Halifax -1.7% MoM, 17.7% YoY, 22.6% down from peak.

Thrugelmir

mitchaa wrote: »

I have another 14yrs until im 40, so couldn't care less what they did in between to be honest.

House number 1 will be paid off in 15yrs as will house number 2 between 40-55 (As i will have no rent or mortgage to pay) and if things turn out ok, house number 3 at the age of 55-68

On retirement, i still plan to live in house number 1, with house 2+3 as rental income or sell to provide a nest egg along with FSP.

That is the plan anyway and if i keep working there is no reason to suggest that i cannot achieve this. Yes i already have children to the chap that asked.

Im under no illusion that housing will ever be cheap as it never has been in the past and never will be in the future. I will happily pay out 1/3 of my salary for the rest of my working days to achieve this.

The point isn't about me though, i was just merely pointing out that our attitude to housing and our greed culture is in my opinion very unlikely to change.

Buying a house as an investment is less tax efficent than investing in either through an ISA or a pension plan.

carolt

whathavewedone wrote: »

Surely the bear party line is that during the boom we were all brainwashed into thinking that we had to buy at all costs and that renting was for losers?

I don't recall a programme on tv where the idea of renting was sold as being a great lifestyle choice? People need to rent and in order to do so someone needs to have a property to rent to them.

People bought to let to make money. There was never any secrecy about this so far as I am aware. Nor should there have been.

I think you kind of miss the point of the 'bear line'.

Bears believe that house prices in recent years have become vastly overpriced and need to/will fall.

They don't believe that renting is some sort of great thing - only BTL landlords claim that; though curiously :rolleyes: none of the ones on here actually put their advice into practice and choose to rent themselves, despite claiming how desirable it is.

It is rather that -given being homeless is not really an option - given the choice of buying an overpriced cupboard and mortgaging yourself to the hilt for life OR renting a nice, reasonable sized property, then in the lunatic market we have experienced over the last few years, renting seems like the only sensible option.

Given that many people have had no choice but to rent over the last few years, I personally - and don't count this as part of the 'bear line' as it has nothing whatsoever to do with bearishness or otherwise as to the future direction of house prices - believe that

(a) tenants should have security of tenure and

(b) landlords should be properly licenced to drive out the shysters among them.

Given that people have had to and are likely to continue to have to rent privately, they should be entitle to basic security and safe, properly maintained homes.

I certainly don't claim renting is some sort of panacea; just the current crunch has very clearly demonstrated that buying at any price is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

carolt

Do you hang out in the same playground as him?

Get back to school this minute, you two - you're going to be in real trouble when your mum finds out you two have been bunking off again.

System

Sorry Miss got to go my homework now anyway.

PasturesNew

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Buying a house as an investment is less tax efficent than investing in either through an ISA or a pension plan.

For some.
I would love to dispute the maths, but you didn't provide any.

Thrugelmir

PasturesNew wrote: »

For some.
I would love to dispute the maths, but you didn't provide any.

In summary.

Pension - Tax relief on contributions, no capital gains tax, 25% of fund can be taken as tax free lump sum. Only downside is that tax is payable on pension when drawn.

ISA - No capital gains tax, no tax on income withdrawl.

Property - Capital gains tax on disposal , income is taxable.

ess0two

ad44downey wrote: »

That's a horrible thing to say. You should withdraw that remark.

As if you care...........she can be quite anal at times but you get used to Carols posting style.

Thrugelmir

carolt wrote: »

To return to topic:

House prices fell another 1.7% this month.

Must be really gutting for those up to their necks in debt due to their BTL's.

and not forgetting anybody that has purchased or remortgaged property in the past 5 years. An awlful amount of wealth has been permanently washed away.

chupov

ess0two wrote: »

As if you care...........she can be quite anal at times but you get used to Carols posting style.

back from the races already Stevie? how did it go?

lostinrates

whathavewedone wrote: »

Security of tenure was tried out in 1977 - the legislation was called The Rent Acts. It was absolutely disastrous because as rent was capped and tenants could not be evicted (even if they were bad tenants) there was no incentive for landlords.

This is obviously flawed, and bad tenants shuld not benefit at the expense of a LL.

Many sold asap before the legislation came in and those that remained had no interest in keeping the properties well maintained which meant that tenants had to put up with living in poor quality housing for years. Some Rent Act tenants still remain and know how to play the system to their advantage - many sub-let (very hard to prove this as they can live elsewhere and as long as they can prove an intention to return at some point they are allowed to leave the property empty or "have a friend to stay").

This is all really interesting, thank you.

I can see how security of tenure is attractive from a tenant's point of view. However, from a landlord's point of view I think it is completely unfair that you can own a house but be unable to get back within a short time if you want/need to sell it.
I think its wrong for bad tenants not to be got out, or break clauses for genuine need. But OTH, no different to other types of fixed term investment, really.


I realise it happens in other parts of Europe but so what? It doesn't mean it should happen here. Like it or not most people aspire to own their own homes here and see renting as a temporary thing. It's been ingrained in the British psyche for a lot longer than the last 10 years.I think under Eurpean systems what we see examples of how it can benefit LLs aswell as tenants. Fewer void periods/advertising costs etc, fewer costs of running: as with the security of tenure of longer tenancies comes a responsibilty to maintain and not call LLs out for ''little things'' or things that might be ultimately tenant caused.

Security of tenure for private renters is a very socialist idea - which is why the Rent Acts were brought in by a labour government and gradually repealed over the course of the next 18 years.

It is not within the bounds of possibility that Brown would revive such a disastrous piece of legislation but I doubt that he will do so in the next 12 months and quite frankly I think it's unlikely that labour will be in power after 2010.

Consequently we can argue the toss about it as much as we like - it's not going to happen in the near future.

I think its unlikely too. However, doesn't stop me thinking a look at it isn't a bad idea.