Rules for non UK citizens buying houses in the UK?

[Jacob]

... 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]

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]

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]

.... 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]

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

 

[Jacob]

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]

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]

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]

.....- 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]

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 :?

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]

.....- 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.

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]

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]

......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]

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

 

[Jacob]

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]

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

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

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]

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]

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]

... 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!