rates for all the grim northern towns are all on there. Just put in a limit of 350 pcm, filter out the Flats. See how many you can find at 300 - 350 pcm. Very few. 
400 - 450 pcm produces much more results. Unfortunately they are still in run down parts of the City. When you are on near minimum wage (likely for those areas) £100 - £120 pw takes a fair chunk of that wage.


----------



## Jacob (19 May 2014)

pebbles":1q6ihqcd said:


> .....
> It seems evident that you live in a more exclusive part of the country, ....:


The point is - very large parts of the country have become exclusive - virtually the whole of the countryside and also many towns and villages. Even bloody Doncaster is expensive!


----------



## pebbles (19 May 2014)

I was being very specific only to the areas I have first hand knowledge of, and haven't personally found it to be a tiny majority, but typical of extensive areas I'm familiar with.

There have always been exclusivity differences countrywide, nothing new there, just shifting economies. Think back to the industrial revolution - a significant proportion of the country's wealth was northern based with the poor agricultural south bearing the brunt of hardship. 

That's quite possibly true for _some_ parts of Doncaster, but the other side to that is that many other parts are no-go areas with boarded properties the police have a hard time effectively policing.


----------



## finneyb (19 May 2014)

Jacob said:


> 2 because there's a very artificial bubble inflating prices - my first house (1974) cost £3000, 6 times what it had been a few years earlier, now worth 1/4 million -
> 
> 
> > And in 1974 if you had a mortgage the interest rate doubled from 8% to 16% between June and December - the repayment increased every month from memory. So I a little sceptical about saying the young have it hard now with interest rates at less than 5%.
> ...


----------



## devonwoody (19 May 2014)

Finneyb
The last three cars I have owned, first kept 7 years, second 13 years, present one 7 years so I have also learnt were the money goes.


----------



## doorframe (19 May 2014)

Savings based: 30 year-old, working till 68

Cut out one take-away coffee a week: £11,800 
Don't drink take-away coffee.

Switch mobile phone tariff: £16,100
Haven't got a mobile phone.

Cut out one packet of cigarettes a week: £31,400
Don't smoke.

Cut out a take-away: £50,900
Don't have take-aways.

Take a packed lunch to work: £63,700
Already take cheap supermarket soup to work.



Damm. With nothing to make savings against, it looks like I'm destined to stay poor. #-o


----------



## MIGNAL (19 May 2014)

Don't buy any woodworking tools.

Saving: £960,000

Sit in the middle of a field for 55 years.

Saving: £1,686,208


----------



## Terry - Somerset (20 May 2014)

The price of property is simply a function of demand and supply - more people want property than there is available in some regions (mainly but not exclusively the South East and London). Homes in some parts of the UK are still readily affordable - the main problem is lack of job opportunities. 

Prices are helped up by lending high multiples of income making both banks and borrowers vulnerable if interest rates increase or incomes stagnate or fall. I strongly support the increased financial testing of borrowers rather than walk into a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis started in US with the savings and loans companies. It's also worth noting that 60%+ of households owns their own properties - there would be a very limited appetite for policies to materially reduce prices. 

The solution is either to build more houses where people want them (green belt under threat) or job creation in more deprived areas (to move demand for property away from South East. Politicians of all parties are touting the high speed rail line as a (partial) solution - there are far, far more effective ways to invest for the public good.

A "mansion tax" would ensure that the taxpayer benefits from the number of expensive properties bought by overseas investors. Low income little old ladies living in ££million houses who may also be similarly taxed get limited sympathy - they are denying others from living there. However I suspect this would have little impact on property prices generally.

I am also a "rapacious" landlord who bought a flat to rent out with a legacy. This adds to my pension and seemed more reliable than alternative investments (low annuity rates, iffy investment funds) or spending it - new car, holiday apartment etc. Some people who at times in their lives will find rental preferable to ownership - particularly the young or mobile. Buy to let does not increase house prices generally - the prices paid by landlords is mainly a function of the rental return - a greater supply of property would reduce both prices and rents charged. 

Rgds

Terry


----------



## RogerS (20 May 2014)

Terry - Somerset":3freuyq4 said:


> ..... Low income little old ladies living in ££million houses who may also be similarly taxed get limited sympathy - they are denying others from living there. .....
> 
> Terry



Jesus! Hitler lives.


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2014)

Terry - Somerset":391de6k5 said:


> T...... Buy to let does not increase house prices generally - the prices paid by landlords is mainly a function of the rental return ,,,,,


It increases prices. Every additional bidder at a sale pushes the price up. 
Rent return has become a detail - capital value being a bigger return. So much so that keeping a property empty can make more economic sense - why bother with messy tenants when you have capital growth of 10% or more? Hence the boom in second homes - a very expensive way to have a holiday but not if you factor in the capital appreciation.


----------



## RogerP (20 May 2014)

Jacob":9ookhrdq said:


> Terry - Somerset":9ookhrdq said:
> 
> 
> > T...... Buy to let does not increase house prices generally - the prices paid by landlords is mainly a function of the rental return ,,,,,
> ...


Unfortunately this is all very true.

Unfortunate for those born in small villages as the rent to buy/second-home mob push up the cost of local property to the point where youngsters can't buy in their home village and the place gradually becomes deserted outside holiday times and weekends.


----------



## RogerS (20 May 2014)

RogerP":3cl4a0f3 said:


> Jacob":3cl4a0f3 said:
> 
> 
> > Terry - Somerset":3cl4a0f3 said:
> ...



It is not necessarily so. This country is so small that many villages end up as dormitories for commuters. So the demand is there but supply still small and so up go prices. Basically too many people in this country and we've done our bit by not having any kids.

Or as more usually happens, as in our village, the local judge buys up lots of smaller properties as Holiday Lets...which remain empty for much of the year.. and so ripping the guts out of the village.


----------



## RogerS (20 May 2014)

Reading all the negative comments regarding 'nasty' buy-to-let shows no unbiased figures to back up the claim that they are fuelling house price rises. Anyone would think, reading the emotive rhetoric from some quarters that BTL made up a huge proportion of house sales. So just what is the proportion? 75% ? 60%? Nope. 50% then...has to be given all the gnashing of teeth in this thread. Nope. The answer? Less than 10% ...stats from HMRC


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 May 2014)

This is the problem with statistics - that could mean none in ten areas, and 100% in the eleventh. Some areas of Cornwall have 50% - 60% second homes and btl's, others of course have none.


----------



## Woodmonkey (20 May 2014)

So if buy to lets stopped tomorrow then there would be 10% more houses available? That sounds like quite a lot to me Roger, that would certainly help around here.


----------



## RogerS (20 May 2014)

Woodmonkey":1uy25rwz said:


> So if buy to lets stopped tomorrow then there would be 10% more houses available? That sounds like quite a lot to me Roger, that would certainly help around here.



