Anyone else in the same boat as me?

Running_Horse

financegirl wrote: »

Sorry..but you sound like my 80 year old nan..it wasn't like that in my day dear......:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Don't be offended..just a little joke..this thread is getting VERY serious and deviating from the original question!!

Arf. I can take it. But it is a serious point. If buying a house was easy, everyone would do it, and no one would be in a council house. The OP has already said he could reduce his outgoings by sharing or living in a bedsit, but doesn't want to make that sacrifice. That is his choice, and I respect his decision.

Running_Horse

lieutenant_dan wrote: »

And one more question for you running horse, with all the cutbacks, sacrifices and will in the world, if the figures don't stack up, it won't make a lot of difference, could you have made all these sacrifices you spoke of and still afforded your own place in the current market? Honestly? You say you eventually bought a few years ago, well the market was significantly lower back then.

I bought just before the market crashed in the late 80s. And yes, I could afford to buy a 2 bed house in Chatham today. The sacrifices I made then mean I can live in a nice house now. If you are not willing to make those sacrifices, then that is your decision, and I respect that and wish you good luck in life.

lieutenant_dan

Actually buying a house or living in affordable rental accomodation should be easy, it is in practically every other Western nation apart from here. It shouldn't be such an ordeal if you're employed on even an average salary, but it is, so there we go.

And I'm not disregarding your comments, but as I said, I have lived in bedsit land before, and I might have been a bit unlucky, but it was full of grim experiences. So of course I have reservations about going back to that type of lifestyle when I currently have my own space etc.

MrShed

Dan I agree - it is nigh on impossible as a first time buyer these days. It shouldnt be as hard as it is. However, I also agree with RH - it also isnt(and shouldnt) be entirely easy either. To buy a house always required sacrifice, it just maybe needs a bit more now than in the past.

CYBERCIDERSAVER

How better a way to explain the widening gap between the haves and the have nots than looking at the BTLers. They own two three or more houses whilst their tenants pay the mortgages on those properties but end up with nothing. And no it's not always a choice to rent.

I'm 30 and would struggle to afford a mortgage. Yes I probably could squeeze the money tight. But that's a risk I am not prepared to take right now.

With a chronic illness I feel that if redundancies come along I'm gonna be one of the first on the scrap heap. Once there it's gonna be difficult to get back.

But the problem with housing is simple. It shouldn't be allowed to be such a investment goldmine, with tax breaks on mortgages etc.

And before all the BTLers carp on about what a great humanitarian they are providing a roof over tenants heads. Get real, They aren't gonna pull houses down just cos you can't invest. Your in it for the money. Proof???
All the crap Landlords out there

MrShed

CCS - every BTLer is in it for the money, they cannot dispute this. But so? Is this a bad thing from their point of view?

CYBERCIDERSAVER

Not from their point of view no but it shouldn't be that way. Housing is a social need and should be driven that way by the government.

Unfortunately schemes like shared equity is accepting that it's a business and there is nothing you can do about it other than create a lower rung to try to get people "on the ladder" It just feeds the chain. you remove incentives on BTLs and remove shared equity and similar schemes you would see an immediate drop in prices.

MrShed

Housing as a social need is something of a different issue, as this social requirement for housing deals with another realm of society, IE people who would not purchase houses anyway.

I am interested to see what incentives you are talking about with BTL as well. As far as I can see BTL gets taxed left right and centre. The amount of BTL about now is basically due to a combination of persistent economic growth, and therefore high wage inflation, with amenable housing market conditions(ie low interest rates) .

CYBERCIDERSAVER

Okay not being a BTLer myself I have no idea of the taximplications but I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that a mortgage on a BTL can offset tax that would otherwise be paid....


"There is no direct tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages, but you can offset interest payments on your mortgage against tax on rental income, along with other expenses such as agents' fees and maintenance costs."

From:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/help-and-advice/advice-banks/article.html?in_advicepage_id=118&in_article_id=395409&in_page_id=90

MrShed

You dont pay tax on interest on the mortgage. However that wouldnt be paid if the BTL didnt have the mortgage

In addition the BTLer gets taxed on the rent he earns(probably at 40%), and the absolute killer is the 40%(almost - taper relief complicates matters) Capital Gains Tax BTLers are liable for when they sell.