The sign of things to come? Amazing!

HugoSP

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Maybe the answer is to have a CGT amnesty.

Sell your holiday home/investment property/BTL before 2010 and pay zero CGT. All those houses coming to the market would surely see prices fall. The only losers would be those tenants who, for whatever reason, wanted to live in a BTL.

We've all heard horror stories about squatters but, IMHO, squatting in a 'permanently' empty house is probably acceptable.



GG

There is some real merit in that idea. It would have to be managed so prices didn't collapse throwing a high proportion of homeowners into negative equity.

I would agree that if a squatter was occupying a house that was permanently empty whist his or her residence was not a burden on the owner, I would not dissapprove. There are a shocking number of unnocupied properties in the country as a whole that could provide quality accomodation at low cost, reduce the need for new homes on greenfield sites and pump life back into local communities. I would love to see a nationwide initiative that saw compulsary purchases on a large scale of long term unnocupied residential and even commercial properties (that could be converted).

Another idea I have would be to offer homeowners or BTL owners incentives to sell their houses at say 80% of value to housing association in return for significant tax breaks. These houses would then have a price rise ceiling built in so they would always be guaranteed to be affordable.

As for the squatters in Cornwall, I only hope that they choose properties owned by large corporations that cannot be hurt by their actions. If they choose an only holiday property owned by a family then I can't think of a quicker way to ruin innocent people, just like themselve who have often invested simply to give themselves some sort of retirement, as opposed to the subsidence without dignity that the government has in store for them.

Indescriminate actions can only serve to bankrupt people who may have put everything together to buy the holiday home in question simply to avoid the povety trap that is awaiting millions when they retire. A family I used to know owned a tiny cottage in a cornish village. It was the only house they owned. He was a non commisioned rank in the RAF and hence lived on a base. He could not afford to buy a house the size that he needed for his family so he chose the shrewed option of investing in a holiday home. The mortgage was partly funded by lettings and partly by his family scrimping and saving towards the parents retirement and the childrens' inheritence.

I understand that the plan was to sell the HH and buy a place for them to move into after he retired from the RAF. If he had a squatter problem in his house during the summer season then he would have almost certainly become bankrupt, and probably become homeless in the long term.

I do not own a holiday home and do not want to be a part of turning my cornish village into a ghost town over the winter. I would very much support a holiday home tax that could be reinvested into the local area by providing sustainable housing for those that need and deserve it.

Graham_Devon

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Maybe the answer is to have a CGT amnesty.

Sell your holiday home/investment property/BTL before 2010 and pay zero CGT. All those houses coming to the market would surely see prices fall. The only losers would be those tenants who, for whatever reason, wanted to live in a BTL.

We've all heard horror stories about squatters but, IMHO, squatting in a 'permanently' empty house is probably acceptable.



GG

So tell me....

What would all those living in BTL who currently do so for their own reasons, actually do!?

They would have been thrwon out of their rental home, with the only way of getting shelter over their heads, being buying a property. I.e. forced to.

Now, that could have a teeny winsy problem. Where do they get the money from!? They can't just magic money.

I can see theres a hatred against BTL properties, I bet half of you are currently in them. What would you have done without them?

You DO realise of course that it costs thousands of pounds, JUST to buy the property in fee's. Stamp duty, legal fees, etc. You do realise this can equate to 6 months rent.

Hell, you might get 10 months rent if your buying AND selling JUST in the money for the fee's.

So I urge all of you to ask yourself the question. If you got rid of these paracites, who you call BTL, would you be able to, this year, stump up 6 months rent in advance, buy all your own furniture, pay everything for your own home....afterall, you got what you wanted and have been chucked onto the streets.

Why can't you see that BTL is a service. There are hardly any without tennants. It's one f the most succesful business's out there.

If you really want to buy, there are proprties for sale all over the country, ranging from 100k for a 3 bed semi detached in Lincolnshire, 120k for the same thing in wales, and 800k for the same thing in london.

You have your choices. You just don't want to use them, so instead cry and steal someone elses.

harryhound

Ad wrote: »

Astonishing isn't it. Remove all of the empty holiday homes sitting idle and other horded speculative property and we are over supplied.

1 in 12 has a second home ?

Probably in Spain and worth less than they paid for it ?

We are all citizens of the EU now, just pop over there and make an offer ?

Or try Poland, there must be some cheap places over there?

Just had another thought, as the buy to let army are now taking out 1 mortgage for every 2.5 mortgages given to first time buyers and they tend to compete for the same type of property, then the cost of this sort of property must be driven up. Ah the B2L mortgages are paid from before tax income. Perhaps that is why it is cheaper to pay rent than a mortgage on two adjacent terraced properties? What is the difference between renting property and renting money?

One last thought. Do you remember Margaret Thatcher's dream of wealth cascading down the generations? Perhaps that is happening, young people clever enough to choose property owning grandparents are getting a big 'sub' to get them onto the property ladder? That too would drive up prices.

Harry.

Graham_Devon

Errata wrote: »

Article in The Guardian mentions that 1 in 12 Londoners own a second home ! !!!!!! !!!!

Because london wages pay enough for people to live in a small flat in London in the week, but have a proper home at the weekend / holidays / when they retire.

It's not rocket science.

If you think it's easy staying in londonall week to earn good money, leaving your family behind and missing your kids growing up etc etc, JUST to better yourself, your very deluded. And these are the people you have a vengance against, hard working people who have done the best for themselves.

Funny, innit!?

As I said earlier in this post, all this is is pure jealousy.

Poppy9

$$$ wrote: »

Can you point to objective evidence that says most younger people are living like this?

