What's the verdict for home owners after today's budget

lazer

Generali wrote: »

There are people in genuine need who can't gain access to decent accommodation whilst people on six figure sums are living in subsidised housing. It's nuts.

It is not subsidised housing - it is not for profit.

Rents are cheaper than market rent because the the landlord does not make a profit, but doesn't make a loss either, so therefore no subsidy.

Private Rental rents are set by private landlords and the rents are effectively set by supply and demand - the landlord will charge as much rent as he can get away with to make as much profit as he can - so those in social housing will now have to pay extortionate rent just like the private rentals.

£30k a year household income is not that much if there is 2 adults and 2 children for example. Also consider the people who are self employed with variable incomes - could make £31k one year, and £10k the next year, but instead of being able to save the in the good times to cover the bad they will have to pay crazy rents.

IMO Social housing should be about housing families in secure stable homes, I would rather see a hardworking family on £30k (which is probably not enough for them to save a deposit to buy!) in a council house than a workshy family who live of benefits.

Physics

lazer wrote: »

Rents are cheaper than market rent because the the landlord does not make a profit, but doesn't make a loss either, so therefore no subsidy.

Opportunity cost.

Gavin234

Gavin234 wrote: »

Some of the props holding up overvalued property prices are slowly being taken out.

They are praying gravity will not do its thing.

The trend is this way, next cuts will zee ally be felt.

marleyboy

The Budget merely affirmed that I was glad we gave up renting when we bought this house at the end of last Year.

lisyloo

The Budget merely affirmed that I was glad we gave up renting when we bought this house at the end of last Year.

Why?
won't the BTL taxes make BTL less attractive and hence put downward pressure on house prices which are more likely to be related to owner occupier incomes in future?

purch

SailorSam wrote: »

Op when people start threads it's more normal for them to start by saying ...... "This is what i think and this is why i think it"
Not just Yay or Naa.

Not sure you fully understand this forum.

The OP has given lots of different opinions on this thread, it's just that he/she has used different usernames to do so.

Generali

lazer wrote: »

It is not subsidised housing - it is not for profit.

Rents are cheaper than market rent because the the landlord does not make a profit, but doesn't make a loss either, so therefore no subsidy.

Private Rental rents are set by private landlords and the rents are effectively set by supply and demand - the landlord will charge as much rent as he can get away with to make as much profit as he can - so those in social housing will now have to pay extortionate rent just like the private rentals.

£30k a year household income is not that much if there is 2 adults and 2 children for example. Also consider the people who are self employed with variable incomes - could make £31k one year, and £10k the next year, but instead of being able to save the in the good times to cover the bad they will have to pay crazy rents.

IMO Social housing should be about housing families in secure stable homes, I would rather see a hardworking family on £30k (which is probably not enough for them to save a deposit to buy!) in a council house than a workshy family who live of benefits.

Interesting post but it's all supposition.

Do you have any actual numbers to back up your thoughts or is this all just prejudice?

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

Why?
won't the BTL taxes make BTL less attractive and hence put downward pressure on house prices which are more likely to be related to owner occupier incomes in future?

If BTL has become less attractive then maybe they'll all be selling up to eager FTB's at bargain prices but, more likely, the market will decide that as the budget hasn't changed the number of total houses, people or credit the net effect will settle around zero.

If I wanted to be a home-owner I wouldn't take the risk and keep renting. It's an expensive gamble and losing it does terrible things to people.

lisyloo

If BTL has become less attractive then maybe they'll all be selling up to eager FTB's at bargain prices

Are you saying you dont think the changes have made BTL less attractive?

but, more likely, the market will decide that as the budget hasn't changed the number of total houses, people or credit the net effect will settle around zero.

If prices became based on owner occupier earning rather than rental income then that would add downward pressure (note I didn't say nominal falls).

If I wanted to be a home-owner I wouldn't take the risk and keep renting.

Neither would I, but I'm still at a loss as to what in the budget in particular makes buying a good decision (as opposed to the general supply/demand situation you imply).

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

Are you saying you dont think the changes have made BTL less attractive?

If prices became based on owner occupier earning rather than rental income then that would add downward pressure (note I didn't say nominal falls).

Neither would I, but I'm still at a loss as to what in the budget in particular makes buying a good decision (as opposed to the general supply/demand situation you imply).

It looks as if the changes have made BTL less lucrative but I have no idea if it will make BTL significantly less attractive to investors.

This is a deckchair shuffling exercise where the market will decide the new ratio of rented to OO. I'm just happy, as it appears in the first instance, that the taxpayer sub will reduce whilst the market adjusts.

There was some stuff that makes renting appear less attractive but I agree there was nothing in particular in the budget that makes buying a good decision. Buying your own home was the best investment most people could make before the budget and that remains the case.