40% In London

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Ok this is the last time I'll try to point out where you are misunderstanding my proposal for discussion.

I was not suggesting a way to increase house building, I was suggesting how to prevent our market levitating to unprecedented levels as seen in japan. I.e. By trying a housing market that is not free and open as it is now. I also agree house building needs to increase in parallel to help this aim.

You are all mixing two separate things, the solution for increasing house building, and the proposal for moving away from a completely open and free housing market.

Pension funds/ investors will be interested in lower margins in the buy to let market if there was lower risk. All wrapped up in my 5 point plan many posts ago on this thread. And my proposal for pension funds/institutional investment to get involved is only if we restrict UK residents to buy the property they live in.

Seriously.... On the house building issue, it's not mainly planning permission, it's the banks playing us all like puppets. There are builders itching to go back into building at the rate they were before 2008, but they can't borrow money from the banks to build. But it is not in the interests of the banks to slow down HPI. Again, just like to last bank crash, the banks are creating a negative for society because of the capitalist system they operate in, they are purely doing their job and getting good returns for their share holders. This HPI situation is the banks looking after themselves.

Banks don't benefit from HPI. They benefit from lending more money and getting people to repay it on time.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I give up trying to get you all to understand.... Have my posts really been that difficult to grasp?! I urge you all to take the time to read all of my posts.... But who has time for that?.... it's much more fun to sound bite and smart a s s comment at each other.... So please .... Let the fun continue.... :-)

It's not that I don't understand you views I simply think they're dangerous and stupid.

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

You think my proposal would create a host more problems, please can you mention 2 or 3?

1. Reduction in the supply of rented housing by removing a large number of houses from the market.
2. Reduction in the mobility of labour as someone would no longer be able to let their home out for a while and work in another part of the country.
3. Reduction in the quality of rented houses. The AST has increased competition in the market and IMHO increased the standard of rental accommodation. I'd rather rent from the Wilsons than from Rachmann.
4. It would cause havoc in the housing market as you've suddenly made a lot of peoples' plans illegal. There would be a massive fire sale of houses. Millions of people would be bankrupted or thrown into negative equity. It would be chaos.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

I believe non citizens or residents are precluded from buying urban property in Australia in most cases.

Not true. You need permission from the Government but that is almost always given. That is the same whether you are buying an apartment at Circular Quay or Cubbie Station, a 250,000 acre farm.

NB 35% of London houses are bought by 'foreigners'. Only 45% of Londoners described themselves at British in the last census.

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/nov/14/london-property-foreign-investors

TickersPlaysPop

I say banks, but I'll say lenders. Maybe I have this wrong, but lenders make money by borrowing money themselves and lending it out at a higher rate. Some lenders already have the cash, example building societies. So .... As houses increase in value....

1) people buy more and more expensive houses
2) therefore, People borrow more so they need longer term mortgages
3) this means more interest payments going to lenders
3) for the properties that were bought years ago, the money lent out is more secure due to equity build up. So less risk of money not being paid back to the lenders.
4) some people borrow more secured against the higher value of the house to build extensions etc... or go on holiday!

So there are 2 lender benefits to HPI, a larger lending market in terms of amount of money, and more security for the older loans.

Also they can pick and chose when they release money into the lending market whenever it suits them. They can also choose what interest % and what lending criteria and rules on mortgage like LTV etc....

So lenders control the rate of building of houses.... With the added control of the power to choke the existing market buy limiting the amount they lend and the conditions for lending. These both control HPI?

It goes without saying, that there is of course supply and demand dynamics, which is why I think we should consider removing some demand by stopping vocational house profiteering, such as non UK resident purchases, and even as far as limiting 1 dwelling per UK person.

TickersPlaysPop

Generali wrote: »

1. Reduction in the supply of rented housing by removing a large number of houses from the market.
2. Reduction in the mobility of labour as someone would no longer be able to let their home out for a while and work in another part of the country.
3. Reduction in the quality of rented houses. The AST has increased competition in the market and IMHO increased the standard of rental accommodation. I'd rather rent from the Wilsons than from Rachmann.
4. It would cause havoc in the housing market as you've suddenly made a lot of peoples' plans illegal. There would be a massive fire sale of houses. Millions of people would be bankrupted or thrown into negative equity. It would be chaos.

1). I would prefer replacing individual vocational housing profiteering with a more controlled housing association type organisations to run the rental market, channeling the money available from money markets, such as pensions etc. partly as a way of preventing competion between buy to let profiteers and people wanting to buy a home to live in. Thus addressing the supply demand problem. As HPI slows down and houses become more affordable, there will be less demand for rental dwellings.... And more people can buy a home to live in and build wealth over their life time and not see rent payments going out every mth with no return.

2) even the 1 dwelling per person idea would allow owners to rent out their property, because they would still own only 1 dwelling.

3) quality if rented dwellings, is very subjective, and I don't think we could discuss this with any certainty. However, I think a code of conduct and standards are needed now with regulation with teeth!

4) illegal? I have already posted a comment yesterday on this! I said these new laws would be for new house transactions NOT old ones! So people with lots of properties, couldn't buy any more... If they sell some they still can't buy any more. The laws can be phased in over time if needed so it prevents chaos and creation of criminals!

I hope this helps?

AndyGuil

Generali wrote: »

Not true. You need permission from the Government but that is almost always given. That is the same whether you are buying an apartment at Circular Quay or Cubbie Station, a 250,000 acre farm.

NB 35% of London houses are bought by 'foreigners'. Only 45% of Londoners described themselves at British in the last census.

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/nov/14/london-property-foreign-investors

The official statistic is 75% British in London. 45% is just the proportion of white people. UK average is 85% British. Officially it is 75% vs 85%.

AndyGuil

Foreign owned properties in London make up 3% of the total stock.

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

I don't believe that's the case
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ated/basics.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2014-stamp-duty-clampdown-hits-rich-buying-houses-through-companies-9202370.html

Osbourne is quoted here as saying it won't apply to properties that are rented out:
http://m.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/2008123.article?mobilesite=enabled

Here is the relevant act. Paras 5B and 5H appear to me to exempt a property acquired to be rented out from the 15% rate.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/29/schedule/40/paragraph/2

It also appears to exempt property developers from paying the 15% rate.

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Osbourne is quoted here as saying it won't apply to properties that are rented out:
http://m.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/2008123.article?mobilesite=enabled

Here is the relevant act. Paras 5B and 5H appear to me to exempt a property acquired to be rented out from the 15% rate.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/29/schedule/40/paragraph/2

It also appears to exempt property developers from paying the 15% rate.

That's very helpful.
Thank you

chucky

AndyGuil wrote: »

Foreign owned properties in London make up 3% of the total stock.

I would be very surprised that 3% of properties owned by foreign owners would drive up the price of property in London.