Nice People Thread Number 10 -the official residence of Nice People

zagubov

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Yada yada yada daft journalism idea

I do worry that the current standard of journalism concerning science, or more broadly, the world of fact is atrocious. I remember post-9/11 there was an article about a school where radioactive material was discovered and there was a police alert. As I read the article it became clear to me the article should have been called "idots who slept through their secondary education and panicked when discovering that routine standard radioactive sources are found safely stored in all schools and misremembered that this wasn't normal and was perhaps a sign of terrorism". Not a very snappy headline though.

LydiaJ

michaels wrote: »

I am very against the appreciation of land values as a result of rising population going to individuals rather than the country as a whole and often suggest that there should be no tax relief on ppr beyond inflation...

[Dangerously on topic]
I agree with your reason for suggesting that, but I think there are problems with it as a way forward. I assume that when you say "inflation" you mean CPI or RPI or similar - ie not something based on house prices? The reason for tax relief on PPRs is that when you sell a house that is your PPR, you generally need to buy another one to live in, and the price of doing so depends on what HP have been doing rather than other prices. You already have to find the stamp duty from somewhere, but if you also had to pay CGT on the extent to which HP had outstripped other forms of inflation, then it would be very difficult to afford to buy anywhere of a comparable size to the place you're selling.

Anyway, I think the problem with appreciation of land values isn't mainly caused by people buying houses to live in. It all started to go horribly wrong when most people's opportunities to get a decent pension were crushed by the closure of most final salary schemes coupled with increases to taxation of pension schemes, so that now enormous numbers of people feel that the only viable way to provide for their retirement is to own an investment property as well as their home. The fairest way, IMO, to deal with the land price appreciation inequality would be to try to reverse that - somehow make it so that owning a house you do not need to live in is not the most attractive way of providing for your retirement. So I'd like to increase taxation on second properties and remove all taxation on pension schemes. (I say second properties, because I think people who only own one property should get the relief on it whether they live in it or not. This improves fairness for people who live in tied housing with their job, and people who move temporarily for work and rent while letting the only house that they own.)
[Off topic again - phew]

Today I have been trying to sort out my recently acquired laptop. I've had it a couple of weeks, and have been regretting not looking into the question of operating systems and insisting on a Windows 7 model. Today I made ANOTHER attempt to upgrade from Windows 8 to 8.1. It failed AGAIN. I googled the problem and found scary looking instructions that I knew I wasn't competent to follow. So I phoned Dell technical support, and was stunned by the excellence of the service. The bloke was great and sorted everything out for me by remotely taking control of my machine. It took ages and ages, but I am so glad it's all been sorted. It was free too - I called an 0800 number, and then when it got to a bit where you just had to wait for it to do its own thing for half an hour or so, we rang off and he rang me back when it was time for him to tell me what the next step was.

zagubov

LydiaJ wrote: »

[Dangerously on topic]
I agree with your reason for suggesting that, but I think there are problems with it as a way forward. I assume that when you say "inflation" you mean CPI or RPI or similar - ie not something based on house prices? The reason for tax relief on PPRs is that when you sell a house that is your PPR, you generally need to buy another one to live in, and the price of doing so depends on what HP have been doing rather than other prices. You already have to find the stamp duty from somewhere, but if you also had to pay CGT on the extent to which HP had outstripped other forms of inflation, then it would be very difficult to afford to buy anywhere of a comparable size to the place you're selling.

Anyway, I think the problem with appreciation of land values isn't mainly caused by people buying houses to live in. It all started to go horribly wrong when most people's opportunities to get a decent pension were crushed by the closure of most final salary schemes coupled with increases to taxation of pension schemes, so that now enormous numbers of people feel that the only viable way to provide for their retirement is to own an investment property as well as their home. The fairest way, IMO, to deal with the land price appreciation inequality would be to try to reverse that - somehow make it so that owning a house you do not need to live in is not the most attractive way of providing for your retirement. So I'd like to increase taxation on second properties and remove all taxation on pension schemes. (I say second properties, because I think people who only own one property should get the relief on it whether they live in it or not. This improves fairness for people who live in tied housing with their job, and people who move temporarily for work and rent while letting the only house that they own.)
[Off topic again - phew]

