Positive action - what do you/can you do?

lostinrates

cleaver wrote: »

i'm typing all this to myself really aren't i?

Ahh well, keeps me entertained.

Busy day at work tomorrow. Oh yes. Got an evening thing for work too, which is unusual really.

Quiet weekend though. Friend's of the missus are coming up, so might have a spot of lunch somewhere i guess.

Think i'll go to bed soon. In the office tomorrow, so have an early morning for once.

Quite peckish too actually. Might have some toast. Maybe with a cup of tea. Ooooh, that sounds nice.

Ho hum.

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

ukcarper

Am I right in thinking that if a btl lanlord sells his property for more than he paid for it it is liable to capital gains tax which isnt the case for a home owner

fc123

I think anyone who feels strongly about something should campaign in whatever way they feel they can.

I just think that house prices are high due to many more reasons than investors being able to offset tax against mortage interest.


I am having a very 'annoying' hunt on for some commercial property at the mo. Despite The Great Crash of 2008 in comm prop......all the decent stuff in the good places is silly rent and crazy rates....then on top goes a service charge and management fee. They want 3 year leases wth juicy dilapidation charges at the end and will only issue full insuring and repairing leases.

I looked at a Victorian heap down by the river....elecs f**, leaking roof and so on but great space......but I cannot belive how much they want for it so it's no go. It could collapse around my years before the 3 years were up.

Now, I feel that good quality, affordable workspace should be available to all SME's like mine.....but it isn't.

The heaps out there are £400 pwk are unbelievable ...and according to Young Man at the EA, are being snapped up as soon as they hit....whoooosh.

So if I had time, I would start a campaign to sort out the old fogey LL of some comm props so small business get a better start....but in the meantime, I will have to compromise or I will just get stuck.

Looking back to grandparents and parents times is interesting but they grew up in different times. Some things better but other things worse.

michaels

Sorry Carol - I don't agree with you on this one.

The factors that affect the cost of housing (rental and purchase are supply and demand and they are bought in to equilibrium through prices - more people want a house to live in than there are available and the price will go up until some drop out of the market (decide to stay with parents, decide not to move from Poland to UK or whatever).

Increase the taxation on the rental sector or make it more risky by giving tenants more rights and the supply of houses to rent will fall - it is less profitable for landlords and those barely making money will decide not to rent properties any more. Same number of people wanting to rent, fewer properties and rents will rise to bring supply and demand back in to balance. At the same time there may be some impact on the purchase market as some properties that were previously rented are put up for sale so potentially a slight fall in purchase prices although if this is big enough then new btl investors can buy cheaper thus lower interest costs and still be profitable despite the extra tax.

Work it all through and get out the economic text book and as Generali will say the net impact of increasing a tax in to a market and the govt taking a share is that both buyers and sellers will lose out probably about an equal share of what the govt is taking. IE landlords get a bit less, renters pay a bit more and the difference goes to the treasury. Is this really what you wish for? Surely taxing housing is about as regressive as taxing food and fuel?

The answer to housing taking to big a share of income is to build more properties producing an absolute change in supply - tax adjustments will just change relative prices and take money away from all sides.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

PricedOut is the only independent group that campaigns on behalf of priced out first time buyers and owner occupiers. We represent the 1.2 million first time buyers who have been denied their own home because government policy gives billions in tax breaks to property speculators. We actively campaign the Government to increase housing affordability by:

• Increasing taxation on buy-to-let and multiple home ownership;
• Building more homes;
• Improving tenants' rights;
• Improving the sustainability of the housing market, preventing a further boom in house prices.

Can't say I can argue with the four main points. Seem rather sensible to me. I just hope they mean multiple property ownership in terms of holiday homes, and not a bedsit in london for the week job and a family home somewhere else.

JonnyBravo

Cleaver wrote: »

I've thought of a more simple way of putting this. We have a capitalist society where you can, in the simplest terms, make money out of anything. Food, water, shelter, health, basic utlities etc.

Government have a role to ensure that there are laws, policies and procedures in place to make certain that the population gets fair and equitable access (within reason) to basic necessities in life.

Businesses are then free to set up within this framework because, generally in our society, we believe that a free market system is the best way to get efficiency and quality.

The government then sets an identical tax rate for all the businesses at the end of the process.

