40% In London

chucknorris

Bantex wrote: »

Think the difference is that large investors are likely to build to rent, whereas small BTL landlords tend to just "outbid" possible buyers. Usually at the FTB end of the market.

But the large organisations would be outbidding other developers for the building plots, those builders would be intending to build to sell, so I don't see the difference. Either way the end price is being bid up.

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

Think the difference is that large investors are likely to build to rent, whereas small BTL landlords tend to just "outbid" possible buyers. Usually at the FTB end of the market.

more money in the market, would in a properly functioning market, create more demand for new housing.

that would be the same if there were one company buying a 100,000 homes or 100,000 buying one.

the issue is why doesn't the demand cause increased house building?

the answer isn't to forbid the buying of only one house, but to allow more new house building by removing the impediments to new house building.

I see no evidence that large companies (banks, insurance, building, pharma etc) are happy with smaller margins than small companies or behave in more ethical ways

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If you legislate such that only companies can rent property out then people will simply set up a company and transfer the property to the company.

Unless you are also going to ban people from owning shares in companies - that would be a rather strange situation which would completely destroy the economy.

The only thing with that is the rules for LTd Companies owning property have just changed with increased stamp duty and taxation rules trying to make it less attractive.

Fella

Abolishing stamp duty on PPRs would be a step in the right direction, that shouldn't annoy too many people. To stop it being too much hassle to regulate you could perhaps impose a limit of one "stamp duty-free" move every 5 years or so.

TickersPlaysPop

Clapton... is no bother matey, it's probably because you hadn't had time to read all of my posts on this thread. They are big posts, so I don't expect people to read everything, so please do not pass any more judgements on me or my posts until you read all of them on this thread. Cheers mate. :-)

The whole idea for discussion is based around dropping the idea of a completely open and free housing market, for one with a different approach that might be suited to more people in our society than it is now and for the future.

This includes stoping non resident investment .... Which is the title topic of this thread.... amongst lots of other ideas.

Cheers

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

more money in the market, would in a properly functioning market, create more demand for new housing.

that would be the same if there were one company buying a 100,000 homes or 100,000 buying one.

the issue is why doesn't the demand cause increased house building?

the answer isn't to forbid the buying of only one house, but to allow more new house building by removing the impediments to new house building.

I see no evidence that large companies (banks, insurance, building, pharma etc) are happy with smaller margins than small companies or behave in more ethical ways

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.

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.... :-)

wotsthat

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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

You could legislate that houses are only sold for £130k.

Housing would still be allocated based on ability to pay - I'm willing to pay £50k for the light bulbs - what are you willing to pay for them?

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

The only thing with that is the rules for LTd Companies owning property have just changed with increased stamp duty and taxation rules trying to make it less attractive.

I don't think the 15% stamp duty applies if the property is rented out.

CLAPTON

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.

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.... :-)

why does HPI benefit banks?

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I don't think the 15% stamp duty applies if the property is rented out.

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