How low will property go?

cells

Nebulous2 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be like that if you have a transfer of money from prosperous areas to those which are struggling.

That's what needs to happen - some of the wealth from London needs to be used to develop other areas. Otherwise you will end up with everyone except a few pensioners in London.

That is also something which the EU was pretty good at, with the regional development funds helping to halt the decline in the Highlands of Scotland, in Ireland and more recently in parts of Eastern Europe.

I dont agree. there is already a huge tax transfer from London to the rest of the UK. There must be some productivity benefits to living dense in London for residents and businesses else they wouldn't be doing it. If the 'redistribution' goes so far it will mean people will give up the true economic advantage of dense living and working in London for the false tax advantage.

Its not in our economic interest to tax productivity mechanisms to the point that they are not used.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I dont agree. there is already a huge tax transfer from London to the rest of the UK. There must be some productivity benefits to living dense in London for residents and businesses else they wouldn't be doing it. If the 'redistribution' goes so far it will mean people will give up the true economic advantage of dense living and working in London for the false tax advantage.

Its not in our economic interest to tax productivity mechanisms to the point that they are not used.

junk economics and junk science
dense living is prdominately for poor people, hence the poverty strickened third world megacities (you know the ones with sewage running down the roads.)

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

dense living is prdominately for poor people, hence the poverty strickened third world megacities

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

what's the density of housing in your picture?
how many are permanent main homes?

Crashy_Time

cells wrote: »

9 regions in the UK are already cheaper in real terms than they were a decade ago. This is the problem with the crash wishers they completely ignore the fact that housing is regional and in 9 regions of the UK a house with a mortgage is very affordable arguably down right cheap.

In those regions the interest you pay is lower than renting the local council stock. Often much lower. A £125,000 with £25,000 down and 2% interest only costs £170 a month in interest. Theocal council will charge 2.5x that in rent.

But you get HB to pay your rent, as I explained before, and how many people do you think have 25k lying around? Stop posting this idiotic nonsense.

chucknorris

This seems a bit too good to be true to me, I was (am) expecting less, but I've been wrong before:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/28/house-prices-to-rise-40000-in-the-next-five-years-despite-eu-tre/

20.6% in 5 years, that's just over 3.8% per annum, with London predicted to under perform in 2017, but subsequently recover. I had more or less resigned myself to possibly waiting up to 10 years to sell, but if HPI is only half of what this report predicts, I will be selling in just a few years (as originally planned as long ago as the early 90's, when I first invested).

cells

Crashy_Time wrote: »

But you get HB to pay your rent, as I explained before, and how many people do you think have 25k lying around? Stop posting this idiotic nonsense.

I don't think any of my tenants receive any benefits. Nonetheless its a stupid argument, you don't highlight that tesco makes a lot of its sales to unemployed or receiving benefits customers because well its not a subsidy on tesco it is a subsidy for the poor family/person.

What part is nonsense? You just don't like the fact that it's clear that in most the country the interest on the mortgage of a house is cheaper than the local council rents. Because to admit that is to admit there isn't a housing affordability problem in most the country.

Lots of people do have £25k in savings. But you don't even need that much. 5% deposit mortgages are available which on a £100k house is just £5,000. They can then remortgage in two years time on a better LTV
I'm sure you will cry 'who the hell has £5k lying around'.
Also don't forget for most people they buy as a couple and most people have family to support them to some degree.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

what's the density of housing in your picture?
how many are permanent main homes?

Your original assertion that dense living is for poor people hence slums is wrong.

Even in dense slums those are people who have better access and more wealth than the subsistence farmers they came from. In time as the country develops those slum areas tend to become prime real estate especially if the government recognises what was illegal undocumented ownership of the slims and legalises it.


Its no coincidences that London and especially inner London is dense and only richer people can afford to live there.

cells

chucknorris wrote: »

This seems a bit too good to be true to me, I was (am) expecting less, but I've been wrong before:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/28/house-prices-to-rise-40000-in-the-next-five-years-despite-eu-tre/

20.6% in 5 years, that's just over 3.8% per annum, with London predicted to under perform in 2017, but subsequently recover. I had more or less resigned myself to possibly waiting up to 10 years to sell, but if HPI is only half of what this report predicts, I will be selling in just a few years (as originally planned as long ago as the early 90's, when I first invested).

Local markets will react differently. Arguably 75% of the nation is cheap so prices there could rise especially if common sense returns to the mortgage market post brexit (return of self cert for depositors with 20% down and return of IO for those who want it). London may be a different story especially the additional taxes.

The taxes are just too high for my liking. With the taxes transaction costs and initial refurb now in the region of >£50,000 its terribly off putting. If I want more property investments I think REIT in an ISA/Pension paying no taxes and 0.5% stamp duty is going to be better than 40/45% income taxes and >5% transaction.

Normally this would scare me in that if I feel this way lots of other investors will feel this way however I think there is a huge percentage of property investors who don't know better and only see two options a bank account or a BTL and in that respect a BTL will almost always be (or at least appear to be) the better option.

NOVAMET21

After speaking to the expert, they predict that the house prices may fall for a short period of time but then rise again. He said it won't fall by much and below are the reasons he gave me:


1. very limited supply of houses.
2. historically low mortgage rates, making the financing of a house purchase very affordable
3. the cost of renting (rather than buying) is very expensive


So clearly the fact is more demand and less supply in housing. Also, there is no immediate impact on the net migration so there are not less people living in the UK out of a sudden. Some people also said that lot of the properties are invested by foreign investors . As the pound value fell off, it is more cheaper to buy the properties for them. So more demand!


About the Brexit, as we are leaving the EU, the PM and her MPs wants to hold on to single market but the head of EU has told them that it is not possible without the other 2 which are movement of freedom and capital. So, god knows what we are heading on to unless they can achieve good trade deals with the rest of the world which is achievable but will take an enormous amount of time, effort and dedication. That would be an aim for PM and the future PMs (which would be almost like mission impossible) but then again like Tom Cruise, Great Britain can make it possible, I hope!