2nd home council tax

Slinky

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

FlorayG said:

I don't think you have much of a case. While your situation is slightly different to those who have a 'holiday home', the council will say you could rent somewhere or have lodgings or stay in an AirBnB or hotel 3 nights a week while a local family could buy your property and live in it.

Agree. Is there any need to own a property where you will only stay for a maximum of 40% of the time?

Wealthy people do this all the time, with multiple properties, 40% of the time is quite a lot.

The OP doesn't appear to be that wealthy as they are considering selling up and leaving their job. Also I said a maximum of 40%, the usage is probably nearer 30%  which means the property is unused for considerably more time than it used. 

 To the people advocating double or more council tax to get more "locals" prioritised this would be win win, an extra house and an extra job for a local? The irony is that it was the "global village" experiment with it`s super low interest rates and super cheap goods from China that allowed loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property in the first place! Previous generations of working people didn`t have that access to credit/equity, but the reversal could be brutal as councils now treat property as a revenue gathering tool?

What are you talking about? "Global Village Experiment?" "Loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property?"


You can rail and rant on about the second home premium until the cows come home but it is what the government wants and will thus stay until Parliament decides otherwise.

Without super cheap mortgage debt a lot of people wouldn`t have second homes, now they are in a position of much more expensive mortgage debt, higher cost of living AND double (or more if some people get their way!) council tax!

Where's your evidence of "super cheap mortgage debt"?

2010 to 2021 is a good place to look.

Glad to see you acknowledge that you should have been paying a mortgage at that time instead of somebody else's. You'd be most of the way there to paying it off by now.

ReadySteadyPop

theartfullodger said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

FlorayG said:

I don't think you have much of a case. While your situation is slightly different to those who have a 'holiday home', the council will say you could rent somewhere or have lodgings or stay in an AirBnB or hotel 3 nights a week while a local family could buy your property and live in it.

Agree. Is there any need to own a property where you will only stay for a maximum of 40% of the time?

Wealthy people do this all the time, with multiple properties, 40% of the time is quite a lot.

The OP doesn't appear to be that wealthy as they are considering selling up and leaving their job. Also I said a maximum of 40%, the usage is probably nearer 30%  which means the property is unused for considerably more time than it used. 

 To the people advocating double or more council tax to get more "locals" prioritised this would be win win, an extra house and an extra job for a local? The irony is that it was the "global village" experiment with it`s super low interest rates and super cheap goods from China that allowed loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property in the first place! Previous generations of working people didn`t have that access to credit/equity, but the reversal could be brutal as councils now treat property as a revenue gathering tool?

What are you talking about? "Global Village Experiment?" "Loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property?"


You can rail and rant on about the second home premium until the cows come home but it is what the government wants and will thus stay until Parliament decides otherwise.

Without super cheap mortgage debt a lot of people wouldn`t have second homes, now they are in a position of much more expensive mortgage debt, higher cost of living AND double (or more if some people get their way!) council tax!

Where's your evidence of "super cheap mortgage debt"?

2010 to 2021 is a good place to look.

That's not evidence of SCMD just a time when interest rates were low, house prices weren't, so mortgages were still costly

Under Thatcher in November 1979 Boe interest rates hit 17%. No offence but young kids today have no idea.

I had a for then large mortgage, two salaries coming in, tough ..

Tomorrow  will be interesting, bond market already twitching.

ReadySteadyPop

Bigphil1474 said:

They are really not long gone. The margins are smaller, but there'll be plenty of people who will keep hold of their holiday homes / second homes, because they can. The double council tax won't mean everyone sells up, some will and some won't. If you are renting a property out for six or seven £hundred a week for 6 months of the year, an extra couple of £k in council tax a year isn't going to stop you making a profit. And many owners will have paid off those mortgages during the very low interest rate years. A mortgage under 5% is still a cheap mortgage.

Who rents a property for six months of the year, do you mean running it as an Airbnb?

newsgroupmonkey_

Bigphil1474 said:

They are really not long gone. The margins are smaller, but there'll be plenty of people who will keep hold of their holiday homes / second homes, because they can. The double council tax won't mean everyone sells up, some will and some won't. If you are renting a property out for six or seven £hundred a week for 6 months of the year, an extra couple of £k in council tax a year isn't going to stop you making a profit. And many owners will have paid off those mortgages during the very low interest rate years. A mortgage under 5% is still a cheap mortgage.

