Housing in London

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 5 << First < 1 2 3 4 5

Stuk Top half 04 Dec 14 12.46pm
Quote OknotOK at 04 Dec 2014 12.37pm Quote Stuk at 04 Dec 2014 12.33pm You're right actually, but that one price does seem the very worst case example. They've presumably done it to stop people keeping prices artificially just under the thresholds. I'm sure there must've been many deals where it was worth more (sold for more) but the "extra" above the threshold was paid in one form or another, off the record. That's why I think it is definitely a good tax change. Those distortions to the market were painful (and by the way the Revenue started cracking down heavily on transactions just below the thresholds where people paid extra for "chattels", "fixtures and fittings" etc. - because people were taking the mick with how much they were paying to avoid the slab rate increases). I completely support the change. I think it will lead to a more "natural" and "free" market for property.* But the examples the HMT gave were disingenuous in that they were designed to maximise the apparent reduction in tax. In fact there are even properties between £1m and £1.125m that will pay less tax under the new system. *Although there is an argument that this might accelerate house price growth, especially in areas of London, which would be a bad thing. Edited by OknotOK (04 Dec 2014 12.38pm) I did notice that blip back under on the chart. It has undoubtedly been done to keep the property market bouyant and to stop the price distortions, as you say. We'll have to see if it accelerates price growth, except where they were undervalued because of the old bands. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 04 Dec 14 12.46pm

Quote OknotOK at 04 Dec 2014 12.37pm

Quote Stuk at 04 Dec 2014 12.33pm
You're right actually, but that one price does seem the very worst case example. They've presumably done it to stop people keeping prices artificially just under the thresholds. I'm sure there must've been many deals where it was worth more (sold for more) but the "extra" above the threshold was paid in one form or another, off the record.

That's why I think it is definitely a good tax change. Those distortions to the market were painful (and by the way the Revenue started cracking down heavily on transactions just below the thresholds where people paid extra for "chattels", "fixtures and fittings" etc. - because people were taking the mick with how much they were paying to avoid the slab rate increases).

I completely support the change. I think it will lead to a more "natural" and "free" market for property.* But the examples the HMT gave were disingenuous in that they were designed to maximise the apparent reduction in tax.

In fact there are even properties between £1m and £1.125m that will pay less tax under the new system.

*Although there is an argument that this might accelerate house price growth, especially in areas of London, which would be a bad thing.

Edited by OknotOK (04 Dec 2014 12.38pm)

I did notice that blip back under on the chart.

It has undoubtedly been done to keep the property market bouyant and to stop the price distortions, as you say. We'll have to see if it accelerates price growth, except where they were undervalued because of the old bands.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

jcreedy 23 Jan 15 5.28pm
Quote Stuk at 03 Dec 2014 3.10pm Quote jcreedy at 25 Nov 2014 4.27pm Quote DanH at 25 Nov 2014 4.21pm My girlfriend and I have a joint income of circa £100k p.a. and currently rent in Brixton. We've pretty much given up on the idea on buying in London. Neither of us have rich parents and we can't save fast enough to get to the kind of deposit required. The London property market is fcked for residential buyers because of foreign investors and the buy-to-let market. And when you do get your deposit together and feel immensely proud at how well you've done, you need to save another 3% of your house price for those c*s at the treasury. A decent change in the stamp duty rates today. 0% on upto £125K still, but the higher bands do not pay on the first £125K either. i.e. A £500K house will cost £6,250 less in stamp duty than it did. That's great, if you agree with the idea of stamp duty in the first place. I don't believe we should be paying a penny. It was my dream to play for Palace and to make my debut. I've always played for the club so if I'm playing here, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.* - John Bostock (Nov 2007)
Alert a moderator to this post

jcreedy

23 Jan 15 5.28pm

Quote Stuk at 03 Dec 2014 3.10pm

Quote jcreedy at 25 Nov 2014 4.27pm

Quote DanH at 25 Nov 2014 4.21pm

My girlfriend and I have a joint income of circa £100k p.a. and currently rent in Brixton.

We've pretty much given up on the idea on buying in London. Neither of us have rich parents and we can't save fast enough to get to the kind of deposit required.

The London property market is f*cked for residential buyers because of foreign investors and the buy-to-let market.

And when you do get your deposit together and feel immensely proud at how well you've done, you need to save another 3% of your house price for those c***s at the treasury.

A decent change in the stamp duty rates today.

0% on upto £125K still, but the higher bands do not pay on the first £125K either.

i.e. A £500K house will cost £6,250 less in stamp duty than it did.

That's great, if you agree with the idea of stamp duty in the first place. I don't believe we should be paying a penny.