I really don;t follow your logic. At the end of the day, a house is lived in unless it is a holiday let or second home. Does it matter if it is rented out? No it does not. It does not follow that removing buy-to-let purchasers from the market will lead to a lowering in prices. Where is your (or anyone else's) evidence to support this? Newspaper articles are not evidence although they are a useful pointer to the any original stats. But even then you have to see who commissioned the stats and what their hidden agenda might be.

phil..p...we are talking about the country as a whole.


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2014)

RogerS":1w4pzxxr said:


> .... It does not follow that removing buy-to-let purchasers from the market will lead to a lowering in prices. Where is your (or anyone else's) evidence to support this? ....


Simple economics. The fewer buyers there are the lower the price. It's very easy to understand if you just make a little effort Roger. Say a buyer-to-let makes the highest bid at an auction, if he wasn't there then the next lower bid would have won.
Property has become first choice for many with surplus cash. It causes many problems - one particular one is the scarcity of start up cash for small businesses. Why take any risk when property is rock solid (perhaps) and keeps going up in value effortlessly?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 May 2014)

RogerS - I know we're talking about the country as a whole - but the problem doesn't affect the whole country.


----------



## RogerS (20 May 2014)

phil.p":zvax5fo8 said:


> RogerS - I know we're talking about the country as a whole - but the problem doesn't affect the whole country.



According to Jacob and Mignal and a few others it does! Buy-to-Let is the spawn of Satan in their eyes.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (20 May 2014)

I don't really get this debate myself. Some read the guardian, others read the daily mail. You'll never agree on anything....whats the point in arguing? Isn't it just a bit of a waste of time?


----------



## bugbear (20 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":foa2pkx3 said:


> I don't really get this debate myself. Some read the guardian, others read the daily mail. You'll never agree on anything....whats the point in arguing? Isn't it just a bit of a waste of time?



It's not about persuasion...

_the nicest thing about a protest song is that it makes you feel so good._ - *Tom Lehrer*

BugBear


----------



## MIGNAL (20 May 2014)

RogerS":s2z3wyxn said:


> phil.p":s2z3wyxn said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS - I know we're talking about the country as a whole - but the problem doesn't affect the whole country.
> ...



Maybe but I take greater exception when people obtain houses by committing fraud. 
You haven't uttered one single condemnation in respect of that type of fraud. You were in denial. You must approve. Then again I suppose Tory white collar crime largely goes unpunished. Few exceptions of course: Ducks, Brown paper bags, Archer.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (20 May 2014)

bugbear":31rzrt0p said:


> Random Orbital Bob":31rzrt0p said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really get this debate myself. Some read the guardian, others read the daily mail. You'll never agree on anything....whats the point in arguing? Isn't it just a bit of a waste of time?
> ...



Well. horses for courses I guess...I'd just rather be in the shed making something myself.


----------



## finneyb (20 May 2014)

Terry - Somerset":38i563if said:


> Politicians of all parties are touting the high speed rail line as a (partial) solution - there are far, far more effective ways to invest for the public good.
> 
> Terry



Agreed. There is evidence that HS2 will only serve to suck talent out of the regions into London further exacerbating the problems of inflated housing costs and lack of regional jobs . As of now Liverpool to London can be done in just over 2 hours arriving Euston at 9.04am and at least hourly after that - of course you will need a mortgage for the ticket but HS2 will be more expensive.

We need a new way of working - rather than commute more need to work from home a lot of BT staff already do this with high speed internet readily available in most places. BT thereby save office space costs esp in London and the individual saves commuting time and cost.

Brian


----------



## Woodmonkey (20 May 2014)

> Well. horses for courses I guess...I'd just rather be in the shed making something myself.



So I take it you're stood at your lathe turning while writing that post then Bob? Now that's multi-tasking!☺


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (20 May 2014)

stopped for a cuppa 

My ebony fingerboards turned up by courier just now. Look great for apple and pear stems. Gunna give them a whirl later with a bit of luck.


----------



## MIGNAL (20 May 2014)

finneyb":j06h5ucg said:


> Terry - Somerset":j06h5ucg said:
> 
> 
> > Politicians of all parties are touting the high speed rail line as a (partial) solution - there are far, far more effective ways to invest for the public good.
> ...



HS2. Forget it. Stupid project IMO. I think they (we) would be better served using the dosh to electrify many more parts of the network i.e. throughout the entire country.


----------



## Drudgeon (20 May 2014)

I very much agree, in fact, I cannot find a single person that thinks HS2 is a good idea.

The reality will be that the cost of using HS2 will rule out anyone earning less than 100k, so just another thing to benefit the wealthy (w) bankers.


----------



## finneyb (20 May 2014)

MIGNAL":1zibqcio said:


> HS2. Forget it. Stupid project IMO. I think they (we) would be better served using the dosh to electrify many more parts of the network i.e. throughout the entire country.



I worked on HS1 project. I couldn't see the logic in that either - however what came out of the woodwork was that the EU policy was for a high speed rail network from the extremities of the EU area.

We shall see if HS2 happens or not.

Brian


----------



## MIGNAL (20 May 2014)

Aren't all the main political parties in favour though?


----------



## RogerS (20 May 2014)

Drudgeon":2uaj7p6s said:


> I very much agree, in fact, I cannot find a single person that thinks HS2 is a good idea.
> 
> The reality will be that the cost of using HS2 will rule out anyone earning less than 100k, so just another thing to benefit the wealthy (w) bankers.



I agree that there are better projects than HS2 but as for your last sentence...I haven't laughed so much in a long time. Still wiping the tears from my eyes. Such drivel. Where did you magic it up from?


----------



## Drudgeon (20 May 2014)

Roger you mean to tell me you think HS2 will be affordable for an average working man to travel on daily?


----------



## RogerS (20 May 2014)

It won't be any different to other rail lines. Of course if you swallow everything that the Guardian spouts then .........


----------



## finneyb (20 May 2014)

MIGNAL":12xd0ppm said:


> Aren't all the main political parties in favour though?



I think they are which is interesting in itself when so may joe public cannot see the logic - I'll put money that there is some EU funding somewhere that we only get if the project goes ahead. Maybe associated with deprived areas that will be regenerated. HS2 is private financed so no Govt money needed and then 'free' EU money for regeneration if the scheme goes ahead its a no-brainer even for politicians.

But I'm just a cynic

Brian


----------



## Drudgeon (20 May 2014)

Roger I wouldn't wipe my backside with the Guardian, I hope you are right but I very much doubt it, much like the fast link from Ashford into London, £600 a month, or you can get the regular snail service for half the price. 

My point is that I think many of these projects are set up and prices pegged so high that many people are simply priced out of using it, the end result is that it merely benefits the wealthy.