If you're renting it out for 6 months a year, you don't pay council tax.

lincroft1710

theartfullodger said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

FlorayG said:

I don't think you have much of a case. While your situation is slightly different to those who have a 'holiday home', the council will say you could rent somewhere or have lodgings or stay in an AirBnB or hotel 3 nights a week while a local family could buy your property and live in it.

Agree. Is there any need to own a property where you will only stay for a maximum of 40% of the time?

Wealthy people do this all the time, with multiple properties, 40% of the time is quite a lot.

The OP doesn't appear to be that wealthy as they are considering selling up and leaving their job. Also I said a maximum of 40%, the usage is probably nearer 30%  which means the property is unused for considerably more time than it used. 

 To the people advocating double or more council tax to get more "locals" prioritised this would be win win, an extra house and an extra job for a local? The irony is that it was the "global village" experiment with it`s super low interest rates and super cheap goods from China that allowed loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property in the first place! Previous generations of working people didn`t have that access to credit/equity, but the reversal could be brutal as councils now treat property as a revenue gathering tool?

What are you talking about? "Global Village Experiment?" "Loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property?"


You can rail and rant on about the second home premium until the cows come home but it is what the government wants and will thus stay until Parliament decides otherwise.

Without super cheap mortgage debt a lot of people wouldn`t have second homes, now they are in a position of much more expensive mortgage debt, higher cost of living AND double (or more if some people get their way!) council tax!

Where's your evidence of "super cheap mortgage debt"?

2010 to 2021 is a good place to look.

That's not evidence of SCMD just a time when interest rates were low, house prices weren't, so mortgages were still costly

Under Thatcher in November 1979 Boe interest rates hit 17%. No offence but young kids today have no idea.

I had a for then large mortgage, two salaries coming in, tough ..

I remember paying 13% on mortgage interest, but in 1979, because of a transfer to a higher priced property area I was receiving "excess rent allowance" so some of it was paid for me

RAS

15% a decade or so later, thank Lawson. Thankfully it halved by the year end.

lincroft1710

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

FlorayG said:

I don't think you have much of a case. While your situation is slightly different to those who have a 'holiday home', the council will say you could rent somewhere or have lodgings or stay in an AirBnB or hotel 3 nights a week while a local family could buy your property and live in it.

Agree. Is there any need to own a property where you will only stay for a maximum of 40% of the time?

Wealthy people do this all the time, with multiple properties, 40% of the time is quite a lot.

The OP doesn't appear to be that wealthy as they are considering selling up and leaving their job. Also I said a maximum of 40%, the usage is probably nearer 30%  which means the property is unused for considerably more time than it used. 

 To the people advocating double or more council tax to get more "locals" prioritised this would be win win, an extra house and an extra job for a local? The irony is that it was the "global village" experiment with it`s super low interest rates and super cheap goods from China that allowed loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property in the first place! Previous generations of working people didn`t have that access to credit/equity, but the reversal could be brutal as councils now treat property as a revenue gathering tool?

What are you talking about? "Global Village Experiment?" "Loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property?"


You can rail and rant on about the second home premium until the cows come home but it is what the government wants and will thus stay until Parliament decides otherwise.

Without super cheap mortgage debt a lot of people wouldn`t have second homes, now they are in a position of much more expensive mortgage debt, higher cost of living AND double (or more if some people get their way!) council tax!

Where's your evidence of "super cheap mortgage debt"?

2010 to 2021 is a good place to look.

That's not evidence of SCMD just a time when interest rates were low, house prices weren't, so mortgages were still costly

The monthly payments were affordable, that is all many people looked at, the monthly debt maintenance payments are a lot more costly now.

But you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your original statement 

newsgroupmonkey_

lincroft1710 said:

theartfullodger said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

lincroft1710 said:

FlorayG said:

I don't think you have much of a case. While your situation is slightly different to those who have a 'holiday home', the council will say you could rent somewhere or have lodgings or stay in an AirBnB or hotel 3 nights a week while a local family could buy your property and live in it.