I don't know which youngsters you know - but most of the ones I know are scraping by trying to pay off student loans (no free grant) on crappy jobs because qualifications are being devalued along with everything else (you have to have a Masters - more expense - nowadays to get anywhere).

Meanwhile some of the oldies are retiring early and living it up with new cars, cruises and second/third homes here and overseas paid for with final salary pensions, BTL income, cheap debt and equity.

You can read threads on her - look under DFW! You can see posts where people are dismayed that the bride and groom are asking for money not gifts. You can drive past the student uni car park (which I do daily) and see the students and their cars - not many bangers. Just look around you as you drive and see the cars the youngsters are in. Then there are mobile phones. No on is denying that students don't get any handouts to live on, only loans but how many do you know that are working their way through college? Being a resident in a Uni town most of the pubs, clubs and restaurants were staffed by students but not anymore. They choose to spend their time the other side of the bar!

Yes everyone has a degree today. I interview staff for jobs and they nearly all have a degree, but no work experience whatsoever. They have nothing to talk about at an interview except to say "I've done a degree". The young people who do work with me usually have upgraded their car, mobile and laptop within the first year of working. They buy pokely little starter homes and spend £2k on a TV! One of my nephews who is in his first year of working after uni admits he has more money than he knows what to do with as he's back home living with his parents. He's bought himself everything he can think of that he wants while paying back the minimum required of his student loans.

Times have changed and just like 20 years ago I was so much better off than my parents in terms of material goods so too are this generation. I have 8 nieces and nephews in their twenties and they indulge themselves so much more. I'm not saying it's wrong as we are always told "you're a long time old" but they have been partly to blame for the rise in house prices. A house is only worth what someone will pay, and they are used to getting what they want so they just pay the price. The BTL market has risen for 2 reasons - 1 student lets, given the increase in student numbers and 2 youngsters aspire to having their own home and unable to afford (or save for) what they want they rent it instead. It's a bit like people renting TVs in the 60's. They wanted one but couldn't afford to buy one so the rented.

Ad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So tell me....

What would all those living in BTL who currently do so for their own reasons, actually do!?

They would have been thrwon out of their rental home, with the only way of getting shelter over their heads, being buying a property. I.e. forced to.

Now, that could have a teeny winsy problem. Where do they get the money from!? They can't just magic money.

I can see theres a hatred against BTL properties, I bet half of you are currently in them. What would you have done without them?

You DO realise of course that it costs thousands of pounds, JUST to buy the property in fee's. Stamp duty, legal fees, etc. You do realise this can equate to 6 months rent.

Hell, you might get 10 months rent if your buying AND selling JUST in the money for the fee's.

So I urge all of you to ask yourself the question. If you got rid of these paracites, who you call BTL, would you be able to, this year, stump up 6 months rent in advance, buy all your own furniture, pay everything for your own home....afterall, you got what you wanted and have been chucked onto the streets.

Why can't you see that BTL is a service. There are hardly any without tennants. It's one f the most succesful business's out there.

If you really want to buy, there are proprties for sale all over the country, ranging from 100k for a 3 bed semi detached in Lincolnshire, 120k for the same thing in wales, and 800k for the same thing in london.

You have your choices. You just don't want to use them, so instead cry and steal someone elses.

If all of these so called barons of service to the communities sold up then first time buyers and young families may have an improved chance of buying their own home. I could pick apart the rest of your post but its getting late and I'm off to bed. Goodnight, but tomorrows another day.

HugoSP

I will amend what I have said above with regards to the idea.

BTLs could sell their home for 80% of market value in exchange for a tax break to compesate him, say CGT exemptions for example.

This property is then locked to future price increases capped at the rate of inflation. Hence this house cannot jump in value like others may, but it can fall, or rise by less than the rate of inflation. This condition could be pemanent or fixed for say 15 years.

In addition occupancy would be limited to owners or tenants on low rents, which in turn cannot rise more than the rate of inflation. Again this condition could be permanent or temporary.

This would not preclude BTLs but would in effect ring fence houses, and give the new owners flexability to use the house as they need to at the time, for example, they may need to live overseas for work reasons, or they may spend time working away and need to pay the mortgage.

The initial property investor would be happy as he has moved his propery on for a reasonable amount of money.
The buyer would be happy as they have an affordable home.
HMRC may not actually get the tax anyway, as the BTL invsetor may otherwise keep his property to take advantage of taper relief or reinvest. However many may want to cash in their investments to pay of mortgages etc. However, the social security system will take less of a hammering as a result.

What do you all think?

Graham_Devon

Ad wrote: »

If all of these so called barons of service to the communities sold up then first time buyers and young families may have an improved chance of buying their own home. I could pick apart the rest of your post but its getting late and I'm off to bed. Goodnight, but tomorrows another day.

But how, how would they buy their own home!? If they are not buying their own home now, how will their landlord selling up (which is what you would like) and giving them a deadline to move out, going to help in the slightest!?

Feel free to pick apart my post, but I think that little sentence was your way out!!

Errata

Hugo, that would be one solution. I've got a feeling that central gov is going to vigorously encourage councils and HA's to start building houses/flats again, because it seems to me that part of the present problem is security of tenure.

Pobby

Hang on a minute!So the btls are funding there pension by using their tenants rents.Fair play,so what pensions are their tenants likely to receive?They have no property of their own.They will never get to the day when the mortgage is payed off.

It`s likely that they will stumble into retirement with little other than state funding just to keep paying the private landlords their rent.So if you think that a return to serfdom is OK then fair enough.I despair !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!