You cannot say it will be the same as any other rail service as every rail service charges different rates.


----------



## finneyb (20 May 2014)

Drudgeon":2efmx1l7 said:


> .....much like the fast link from Ashford into London, £600 a month, or you can get the regular snail service for half the price.



For those not familiar with the geography fast link Ashford to London is run on HS1 tracks.


----------



## rafezetter (20 May 2014)

NickWelford":1l8e1lxg said:


> The Buy-To-Let market is helping out considerably in making houses available for rent.



Blind and foolish. 

I can only surmise from your statement that you, or people you are related to are HMO landlords (House of Multiple Occupany - the lowest form of renting). The buy to let market IS NOT creating places for people to live and that statement is utter utter tripe of the most foul smelling putrescence ever to spread it's miasma on any forum anywhere.

House prices are fed on demand, now, as they always have been; if everyone was only allowed to buy ONE domicile, house prices would still be the same as they were 40 years ago, when the majority of people did only buy ONE house. Buying more than one if you have the ability, is smart business, but smart business has always meant = making more money from those who cannot do it themselves.

We rent because we have NO CHOICE, and the prices landlords set reflect that, and the rest follow suit; squeeze as far as the market will bear. My ROOM - shared everything else - is £400 pm NOT INCLUDING BILLS. There are cheaper, but not by much in Bristol and they are the kind of place you might be able to stomach living in for 6 months at a time in between uni terms, but not places you'd make a "home" out of.

While there are landlords that are good, they are few and I mean FEW. I've lived in shared accommodation all my adult life - 26 years with more than 22 moves in that duration, with an extremely annoying high percentage of forced moves (and I am not a tenant from hell by any means), and I have only ever met two that treated me as an asset to be kept - the first was a very nice lady with children who lived in the house, and the next was a very nice woman who bought the house from the first. Both treated me well and listened when I mentioned things, and I in turn did things to and for the house that they appreciated.

That leaves around 20 ish landlords that only gave a hoot about the money, and ONLY the money, because there are so many renters; now more than ever largely BECAUSE of the buy to let system, we are considered fodder. Many are not interested in the heating / utility supplies, having running water in the bathroom, stealing from tenants, drug pushers and a whole lot more besides, and this is COMMON, VERY COMMON. I was once moved on after just 2 weeks because and I quote "my daughter doesn't like you", I was living in a top floor bedsit alone, using a different door, I'd never even met her and she was older than I was! 

Try juggling a 10 hour job with trying to find a place to live twice in 2 weeks and then come talk to me about how landlords are making things better for renters.

Incidentally, I am still living in this house 8 years on, but the new landlords as of last year have given more than a few veiled threats that if I continue to request they attend to things as the law requires, after I've asked nicely a dozen times, "they will have to reconsider their letting strategy" - and these are two 50 something, english ex computer engineers with a portfolio of a dozen houses at least, going by their email list, who obviously make far more money from letting than they ever did working - exotic holidays all over the world, they openly talk about stock markets and shares etc etc.. it's GREED in it's purest form. I would say 90% of buy to let landlords are people who did not work for it but simply rode the wave and cashed in the equity on their houses that they bought years ago for a fraction of what they are worth now, and the smart ones don't even need to be concerned that the new mortgage(s) are levereged against their other properties as they hedge their risk and make sure one way or another that the rent keeps coming in.

The laws do not protect tenants in any way at all, and are only now being "considered" in parliament to change it so that your tenancy agreement cannot be summarily dismissed by a landlord with NO REASON given. Why don't you look on SHELTER's website to read of unscrupulous buy to let landlords evicting OAP's, or those that evict if tenants complain about something they are lawfully entitled to - like working heating or very dangerous house wiring etc etc

The official numbers of "evicted" tenants in the last year alone is over 170,000, some are obviously because of arrears, but many who do have arrears are given virtually zero chance to sort things out with landlords, and this is on top of the govt means testing what they will give in housing benefits, regardless of what the actual bill is. (but still paying for asylum seekers and women with 10 kids to live in london at exorbitant prices). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26160569

There used to be something called an assured tenancy years ago, with scant few still in effect, but the powers that be abolished it when property tycoons complained it was making things difficult for them to "reclaim" their properties when it suited them.

If I had the ability I would be a buy to let landlord, BUT I would offer good housing at rates that allow you to have a life, and food and the occasional holiday. Not rent/ bills _or_ food.

I could end up getting into a MAJOR rant over this, but let me (almost) finish with this:

PRIVATELY RENTING A PLACE HAS ALWAYS BEEN 1.5 TO 2X MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A MORTGAGE FOR THE LAST 26 YEARS.... FACT.

I could have finished paying an average mortgage off twice over - even in today's market... a 30 yr old work colleague and wife are thinking of renting out their house as the rent will cover the current mortgage they have PLUS the new one for the next house, freeing up £400 they are currently spending on the mortgage, and at the rental rate they would be in the lower end of prices for that type of 3 bed semi so pretty much assured of renting for sustained periods.

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: 

As to the OP - there are many countries where there are limits set, and some don't allow it at all - but the UK is a place where greed and capitalism is king, you can claim govt benefits for dependents that don't even live in the UK, and still claim a UK pension when living in another country as an ex pat.

It's beyond bonkers.


----------



## Jacob (20 May 2014)

NickWelford":2p7uxxop said:


> The Buy-To-Let market is helping out considerably in making houses available for rent.


Of course it isn't it does exactly the opposite. It's like having someone blocking your way to the bar, buying you a pint but charging you full price plus a percentage for the favour.
_Build _to let or not-for-profit property management (housing associations etc) may provide a service but buy-to-let landlords are just parasites. The crudest form of capitalism.


----------



## RogerS (21 May 2014)

Drudgeon":1kgwve4f said:


> ....
> You cannot say it will be the same as any other rail service as every rail service charges different rates.



Precisely and which is why your statement 'in reality' was wrong and reference to salaries of £100k just plain daft, IMO. But there are expensive rail fares already and so HS2 is not going to be any different. On those rail journeys with high fares, I don't only see bankers...not that I'd recognise one from any other passenger.

Either way, we're both agreed that HS2 is a white-elephant.


----------



## Drudgeon (21 May 2014)

Agreed, my comment about bankers and 100k salaries was rather tongue in cheek, I was merely trying to make the point that I thought it would be unaffordable for the 'working classes' and therefore would completely defeat the purpose it is being sold as.

Jacob, I'd like to ask you a question, as a 'parasite' I have 2 BTL's, both are 1 bedroom flats in very good condition, in one flat I have a really nice young Polish couple, both very hardworking and great people, they couldn't buy as they haven't been in the country long enough and wouldn't fit any sort of banking criteria. Where would they live if there were no BTL's?