Agree. Is there any need to own a property where you will only stay for a maximum of 40% of the time?

Wealthy people do this all the time, with multiple properties, 40% of the time is quite a lot.

The OP doesn't appear to be that wealthy as they are considering selling up and leaving their job. Also I said a maximum of 40%, the usage is probably nearer 30%  which means the property is unused for considerably more time than it used. 

 To the people advocating double or more council tax to get more "locals" prioritised this would be win win, an extra house and an extra job for a local? The irony is that it was the "global village" experiment with it`s super low interest rates and super cheap goods from China that allowed loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property in the first place! Previous generations of working people didn`t have that access to credit/equity, but the reversal could be brutal as councils now treat property as a revenue gathering tool?

What are you talking about? "Global Village Experiment?" "Loads of ordinary people to hoover up extra property?"


You can rail and rant on about the second home premium until the cows come home but it is what the government wants and will thus stay until Parliament decides otherwise.

Without super cheap mortgage debt a lot of people wouldn`t have second homes, now they are in a position of much more expensive mortgage debt, higher cost of living AND double (or more if some people get their way!) council tax!

Where's your evidence of "super cheap mortgage debt"?

2010 to 2021 is a good place to look.

That's not evidence of SCMD just a time when interest rates were low, house prices weren't, so mortgages were still costly

Under Thatcher in November 1979 Boe interest rates hit 17%. No offence but young kids today have no idea.

I had a for then large mortgage, two salaries coming in, tough ..

I remember paying 13% on mortgage interest, but in 1979, because of a transfer to a higher priced property area I was receiving "excess rent allowance" so some of it was paid for me

As a complete aside, and I'm aware as usual Crashy took it off topic into a discussion about house prices (which he's been banned for, but apparently moderators seem to think it's now OK for him to continue doing so).....

There was of course Option Mortgage Scheme and later MIRAS in those days where you could offset your mortgage against tax.

So if we take it at its most basic point......
In 1979, the average man earned just over £100 a week (I'm aware this is sexist, but it was sexist times)
The average house was around £16k.
If interest rates were 17%, then the cost was £220 a month. BUT, you got 35% tax relief against that.
So the real costs were in fact £143 a month. Representing 46% of the "Take home" wage (tax was much higher then)

Today:
Average PERSON earns £710 a week (or £579 after taxes)
Average property is £270k - £1425 a month mortgage against £2509 income.

So in this case, your mortgage represents 57% of the "Take home" wage.

Note: this is worst case scenario too. Within 3 years, rates were down to 10% taking your costs down to 29% of take-home income. If interest rates went down to 1% today, that would still represent 38% of the average take-home income. And as we found out, banks then decided to do interest rates + 1%.

TL:DR? As a percentage of income, people were still better off in 1979 in terms of mortgages.

horsewithnoname

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

As a complete aside, and I'm aware as usual Crashy took it off topic into a discussion about house prices (which he's been banned for, but apparently moderators seem to think it's now OK for him to continue doing so).....

There was of course Option Mortgage Scheme and later MIRAS in those days where you could offset your mortgage against tax.

So if we take it at its most basic point......
In 1979, the average man earned just over £100 a week (I'm aware this is sexist, but it was sexist times)
The average house was around £16k.
If interest rates were 17%, then the cost was £220 a month. BUT, you got 35% tax relief against that.
So the real costs were in fact £143 a month. Representing 46% of the "Take home" wage (tax was much higher then)

Today:
Average PERSON earns £710 a week (or £579 after taxes)
Average property is £270k - £1425 a month mortgage against £2509 income.

So in this case, your mortgage represents 57% of the "Take home" wage.

Note: this is worst case scenario too. Within 3 years, rates were down to 10% taking your costs down to 29% of take-home income. If interest rates went down to 1% today, that would still represent 38% of the average take-home income. And as we found out, banks then decided to do interest rates + 1%.

TL:DR? As a percentage of income, people were still better off in 1979 in terms of mortgages.

This exactly. My young colleagues have mortgages that make me feel ill. £45,000 was the highest mortgage I had, and even at higher rates than now it was nowhere near what I know people pay now. 

artyboy

I can only assume the mods are asleep...