It was my dream to play for Palace and to make my debut. I've always played for the club so if I'm playing here, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

- John Bostock (Nov 2007)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 23 Jan 15 8.20pm
Quote Anerley-Fried-Eagle at 03 Dec 2014 11.51am This has been one of the biggest issues in this country for at least 2 generations now and the sh*t is only now hitting the fan amongst those who initially benefited during the property booms from the late 70's onwards. Quite simply we need more council housing. Lots of it, built to the parker Morris specifications with a changes made to where necessary to not repeat the mistakes of the 60 and 70's. As for private rents they should be controlled and the government should introduce rent protection. I've long argued for a tax on anyone who owns a second home. The fact that around 3 quarters of old council housing stock is now in the grubby paws of rent to buy landlords making vast profits is nothing short of a national scandal. Don't hold your breath for any of the political parties to introduce any of those things any decade soon. This may be where one basis for part of the rot set in.Can anyone remember who had recently come into power in 1980? "Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980. However, from the Housing Act 1980, it became the Conservative Party's policy to deregulate the housing market, starting with abolition of all price controls, leaving a basic regulatory framework of freedom of contract. Rent regulations survive among a small number of council houses, and often the rates set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market." Only Wikipedia, I appreciate!
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

23 Jan 15 8.20pm

Quote Anerley-Fried-Eagle at 03 Dec 2014 11.51am

This has been one of the biggest issues in this country for at least 2 generations now and the sh*t is only now hitting the fan amongst those who initially benefited during the property booms from the late 70's onwards.

Quite simply we need more council housing. Lots of it, built to the parker Morris specifications with a changes made to where necessary to not repeat the mistakes of the 60 and 70's.

As for private rents they should be controlled and the government should introduce rent protection. I've long argued for a tax on anyone who owns a second home. The fact that around 3 quarters of old council housing stock is now in the grubby paws of rent to buy landlords making vast profits is nothing short of a national scandal.

Don't hold your breath for any of the political parties to introduce any of those things any decade soon.

This may be where one basis for part of the rot set in.Can anyone remember who had recently come into power in 1980?

"Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980. However, from the Housing Act 1980, it became the Conservative Party's policy to deregulate the housing market, starting with abolition of all price controls, leaving a basic regulatory framework of freedom of contract. Rent regulations survive among a small number of council houses, and often the rates set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market." Only Wikipedia, I appreciate!

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 23 Jan 15 9.22pm
Quote legaleagle at 23 Jan 2015 8.20pm Quote Anerley-Fried-Eagle at 03 Dec 2014 11.51am This has been one of the biggest issues in this country for at least 2 generations now and the sh*t is only now hitting the fan amongst those who initially benefited during the property booms from the late 70's onwards. Quite simply we need more council housing. Lots of it, built to the parker Morris specifications with a changes made to where necessary to not repeat the mistakes of the 60 and 70's. As for private rents they should be controlled and the government should introduce rent protection. I've long argued for a tax on anyone who owns a second home. The fact that around 3 quarters of old council housing stock is now in the grubby paws of rent to buy landlords making vast profits is nothing short of a national scandal. Don't hold your breath for any of the political parties to introduce any of those things any decade soon. This may be where one basis for part of the rot set in.Can anyone remember who had recently come into power in 1980? "Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980. However, from the Housing Act 1980, it became the Conservative Party's policy to deregulate the housing market, starting with abolition of all price controls, leaving a basic regulatory framework of freedom of contract. Rent regulations survive among a small number of council houses, and often the rates set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market." Only Wikipedia, I appreciate! Dig her up and put her on trial. The 1980's Tories: worst thing to have happened to this country in modern times. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 23 Jan 15 9.22pm

Quote legaleagle at 23 Jan 2015 8.20pm

Quote Anerley-Fried-Eagle at 03 Dec 2014 11.51am

Quite simply we need more council housing. Lots of it, built to the parker Morris specifications with a changes made to where necessary to not repeat the mistakes of the 60 and 70's.

Don't hold your breath for any of the political parties to introduce any of those things any decade soon.

This may be where one basis for part of the rot set in.Can anyone remember who had recently come into power in 1980?

Dig her up and put her on trial.

The 1980's Tories: worst thing to have happened to this country in modern times.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 23 Jan 15 10.15pm
Quote Kermit8 at 23 Jan 2015 9.22pm Quote legaleagle at 23 Jan 2015 8.20pm Quote Anerley-Fried-Eagle at 03 Dec 2014 11.51am This has been one of the biggest issues in this country for at least 2 generations now and the sht is only now hitting the fan amongst those who initially benefited during the property booms from the late 70's onwards. Quite simply we need more council housing. Lots of it, built to the parker Morris specifications with a changes made to where necessary to not repeat the mistakes of the 60 and 70's. As for private rents they should be controlled and the government should introduce rent protection. I've long argued for a tax on anyone who owns a second home. The fact that around 3 quarters of old council housing stock is now in the grubby paws of rent to buy landlords making vast profits is nothing short of a national scandal. Don't hold your breath for any of the political parties to introduce any of those things any decade soon. This may be where one basis for part of the rot set in.Can anyone remember who had recently come into power in 1980? "Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980. However, from the Housing Act 1980, it became the Conservative Party's policy to deregulate the housing market, starting with abolition of all price controls, leaving a basic regulatory framework of freedom of contract. Rent regulations survive among a small number of council houses, and often the rates set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market." Only Wikipedia, I appreciate! Dig her up and put her on trial. The 1980's Tories: worst thing to have happened to this country in modern times. Dierdre's only been dead for 4 days you heartless b*****. As an aside from the thread topic... If Barlow dropped the ie from her name... [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 23 Jan 15 10.15pm