Or are you saying that there should be large housing trust that own large complex's of flats and houses for these people to rent in? 

Also I'd like to point out that the rent on both of my flats is actually slightly less than the repayments would be on a repayment mortgage and certainly not 1.2-2x more than the mortgage would be, having said that my tenants are great I have not increased the rent ion the 2 years they've been there and will not do so until they leave, I am not desperate for the money and would rather keep good tenants than try and squeeze and extra ten or twenty quid out of people.

There are a lot of myths like with everything, and people often believe what they want to believe, but every area and postcode is different and should be taken on merit.

Jacob you are obviously an extreme lefty socialist who would welcome the return of trade unions and all the 'spoils' that socialism brings with it. if you go to the top of a very high building on a clear day you may just be able to make out my political views on the horizon, for that reason we will never agree, but I enjoy your woodworking posts and will not fall out with anyone over opinions. 

Dan


----------



## NickWelford (21 May 2014)

rafezetter":32x53m9o said:


> NickWelford":32x53m9o said:
> 
> 
> > The Buy-To-Let market is helping out considerably in making houses available for rent.
> ...



Please look at my post on page 1. I did not say that, it's a quote from someone else attributed to me. I am not a landlord, indeed I am a tenant paying a considerable amount. 
Apologies demanded.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (21 May 2014)

I'll say it again, politics and religion are the two topics that should be avoided for the sake of peace. Sharpening, whilst controversial has to be allowed because its relevant. When a thread gets to the point of folks demanding apologies I have to ask, has it reached a threshold of being reasonable?


----------



## RogerS (21 May 2014)

Bob, you are spot on with this. 

Out of curiosity I went back to the beginning of the thread to see just where the rot set in. Opening post was a perfectly reasonable question. So were posts two and three. Then enter Jacob, as ever, with his tedious left-wing soapbox rants and the thread got derailed from then on.

Which is why I keep him on Ignore as he derails too many threads.


----------



## Benchwayze (21 May 2014)

flanajb":2xixkeay said:


> Does the UK have a similar tax regime in place for non UK citizens for buying houses like those in Jersey or The Isle of Mann?
> 
> I don't think we do, and I find that staggering, especially, given the rate of house price inflation and the fact many people in and around London are unable to afford a house of their own.
> 
> ...



He probably could afford a house, if the other 'coats' he has were cut according to cloth. I.e, prioritize. The house first. Car, holidays, et al second. That was my experience at least. :wink:


----------



## whiskywill (21 May 2014)

Jacob":3cc9sgr9 said:


> pebbles":3cc9sgr9 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Those premium prices seem like a bargain and worth every penny just to live near you.


----------



## rafezetter (22 May 2014)

phil.p":3m5eflm2 said:


> This is the problem with statistics - that could mean none in ten areas, and 100% in the eleventh. Some areas of Cornwall have 50% - 60% second homes and btl's, others of course have none.



The area where I live, Filton in Bristol, has become so filled with BTL's that a recent poll done by the local paper showed a greater than 50% saturation of them, so much so that people here are considering seeing if action by the council can be done to limit how many mortgages for buy to lets are granted here now. Over a period of a few years going up and down the same road I've seen many houses sold then a month or two passes and the infamous "to let" signs go up, where the front gardens are all paved over to make way for multiple cars.


----------



## Jacob (22 May 2014)

Plenty of BTLs around here, and second homes etc. 
One grim new feature of the wealth imbalance of the country is the way some villages get slowly bought up by the same wealthy set - turning it into their own holiday village, with property empty for a good deal of the time. There'll be a sudden influx of hooray henrys in the local pub, then no sign of them for months. Similarly farms are bought and there are horses everywhere.

Up the revolution - let's roll forwards the state! Seriously though - views which Roger and co think are extreme lefty, Guardian inspired etc, are becoming mainstream. There is a real problem of imbalance and it isn't going away.
Clearance of the highlands is well recognised but there has been a steady clearance of the rest of the countryside too.


----------



## rafezetter (22 May 2014)

Drudgeon":190hzl7n said:


> Agreed, my comment about bankers and 100k salaries was rather tongue in cheek, I was merely trying to make the point that I thought it would be unaffordable for the 'working classes' and therefore would completely defeat the purpose it is being sold as.
> 
> Jacob, I'd like to ask you a question, as a 'parasite' I have 2 BTL's, both are 1 bedroom flats in very good condition, in one flat I have a really nice young Polish couple, both very hardworking and great people, they couldn't buy as they haven't been in the country long enough and wouldn't fit any sort of banking criteria. Where would they live if there were no BTL's?



Back in Poland, where houses are easier and cheaper to buy. Sorry but I've heard this before - I know a polish architect / builder couple who want to come and live here purely because they want a better education for their young children.. a better _free_ state education. They have a house in Poland, a BIG one, designed by her and made by him, they have means and good money by Polish standards, but they want better. I can understand, but you can bet for them coming in - there will not be one going out and working abroad, and you can bet, once they are able to, they will buy another home, and another.



Drudgeon":190hzl7n said:


> Or are you saying that there should be large housing trust that own large complex's of flats and houses for these people to rent in?



Why not? Govt / trust owned buildings at fair rents are good earners and anyone who says different is a moron - there is a guy I saw on TV who owns a large portion of the local housing - and I mean tower blocks purpose built in some city someplace abroad- who sets fair rents, and looks after tenants, because he came from nothing, worked for it and knows the value of good secure housing. Yes of course there are issues with maintenance, but a lot of those issues we have with old council houses are because they are old and were poorly built the first time.

Or there's the build to let option - or more help with communal building associations - plenty of derelict and church owned land doing nothing for anyone. I'd be over the moon if I could help in one of those, such as what happened in St Werburghs, Bristol about 10 years ago, a dozen or so houses built by the owners, each helping the others - now a posterchild for these schemes built on derelict land, and there's clauses so that they cannot build then sell.

There ARE options, just not ones fat cats want. Can't have lots of people suddenly building there own homes now can we?



Drudgeon":190hzl7n said:


> Also I'd like to point out that the rent on both of my flats is actually slightly less than the repayments would be on a repayment mortgage and certainly not 1.2-2x more than the mortgage would be, having said that my tenants are great I have not increased the rent ion the 2 years they've been there and will not do so until they leave, I am not desperate for the money and would rather keep good tenants than try and squeeze and extra ten or twenty quid out of people.



Very commendable but that would place you in the 0.5% of landlords going from extensive personal experience of the last 26 years. Still not the point though, while you are providing for your own and childrens' future you have multiple properties tied up that prevents others doing the same, and the market increase prices alone will give you a very healthy pension scheme, on the order of hundreds of thousands, and the truth is, if you thought you were able to do it safely - you would buy yet another, further feeding the increasing prices.