Well said. Housing being used as a pension substitute doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Why do we have it here?

michaels

LydiaJ wrote: »

[Dangerously on topic]
I agree with your reason for suggesting that, but I think there are problems with it as a way forward. I assume that when you say "inflation" you mean CPI or RPI or similar - ie not something based on house prices? The reason for tax relief on PPRs is that when you sell a house that is your PPR, you generally need to buy another one to live in, and the price of doing so depends on what HP have been doing rather than other prices. You already have to find the stamp duty from somewhere, but if you also had to pay CGT on the extent to which HP had outstripped other forms of inflation, then it would be very difficult to afford to buy anywhere of a comparable size to the place you're selling.

That is OK, it would only be payable when you pull equity out of property for example on death or downsizing so it doesn't stop you from moving.

I don't think providing rental property should be taxed any differently from any other business as economics just says that that will reduce supply and push up prices but I think it would be useful to have something that incentivises landlords to offer longer tenancies as currently lending rules prevent this.

I did have this good theory as to how such high house prices could be supported. Houses being bought will generally have more people per room than average (because they are expensive they will be bought to rent out in which case all bedrooms are generally occupied or by FTBs who can no longer afford spare rooms) and thus more people per house means more incomes covering the financing cost. Therefore average sale prices can be at a level above what the average person can afford....

I hope the laptop is fully sorted. I am no fan of windows 365, I prefer buying things to renting them....

LydiaJ

Oh, and talking of CGT and PPR, I have a question for any NP who know about these things:

My dad has owned his house since 1959, so the capital gain on it is colossal. (Actually, perhaps he has only owned half of it since 1959, and the other half since 2011 when my mum died, but anyway...)

He is contemplating moving into sheltered accommodation. The place where he would like to go allows old people from its waiting list to lease a flat and move into it while they get their own house ready for sale and find a buyer for it. When it sells, they can then buy the flat they are already leasing, which seems an excellent way for a sheltered housing scheme to enable people to buy flats as and when they are available without worrying about the timing of their own house sale.

So far so good. But supposing my dad (who is 87 and has a tendency to make big decisions very slowly) starts leasing a flat and moves into it, then what? He'll have to make up his mind which of his furniture he wants to take with him and what to do with the stuff he hasn't got space for, and then we kids (none of whom is at all local to his house) will need to sort everything out and get the house ready for sale, and then to find a buyer and for the chain to complete. I can easily see that process taking months, or possibly more than a year, from when he moves out to when the house sells.

So, my question is - how long would the house be able to stand unoccupied under those circumstances before he would have to pay CGT on the gain? Because we haven't quite got to that point yet, but we may well get there this year some time, and I'd like to start getting my head round it.

Thanks.

[Oh dear. Too many serious posts. Sorry. Quick - must post something about mushrooms. I cooked with mushrooms yesterday for the first time in ages. I was doing a meal to deliver to someone at church who's having a very tough time ATM so is being given a few weeks of suppers by the church people to help her through it. Those of us who offered to help were told that she's a veggie, and likes mushrooms, so I did something for her with mushrooms in, despite not usually using them. ]

neverdespairgirl

I do know the gain would be from when it stopped being his main residence, not since 1959. So you don't need to worry about it being absolutely massive.

LydiaJ

michaels wrote: »

That is OK, it would only be payable when you pull equity out of property for example on death or downsizing so it doesn't stop you from moving.

Ah, that makes more sense than how I first read your post. Thanks.

michaels wrote: »

I hope the laptop is fully sorted. I am no fan of windows 365, I prefer buying things to renting them....

It seems fine ATM as far as I can tell so far. And 8.1 does seem to have some of the major irritations of 8 corrected. I've also found websites telling me how to restore some of the functionality that no longer defaults to being easy to access - like being able to hibernate the thing as well as sleep it or shut it down, for example.