Quote Kermit8 at 23 Jan 2015 9.22pm

Quote legaleagle at 23 Jan 2015 8.20pm

Quote Anerley-Fried-Eagle at 03 Dec 2014 11.51am

Quite simply we need more council housing. Lots of it, built to the parker Morris specifications with a changes made to where necessary to not repeat the mistakes of the 60 and 70's.

Don't hold your breath for any of the political parties to introduce any of those things any decade soon.

This may be where one basis for part of the rot set in.Can anyone remember who had recently come into power in 1980?

Dig her up and put her on trial.

The 1980's Tories: worst thing to have happened to this country in modern times.

Dierdre's only been dead for 4 days you heartless b******.

As an aside from the thread topic...
If Barlow dropped the ie from her name...
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 31 Mar 15 12.08pm
[Link] A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 31 Mar 15 12.08pm

[Link]

A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords.

Alert a moderator to this post

TUX redhill 31 Mar 15 7.15pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Mar 2015 12.08pm [Link] A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords. “While renters have borne the brunt of austerity, landlords have enjoyed their own little economy the size of Morocco’s supported by subsidies from the UK taxpayer that could be better used fixing the housing crisis.” I can't remember being asked if I wished to subsidise landlords. Then again, I can't remember being asked to subsidise big business due to zero hour contracts. I'm either missing a trick or my old memory is shot to pieces. That said, i'm always comforted by the fact that 'we're all in this together'. I didn't quite bargain on paying for it all though. Edited by TUX (31 Mar 2015 7.15pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

TUX

redhill 31 Mar 15 7.15pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Mar 2015 12.08pm

[Link]

A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords.

“While renters have borne the brunt of austerity, landlords have enjoyed their own little economy the size of Morocco’s supported by subsidies from the UK taxpayer that could be better used fixing the housing crisis.”

I can't remember being asked if I wished to subsidise landlords.
Then again, I can't remember being asked to subsidise big business due to zero hour contracts.
I'm either missing a trick or my old memory is shot to pieces.
That said, i'm always comforted by the fact that 'we're all in this together'.

I didn't quite bargain on paying for it all though.

Edited by TUX (31 Mar 2015 7.15pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 31 Mar 15 8.17pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Mar 2015 12.08pm [Link] A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords. Yeah should've stopped all the payments, making everyone homeless so they had the cash or space to build the new places. Obviously you can't do that. What you can do is reduce that expenditure with caps on how much can be given to a person to pay the private landlord. God forbid.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

31 Mar 15 8.17pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Mar 2015 12.08pm

[Link]

A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords.

Yeah should've stopped all the payments, making everyone homeless so they had the cash or space to build the new places.

Obviously you can't do that.

What you can do is reduce that expenditure with caps on how much can be given to a person to pay the private landlord. God forbid.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Apr 15 1.02pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Mar 2015 12.08pm [Link] A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords. But Landlords are almost certainly small and independent businessmen, and typically conservative voters... Its one of the bigger problems of democratic systems, that affected both labour and conservatives. If you built significant new properties, the value of housing would fall as would rental incomes (because they're set only against localised competition in a free market). So essentially both governments have chose not to actually address a serious and growing UK problem, but instead to introduce meaningless measures that have no significant impact - because the consequence for either of actually addressing the problem (High Rents and High Housing costs) is that they'd be unelectable. Despite the fact that its a problem that needs addressing in the South East (where affordable housing simply means affordable by those with two high incomes, in s**ty areas). Anywhere decent in Reading will set you back 450k or 1200 per month. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 01 Apr 15 1.02pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Mar 2015 12.08pm

[Link]

A Bloody scandal. Surely the £26.7 billion could have been used by local authorities to build houses for rent rather than lining the profits of private landlords.

But Landlords are almost certainly small and independent businessmen, and typically conservative voters...

Its one of the bigger problems of democratic systems, that affected both labour and conservatives. If you built significant new properties, the value of housing would fall as would rental incomes (because they're set only against localised competition in a free market).

So essentially both governments have chose not to actually address a serious and growing UK problem, but instead to introduce meaningless measures that have no significant impact - because the consequence for either of actually addressing the problem (High Rents and High Housing costs) is that they'd be unelectable.

Despite the fact that its a problem that needs addressing in the South East (where affordable housing simply means affordable by those with two high incomes, in s**ty areas).

Anywhere decent in Reading will set you back 450k or 1200 per month.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 5 << First < 1 2 3 4 5

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Housing in London

Site Map

Sponsors