Drudgeon":190hzl7n said:


> Jacob you are obviously an extreme lefty socialist who would welcome the return of trade unions and all the 'spoils' that socialism brings with it. if you go to the top of a very high building on a clear day you may just be able to make out my political views on the horizon, for that reason we will never agree, but I enjoy your woodworking posts and will not fall out with anyone over opinions.



While I don't agree with everything, Jacob has some fair points to make and the truth is Pure Capitalism as a social heartbeat just doesn't work, why else do those using it keep swinging between boom and bust? There have been half a dozen or more serious ones in the last 100 years alone, the last of which was fed largely by the greed for housing (because it makes money right? and still cheaper than renting) and the subprime and self cert situation that brought us to our knees, and crippled half the planet. 

If you STILL don't believe me the house ownership situation is utterly broken - why is it that the only thing in UK right now making really progress since the bust is house prices? Because those with money still have the ability to buy more, and for a while - cheaper than a few years ago to boot - it was a feeding frenzy.


----------



## Woodmonkey (22 May 2014)

Feeding frenzy is right. Whenever a house round here goes on the market they normally have 20 odd viewings on one day, offers have to be in normally the next day and it will sell over the asking price. We looked at one on a Saturday that had just come on the market, we wanted to have another look on the Monday before making an offer, the owner said no as he had already had five offers, all over the asking price.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (22 May 2014)

My house is soon to go on the market, and I will be lucky to get what I paid for it in November - and that's after redecorating it totally. West Cornwall.


----------



## RogerS (22 May 2014)

Why do so many posts remind me of ...







There are lots of things that I would like to do, things I would like to buy, places to see but I can't afford it. But I don't bang on about it. Nor do lots of other people.

As Frank Zappa said..."Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff"

So take all the money from all the rich people in the world and redistribute it to everyone on the planet ? I'll go and buy a box of matches with my money.

Life's a puppy. And then you die.


----------



## Jacob (22 May 2014)

RogerS":1kh14ock said:


> .....
> So take all the money from all the rich people in the world and redistribute it to everyone on the planet ? I'll go and buy a box of matches with my money.
> ...


It's difficult to pin down but a rough estimate of the per capita wealth of the UK is about £100,000.
More than a box of matches. A very small number of people "own" a lot of _our_ stuff.


----------



## Stu_2 (22 May 2014)

100 grand each, you say. I'm coming round to this idea, comrade. Paypal gift only, mind. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 May 2014)

Jacob":2qu94i0w said:


> RogerS":2qu94i0w said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...




Some people earn a modest wage, but contrive to scrimp and save, and end up with a decent house - perhaps a redundant chapel they convert into a house themselves. Some people earn much the same wage, and spend it all on booze, fags and the nags. They end up skint, living in 'social housing', paid for by 'the taxpayer'. Some people start businesses, work hard all their lives, pass on their business to their children, who also work hard and grow the business, creating employment opportunities for other people.

If the 'wealth' of all three were pooled and evenly distributed, the businessman would build another business, the chapel-converter would look for another property opportunity, and the drunk would end up even more drunk. Such is human nature, and no political 'ism' will ever change it.


----------



## Benchwayze (22 May 2014)

I'm off from this thread. Too much politics.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 May 2014)

Benchwayze":340jyo9c said:


> I'm off from this thread. Too much politics.



There's been 'too much politics' on this thread since about a third of the way down page 1......


----------



## Jacob (23 May 2014)

Cheshirechappie":3bdllwne said:


> Jacob":3bdllwne said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":3bdllwne said:
> ...


Nobody suggests sharing it out equally. It wouldn't be possible - wealth exists in so many forms and as you say it wouldn't stay shared out equally.
But neither should it remain unshared. It's like the Monopoly board game - too much wealth in too few hands and the game stops.
To keep an economy going the wealth has to go around. Taxation and public spending drive the economy and provide services for the common good.
So yes we need austerity, bedroom tax etc but applied to the well off - those with extra bedrooms (property in general) and surplus wealth. Trying to do it to the poor, unemployed etc is unbelievably stupid and as we see - a complete failure. Instead we should be taxing at the top end and increasing benefits, minimum wages at the bottom end, and public spending in general.
UK not so bad - there are places with far worse imbalance of wealth - Nigeria, Russia etc though Scottish land ownership is positively medieval. C'mon Scottsh people - retake the land reverse the clearances what are you waiting for?


----------



## MMUK (23 May 2014)

MIGNAL":bpx9fb9v said:


> I suppose Tory white collar crime largely goes unpunished. Few exceptions of course: Ducks, Brown paper bags, Archer.




Why pick on the Tories? They're all as bad as each other - looking after #1 and the rich while the poor get poorer.

Lets not forget a certain recent government who sold off most of our gold reserve and contrived with the largest "democracy" in the world to start a war they had no right to. But those certain people in charge of that government now have cushy jobs and are effectively above the law. :roll:


----------



## MIGNAL (23 May 2014)

:roll: :roll: :roll: Yes, Yes Yes. We know all that. But it's especially gratifying when the Tories get caught with the brown paper bags. After all, they took the moral high ground on crime for decades - Blue rinse lot, short sharp shock, Tebbit. I was going to include Roger but he obviously doesn't see a lot wrong in wholesale fraud!


----------



## markturner (23 May 2014)

Woodmonkey":2tvcfxcg said:


> I agree with Jacob, it's not non UK residents buying houses that's the problem, it's greedy buy to let landlords. Put a stop to that and there would be plenty of houses to go around.



Most are not greedy - the average return on buy to let is around 5% - 10% .........not much more than you would get from a decently managed portfolio. Sure, the property will go up value, but they are not charging much more in rental than it actually cost them to buy the house....

The problem is the rate of rising prices, its way too high, but really, there no way that it can be controlled, it's a supply and demand market, and completely unmanageable.

The government should start a massive housebuilding program and keep the freehold - rent them out at affordable rates, the asset will increase in value meantime. Would also kickstart the building industry and provide a huge stock of houses for the people.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (23 May 2014)

what was that famous quote Maggie once said? Something like,


> _*socialism only works til you run out of other peoples money. *_



Just thought I'd lob that hand grenade in to the mix....its like the tele this...great fun


----------



## markturner (24 May 2014)

Never a truer word spoken.....


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 May 2014)

markturner":11vmic9v said:


> Never a truer word spoken.....



Who said it? Cassandra?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 May 2014)

we should let the unions run the country.......that'd sort the economy out....


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 May 2014)

Or Labour in general......they sure showed Mr Farage who's boss didn't they


----------



## MIGNAL (24 May 2014)

Let Farage in power and the country will be flooded with German secretaries.  
What an absolute classic.  Go down in history will that mini interview.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 May 2014)

Yes...Farage is a joke, I think most people with a functioning intellect acknowledge that. Given what he did to numerous Labour strongholds, particularly in the North, what does that say about the leadership under the "wrong" brother?