In general I prefer buying too But buying 3 copies of Office that will be obsolete within a few years is so expensive, so it seems as though getting 365 (which gives you licences for 5 machines plus some number of phones that I can't immediately recall) will be the cheaper option. How many copies of Office do you have in your house? I know all your kids have tablets, don't they? But I suspect they aren't old enough yet to need Office for homework? What do you think you will do when they get to that stage?

LydiaJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I do know the gain would be from when it stopped being his main residence, not since 1959. So you don't need to worry about it being absolutely massive.

Oh, OK then. That won't be a problem. Thanks. I think I remember finding out some time ago that there wouldn't be much of a problem caused by the fact that they let it for a year in 1975-6 either.

vivatifosi wrote: »

My main issue is I'm in bed at mo... hence posting lots, it's that and watching winter Olympics. I have to go back to work soon. Driving me nuts.

Hope you are feeling better every day than the day before.

zagubov

LydiaJ wrote: »

Ah, that makes more sense than how I first read your post. Thanks.



It seems fine ATM as far as I can tell so far. And 8.1 does seem to have some of the major irritations of 8 corrected. I've also found websites telling me how to restore some of the functionality that no longer defaults to being easy to access - like being able to hibernate the thing as well as sleep it or shut it down, for example.

In general I prefer buying too But buying 3 copies of Office that will be obsolete within a few years is so expensive, so it seems as though getting 365 (which gives you licences for 5 machines plus some number of phones that I can't immediately recall) will be the cheaper option. How many copies of Office do you have in your house? I know all your kids have tablets, don't they? But I suspect they aren't old enough yet to need Office for homework? What do you think you will do when they get to that stage?

I'm not fully au fait with the Windows world to known if you're talking about renting or buying software or hardware. but it beats me why there isn't a system for renting computers cheaply so upgrading is less wasteful.

With macs they keep their function for longer so they're over-represented in the computer world because they're used for years longer than PCs.

I'm unclear why modern machines and even more so, modern software) are regarded as better than older ones. I doubt I've seen a better Word than 5.1.

The ancient Nisus word processor has 10 clipboards and a "fuzzy-find" search function and fits on half a megabyte floppy.

I really do wonder what's so great about the new stuff. (Obviously I don't play computer games ).

chewmylegoff

LydiaJ wrote: »

Oh, and talking of CGT and PPR, I have a question for any NP who know about these things:

My dad has owned his house since 1959, so the capital gain on it is colossal. (Actually, perhaps he has only owned half of it since 1959, and the other half since 2011 when my mum died, but anyway...)

He is contemplating moving into sheltered accommodation. The place where he would like to go allows old people from its waiting list to lease a flat and move into it while they get their own house ready for sale and find a buyer for it. When it sells, they can then buy the flat they are already leasing, which seems an excellent way for a sheltered housing scheme to enable people to buy flats as and when they are available without worrying about the timing of their own house sale.

So far so good. But supposing my dad (who is 87 and has a tendency to make big decisions very slowly) starts leasing a flat and moves into it, then what? He'll have to make up his mind which of his furniture he wants to take with him and what to do with the stuff he hasn't got space for, and then we kids (none of whom is at all local to his house) will need to sort everything out and get the house ready for sale, and then to find a buyer and for the chain to complete. I can easily see that process taking months, or possibly more than a year, from when he moves out to when the house sells.

So, my question is - how long would the house be able to stand unoccupied under those circumstances before he would have to pay CGT on the gain? Because we haven't quite got to that point yet, but we may well get there this year some time, and I'd like to start getting my head round it.

Thanks.

[Oh dear. Too many serious posts. Sorry. Quick - must post something about mushrooms. I cooked with mushrooms yesterday for the first time in ages. I was doing a meal to deliver to someone at church who's having a very tough time ATM so is being given a few weeks of suppers by the church people to help her through it. Those of us who offered to help were told that she's a veggie, and likes mushrooms, so I did something for her with mushrooms in, despite not usually using them. ]

As long as your dad only owns one property he will have three years to sell it before any taxable gain starts to accrue.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/property/sell-own-home.htm#2