Thus, charging landlords more tax at the end of the process is not the answer. The answer is to make sure that laws, polices and procedures at the beginning of the process means that there is a market where not every man and his dog can just set up as a landlord and be successful at it without actually being very good at it.

Is that a bit better?

Much better.

carolt

michaels wrote: »

Sorry Carol - I don't agree with you on this one.

The factors that affect the cost of housing (rental and purchase are supply and demand and they are bought in to equilibrium through prices - more people want a house to live in than there are available and the price will go up until some drop out of the market (decide to stay with parents, decide not to move from Poland to UK or whatever).

Increase the taxation on the rental sector or make it more risky by giving tenants more rights and the supply of houses to rent will fall - it is less profitable for landlords and those barely making money will decide not to rent properties any more. Same number of people wanting to rent, fewer properties and rents will rise to bring supply and demand back in to balance. At the same time there may be some impact on the purchase market as some properties that were previously rented are put up for sale so potentially a slight fall in purchase prices although if this is big enough then new btl investors can buy cheaper thus lower interest costs and still be profitable despite the extra tax.

Work it all through and get out the economic text book and as Generali will say the net impact of increasing a tax in to a market and the govt taking a share is that both buyers and sellers will lose out probably about an equal share of what the govt is taking. IE landlords get a bit less, renters pay a bit more and the difference goes to the treasury. Is this really what you wish for? Surely taxing housing is about as regressive as taxing food and fuel?

The answer to housing taking to big a share of income is to build more properties producing an absolute change in supply - tax adjustments will just change relative prices and take money away from all sides.

As we've discussed earlier, I d agree with you on this - the point Cleaver was picking up on was just 1 point out of 4. I don't think anyone, least of all me, is arguing that the only or best solution to high house prices is taxing landlords more. I'd much rather see a return to MIRAS, as mentioned above, and a recognition that everyone who buys a house buys it in one sense as an investment - after all, many of today's landlords are precisely those who benefitted from MIRAS when buying their own homes in the past, and who now are in the position to own several homes.

Reintroducing MIRAS woud create a level laying field without singling out landlords from other businesses.

Most importantly, is to note the fact that n the OP this is only 1 factor mentioned among 4 - don't get too hung up on taxation - clearly increasing supply is absolutely vital.

carolt

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm typing all this to myself really aren't I?

Ahh well, keeps me entertained.

Busy day at work tomorrow. Oh yes. Got an evening thing for work too, which is unusual really.

Quiet weekend though. Friend's of the missus are coming up, so might have a spot of lunch somewhere I guess.

Think I'll go to bed soon. In the office tomorrow, so have an early morning for once.

Quite peckish too actually. Might have some toast. Maybe with a cup of tea. Ooooh, that sounds nice.

Ho hum.

Sorry, I went to bed early last night, so didn't respond then - thanks for taking the time to reply not once but several times...

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

As we've discussed earlier, I d agree with you on this - the point Cleaver was picking up on was just 1 point out of 4. I don't think anyone, least of all me, is arguing that the only or best solution to high house prices is taxing landlords more. I'd much rather see a return to MIRAS, as mentioned above, and a recognition that everyone who buys a house buys it in one sense as an investment - after all, many of today's landlords are precisely those who benefitted from MIRAS when buying their own homes in the past, and who now are in the position to own several homes.

Reintroducing MIRAS woud create a level laying field without singling out landlords from other businesses.

Most importantly, is to note the fact that n the OP this is only 1 factor mentioned among 4 - don't get too hung up on taxation - clearly increasing supply is absolutely vital.

If mortgages are now going to be based on affordability wouldn’t the re introduction of Miras make larger mortgages available, which in turn would push up property prices

JonnyBravo

Agree ukcarper.

It's a knotty problem. Most things which increase affordability of course increase it for all. I'm with cleaver that proper regulation of landlords to make it so that only the organised would undertake it is the best way forward.
The same type of people who can't be bothered to actually campaign to change things are the same type of people who become landlords who realise actually they can't be bothered to get that gas certificate, declare tax etc.

Let's face it we live cushy lives in this country and as such we have a country full of people who can't really be bothered with a lot of "stuff".

ukcarper

Personally I don’t think enough people are concerned enough about house prices rising to get off their bums to make a difference. Also I don’t think that house prices per say are the real problem the real problem is the lack of cheap housing which can only really be provide by housing associations etc. Even if house prices were to drop back 25% there would still be a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to buy.