I have to say I've met David Milliband and he's a tall, charismatic, sensible thinker and absolutely fabulous orator. In short a totally natural leader. When the party had to choose the leader and they opted for Ed over his brother I realised how unelectable they had become. How can a group of people make such a gargantuan error if their agenda were not driven by the unions. Whether or not you agree with union politics (I happen to like having unions because of the balancing influence they bring to bear) that choice was so unbelievably bad that it will cost the Labour party dearly for many years.

Farage has really struck a chord with his obsession about keeping Britain British. It's thrown all the main stream parties. It's a very unusual time in politics and that's for sure.


----------



## rafezetter (24 May 2014)

markturner":34j0v6u2 said:


> Woodmonkey":34j0v6u2 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Jacob, it's not non UK residents buying houses that's the problem, it's greedy buy to let landlords. Put a stop to that and there would be plenty of houses to go around.
> ...



Sorry but having lived and paid rent through all the last 26 years you are wrong. When I was 22 I lived in bedminster, Bristol - not an affluent area and my rent was £35 per week. I was earning just £70 39 hours per week. When I was 18 I lived in Epsom (a more affluent town but in the outskirts) and my rent then was £48 per week.

My rent now is £100 per week not including bills so essentially £130 pw or £520 pm. I earn just over 1k pm. In many places rents have been equal to 40 - 50% of income. If you tell me a 4 bed (6 rented rooms) house costing £249k (that was the sale value last may - I looked it up) has a mortgage of about £1800 pm ... 
or a 3bed (4 rented rooms) in Epsom 1988 has a mortgage of £580pm ...
or a 3bed (4 rented rooms) in Bristol circa 1992 has a mortgage of £500pm...

I'll call you a liar to your face.

I can give you figures for all of them and they are average for the local areas.

As I said before, I have privately rented 26 years and have detailed definitive personal knowledge, and 5-10% return is a fallacy.

It might be different in a backwoods, or as said elsewhere jobs are short supply, but in places where there is work / industry / universities - those are the prices you pay.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 May 2014)

That rental analysis is a little one dimensional. I had to rent my Mum's house after she went into a home with advanced dementia. The family needed the money to help fund the extortionate cost of care. You have to factor in the opportunity cost of rental holidays between tenants (3 months per year was our experience). Also our tenants did an enormous amount of damage to Mum's home for some reason, all which needed to be made good at cost. The agents fees (15% in our case). Various ongoing maintenance bugs that eat into the monthly net. In the end we found it wasn't a clear cut, no brainer line to massive profits by any means and we had no capital costs to acquire the house in the first place. I'm pretty sure there are more efficient ways to invest money.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are plenty of unscrupulous landlords who give a bad name to it all. Much like used car salesmen, tarnishing the ones who are fair and reasonable.


----------



## RogerS (24 May 2014)

Rafezeteer...you are confusing rent with return on investment. You have no idea what your landlord ...who incidentally is providing YOU with a roof over your head...is paying in the way of mortgage and other expenses. Life's a puppy...get over it.


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2014)

RogerS":1h8gb980 said:


> ... your landlord ...who incidentally is providing YOU with a roof over your head...i....


No he isn't, unless he was the original builder/financier. 
Most landlords are just intermediaries and are redundant to the process, except for their part in the housing management process, at which most landlords are hopelessly incompetent, sometimes criminally negligent.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (28 May 2014)

But Jacob, in the final analysis, this argument leads to either an acceptance or refuting of capitalism as "about the best" compromise on a free society living together in some kind of harmony. Now don't get me wrong, I'm the first to acknowledge that there's plenty wrong with the notion of free market thinking and capitalism in general but not when you throw into stark relief the alternatives. Is it that you prefer a lot more state control? If so, to what degree? We have precedents of communism and socialism in use all over the world. Or is it just more regulation, ie continue with free market economics but stamp out this particular practice? The country has only just begun healing from the cost of 13 years of "state bloating" under "New Labour" and a near exponential increase in regulation was part of that problem. 

I guess I'm trying to understand what the positive alternative is from the perspective of the nay-sayers. I get that many don't like the current system, what I don't get is what's a viable alternative? What's the solution?


----------



## Mark-numbers (28 May 2014)

There is a reason why our planning laws are one of the most stringent in the world - remember only 2.5% of the UK is built on.

Capitalism makes the world go round!! 

I am mortgaged to the hilt, this was my decision no one elses, I hope it will pay off in the long term.


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":2gwvfj88 said:


> .... We have precedents of communism and socialism in use all over the world. .....


Yes we do. 
America, UK, Europe. Oz and the west are firmly based on socialism in one way or another; high taxation, welfare and public spending. That's what makes them work so well. Americans like to forget their revolutionary foundations - french revolution, Thomas Paine etc.
Capitalism is only a vague idea and a free market doesn't really exist anywhere much. Where you get "free" markets and little state control you also get anarchy and chaos.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 May 2014)

Funny that... I always thought the USA was capitalist.


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2014)

phil.p":1qr0ylhi said:


> Funny that... I always thought the USA was capitalist.


Everywhere is to some extent. Capitalism isn't a system as such, with rules of any sort. 
But USA is also highly socialistic, communitarian, whatever you want to call it, with a powerful state apparatus running lots of things. They haven't advanced as far as our welfare state which is astonishing really, considering their egalitarian and revolutionary origins. Though they managed to be idealistic about freedom and run a slave state at the same time, with issues still unresolved. 
One thing is certain there (and here as well) - the Thatcher/Reagan "neo-liberalism" of the last 30 years has been a dismal flop.

PS it isn't either/or. Some things are best run by the state, others left to the market. In a democracy WE are the state - "rolling back the state" means giving up OUR control over things


----------



## MMUK (28 May 2014)

Mark-numbers":3uilmyze said:


> I am mortgaged to the hilt, this was my decision no one elses, I hope it will pay off in the long term.




Good luck with that, seriously.

A guy I know mortgaged to the hilt several years ago (he actually had a dodgy valuation done that increased his property value by 40%). Then he bought a place in Cornwall. Then he let his business go and his wife left him. Didn't stop him leasing a brand new E Class to keep up appearances :roll: 

Needless to say, he's since fled to AUS and returns to the UK for a couple of weeks in the year to see kids, etc. Any longer than that and the IR among other debtors will know he's here and be knocking the door for the £800k he owes :roll: 

What a life :?


----------



## markturner (28 May 2014)

Rafetezzer ( or jacob or anyone else who thinks otherwise) Try googling "what is the average return on a buy to let property" and see what you find. I also spent 3 years working for a developer refurbishing houses he brought for buy to let and was intimately acquainted with the finances. After you have spent often large amounts of money on top of the purchase price, refurbishing properties to a decent standard, It costs a huge amount in admin, agents fees and other expenses to do it properly, on top of the straightforward differential in rental and mortgage - I am right, you are wrong.

Also just want to say all those of you who resent anyone who has made anything of themselves and actually managed to accumulate some money by hard work and shrewd investment, this pathetic socialist politics of envy where you expect people like that to pay for people like you simply does not fly. 

It's a fact of life that there will always be people with more and people with less. Get over it and if you don't like it, try actually working for some extra money yourself instead of expecting the state or other successful people to cough up for you. I wonder how much money the likes of Jacob actually contributes in taxes to deserving causes....not a lot I bet...........


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2014)

markturner":ttzcy708 said:


> .....- I am right, you are wrong.......


Property is often not a good deal in terms of income but it most certainly is in terms of capital appreciation - usually much higher than the rental income. Hence investment properties left empty - who need inconvenient tenants? It's a bubble - those who have will gain even more, those who have not will lose and become even more marginalised. Meanwhile the economy stagnates
This is a real worldwide problem not just a lefty rant. Apparently fewer than 90 people have more wealth than half the worlds population together, according to Christine Lagarde of the IMF. Lines are being drawn in the sand - it is unsustainable.

The rest of your post seems to be the usual right wing rant - "politics of envy" and similar nonsense.


----------



## Mark-numbers (28 May 2014)

MMUK":1d1ehmt0 said:


> Mark-numbers":1d1ehmt0 said:
> 
> 
> > I am mortgaged to the hilt, this was my decision no one elses, I hope it will pay off in the long term.
> ...



I am not in debt for 800k thats for sure!! My equity outweighs my debt, so I am ok as long my clients keep on paying me!!


----------



## markturner (29 May 2014)

Jacob":1ga33tsj said:


> markturner":1ga33tsj said:
> 
> 
> > .....- I am right, you are wrong.......
> ...




So........you back track and admit that I am actually right and then change your objection to some empty house scenario ......the argument is about whether buy to let was a lucrative cash cow for Bradley Hardacre types to grind down the working man with.........not buy to appreciate.....which applies to anyone who buys a house, you included I imagine. 

You have been OWNED......as my 17 year old son would say......


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2014)

Mark...I have learned that there is little point in engaging in any attempt at reasoned debate with him. At the slightest hint of being caught out in his lack of logic, he will duck and dive and throw in a red herring ....and go off on a tangent. I think I'd get a more reasoned debate from a troop of baboons.


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2014)

markturner":2tl9nopz said:


> ......the argument is about whether buy to let was a lucrative cash cow for Bradley Hardacre types to grind down the working man with.................


Not sure what you are trying to say. 
Nobody wants to grind down the working man (except of course many tories, anti-union Thatcherites, people opposed to minimum wages, zero-hour contractors, quite a long list! etc etc etc). 
But property is a lucrative cash cow thanks to appreciation, as we all know. Rent is a bonus. Win win for owners. That's why buy to let is so popular and hence inflationary.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 May 2014)

Like the sixty two Labour MP's that employ people on zero hours contracts you mean?


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2014)

phil.p":vsajgntm said:


> Like the sixty two Labour MP's that employ people on zero hours contracts you mean?


Appalling. 77 tories doing it too. Bring on the unions!
Labour party is in total disarray IMHO. Red Labour worth a look - they seem to be saying what a lot of people want to hear. Things could be different by the next election.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 May 2014)

No, I don't do Facebook. And no, things won't be different by the next election.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (29 May 2014)

they might....if Farage keeps stealing Northern Labour seats and "Milliband the Wille" keeps handing own goals to the Tories there'll be nothing left of the party. They're a spent force.


----------



## JohnPW (29 May 2014)

markturner":11senr31 said:


> Rafetezzer ( or jacob or anyone else who thinks otherwise) Try googling "what is the average return on a buy to let property" and see what you find. I also spent 3 years working for a developer refurbishing houses he brought for buy to let and was intimately acquainted with the finances. After you have spent often large amounts of money on top of the purchase price, refurbishing properties to a decent standard, It costs a huge amount in admin, agents fees and other expenses to do it properly, on top of the straightforward differential in rental and mortgage - I am right, you are wrong.



From http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... nvestments

My bold.


> Buy-to-let investors have made *£12,000 profit on every £1,000 they put into property* since mortgages for landlords were first launched in 1996 – returns that have far outstripped every other type of investment, according to an analysis by one of Britain's biggest lenders.
> 
> The report by Paragon Mortgages to mark the 18th birthday – or "coming of age" – of buy to let, predicts that landlords will continue to make an average of 11% a year for the next decade.
> 
> It found that since 1996, £1,000 invested in a buy-to-let property has turned into £13,048, an annual rate of return of 16.3% a year, buoyed by fast-rising house prices and rents. Over the same period shares would have earned investors 6.8% a year, bonds 6.5% and savings in the bank 4%.


----------



## markturner (29 May 2014)

Ok...you found an article that says its 16%....I said average 5 -10% It also said 11% ......... I can find plenty that say less than 16%. Semantics. Point is, we are not talking massive profits. And that it was not better than a decent portfolio. My isa's and investments have made well over 25% over the last 15 years. 

If it was that easy, to make 20, 30 % annual return on your investment, don't you think pretty much every house for sale would be snapped up by eager buy to let landlords? 

It's a good investment sure, but not the golden egg you seem to imply. Everyone knows, one of the best ( safest) investments you can make is in bricks and mortar ( unless you want to be really risky) Despite the fluctuations, the underlying trend is up. But that's the same with pretty much everything - Ftse 100, most portfolios, wine, art, cars...........

Having said that, I personally, as stated in my first post in the thread, think that the market is out of control and needs regulating somehow. We are in danger of a price bubble and all that entails.......if there was some way of pegging prices at a more sensible rate of increase.

However, you have to balance the negative effects of buy to let and the high increases in net value of property, against all the benefits - loads of work for companies like mine, that pay taxes and employ people, the solicitors, agents, and everyone else whose businesses are part of the chain. They all pay taxes and employ people, which is good for the economy. Plus, all the people who re mortage to cash in their houses increased value, then use it spend on holidays, cars, clothes etc..............But it needs to rooted in a sensible and sustainable model.


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2014)

markturner":9dj8evmz said:


> ... My isa's and investments have made well over 25% over the last 15 years.


That's p|ss poor performance. My property has gone up about 10 times in the same period. Woss that then er 1000%? A bit of credit to my improvements but otherwise wholly unearned. This is normal (give or take the blips e.g. 2007). This is why people with spare cash are keen to buy, whether it's to let or not.


> If it was that easy, to make 20, 30 % annual return on your investment, don't you think pretty much every house for sale would be snapped up by eager buy to let landlords?


They _are_ snapped up, not only for BTL the market is very buoyant - 10% return p.a. is better than any other normal investment.


> It's a good investment sure, but not the golden egg you seem to imply. Everyone knows, one of the best ( safest) investments you can make is in bricks and mortar ( unless you want to be really risky) Despite the fluctuations, the underlying trend is up. But that's the same with pretty much everything - Ftse 100, most portfolios, wine, art, cars...........


Exactly. There is too much cash in too few hands, with nowhere else to spend it.


> Having said that, I personally, as stated in my first post in the thread, think that the market is out of control and needs regulating somehow. We are in danger of a price bubble and all that entails.......if there was some way of pegging prices at a more sensible rate of increase.


Plenty of ways are available. Death duties the most obvious - tax the dead, they don't vote!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 May 2014)

:shock: Your property has gone up ten times in fifteen years? Where on earth do you live?


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2014)

phil.p":2nih0uh0 said:


> :shock: Your property has gone up ten times in fifteen years? Where on earth do you live?



Phil..haven't you realised it yet? Jacob lives in La-La Land :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2014)

7 times for sure, 10 a bit optimistic. OK I do deserve the credit - getting planning permission and complicated change of use on a chapel was probably the single most profitable step, say 3 times the value immediately.
There are very few properties which haven't increased in value by 100 to 200% in the last 15 years. Better than ISAs! 
Not good for the first time buyer and the homeless. Not that good for builders either - most of the inflationary profit goes to the land owners. Not good for me - it seems most of my life has been a bit of a struggle to get somewhere good to live and work in.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 May 2014)

Ah! so you're a property developer?


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2014)

phil.p":1st6wbf4 said:


> Ah! so you're a property developer?


Well yes by default. Without intention - I'd rather not have been. Just part of the process of getting somewhere to live and work during a prolonged property boom.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 May 2014)

Of course.


----------



## Mark-numbers (29 May 2014)

Jacob spoken like a true Capitalist - (well apart from the death tax bit) 

When are you going to sell up and give the profits to those worse off than you? You know to adhere to your beliefs as a socialist?


----------



## rafezetter (29 May 2014)

markturner":2bkolss1 said:


> If it was that easy, to make 20, 30 % annual return on your investment, don't you think pretty much every house for sale would be snapped up by eager buy to let landlords?



Sure not every single house is being bought up by landlords, but definitely a disproportionate amount compared to the "normal" ebb and flow of single ownership. After the crash 5 years ago there were many reports on how this had affected the buy to let market and how so many landlords had to file for bankruptcy and banks forclose on mortgages because they over extended themselves - by buying as many properties as their net worth would allow.

Every single time I see my landlords in person they mention they are buying another property nearby, I would guesstimate in the last year alone they have bought at least 5, and that is probably them being prudent and ensuring they do not over extend themselves as many others did before the crash.

The plain fact is, if their numbers add up - they buy another property.

I would say with reasonable certainty that the buy to let market - and the buying of houses at reduced values just after the crash, played a large part in the recovery of said market far ahead of every other industry.

As for "average" return on buy to let - that could well be true on a _national_ average - but rents are not national - they are highly localised as they always have been - sometimes down to a street by street price, and I'm certain no-one and I mean NO-ONE has done such a poll, and by the way, my landlords live in Portsmouth, and my previous one with again a handful of houses here, lived on Isle of Wight - so there is something about Bristol that gives them a hardon - I wonder what it could be???? :roll: 

Face it, if the rental market had such a p~ss poor return rate 5-11% - why the hell would you take on such a massive debt to get it? Borrow £1,000,000 for a return of just 100k, that isn't guarenteed and that should even a few houses not get rented and you start haemorraging all your profits in just a few months on repayments?

You're kidding yourself, if you think 5-10% return is the reality. Only an absolute moron or someone with a cast iron clad backup to ensure stability through fluctuations would risk utter financial ruin for so little.

My final word on this subject is this: When this house was sold last may it was the most expensive house on the books of all major estate agents for 4 square miles, (because it's the only essentially 6 bed house for 4 square miles - good sized study and front room both now bedrooms as well as the 4 proper upstairs - and they have talked about adding a 7th bedroom in what is currently the communal tv area next to the kitchen) - I know because I looked into buying it with help from my father who has access to such information as part of an investment portfolio company. It was the most expensive by some margin, 10's of thousands - yet it was STILL bought by buy to let landlords when there were others available nearby, and these are ex computer engineers, so I would assume... not stupid or frivalous.

Take all that into consideration and tell me again about 5-10% margin. No, rate of room rental return is *significantly* higher.


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2014)

Mark-numbers":23zsb8l6 said:


> Jacob spoken like a true Capitalist - (well apart from the death tax bit)
> 
> When are you going to sell up and give the profits to those worse off than you? You know to adhere to your beliefs as a socialist?


I can't sell up unless I take to the road, pay rents or drop dead. In other words the value means little to me. 
We are all locked in this vicious spiral. A "capitalist" would see this as a good thing and just free markets in operation. I think it's ludicrous that we are all so dominated by this inflationary bubble and the many problems it causes.
It's like the monopoly board game nearing the end when everything slows down as the wealth imbalance becomes unsustainable.


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2014)

Rafezeteer...ain't life a puppy?


----------



## heimlaga (1 Jun 2014)

Looking at the UK from abroad your housing market seems to be a bubble. Just like it is in the southern parts of Finland with the exception that you are 10 times as many as we are in a country of roughly the same size so you have even fewer opportunities than we have to find some abandoned farm buildings out in the woods for a fair prize. 
Investors speculate in rising prizes. Banks have lent out unlimited amounts of money to anyone. People take bigger loans than they will ever be able to pay back. The shaky economy makes the rich invest in land instead of industry.The hysterical urbanisation that sweeps over Europe empties the countryside and squeeze more and more people into smaller and smaller areas with resulting prize increases.

The other side of the European urban housing bubble can be seen in the northern parts of Sweden and Finland. There it is the other way around. One can get a pretty decent farm up there for 60000 euros or a house on a hectare of land for 10000 euros or a closed down professional saw mill with buildings and all ready to start production for a few thousands. It's a bloody shame.
I have heard it said that there is the same phenomena happening to some degree in some out of the way parts of Scotland.

One day the tide may turn. When enough of the big employers have gone out of business or moved abroad in search or free slave labour people will have start small businesses of their own. Running a small business producing for the local market requires space and not too strict planning regulations. Then there will surely be a lot of people regretting the loans they still have on the useless flat in a city center with no business opportunities.......... while a small farm out in the woods or a house with an attached shop in a small town somewhere may become a true goldmine.......
Who knows.....


----------



## rafezetter (5 Jun 2014)

This article sums it up:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/03/shoebox-studio-flat-london-renters-hours


----------

