Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Spreadsheet Phil's Budget
- Thread starter Garry Nelson's teacher
- Start date
Hampden Park
Ex R.N.
- Oct 7, 2003
- 4,993
Ah, mixey blobs then lol
You
Which will be worth a **** lot less in a few months. Whose stupid idea was that then?
Which will be worth a **** lot less in a few months. Whose stupid idea was that then?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,002
Royal Mint i expect, knock out all sorts of nonsense to sell to coin collectors these days.
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
I assume you mean ”They”.
Yes, I am sure Hammond will have enough surplus to give every school child a “tablet”. I was trying to be practical.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,290
Would Absolutely Love It (said in a Kevin Keegan type voice) if budget measures forced landlords to wholesale ditch theiri 'Property Portfolio' so individual families can afford their own home. Ditch your Property Portfolio and get a proper pension like the rest of us instead of profiteering on the backs of others. Creeps.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
If so, it will come out of the increase already promised and not extra funding
maltaseagull
Well-known member
Vitamin C to reduce NHS workload?
I think one things for certain, whatever Phill does it won’t be good enough for the opposition!
He could give every homeless person a free house and a salary of 30k a year and McDoughnut will say “What about a car”
He could give every homeless person a free house and a salary of 30k a year and McDoughnut will say “What about a car”
darkwolf666
Well-known member
I think that was Zaha, easy mistake to make...
Agreed, go a long way to solving the stock issue especially if you add in second homes.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
I don't understand how forcing landlords to sell helps solve the stock issue? I recognise that there are bad and 'greedy' landlords out there but a healthy rental sector is absolutely required. Not everyone is an position to own the home they live in.
They would go amiss. That's the problem.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,290
Because the housing market would readjust to an affordable level due to the massive increase in the number of homes available for non-portfolio buyers to buy. Simples.
I don't have an issue with buy to let. I have a problem with buy to leave empty as the increase in value over time more than compnsates for loss of rental income and avoids the hassle of letting the place out. I own only 'only' one home I hasten to add, and appreciate that large empty properties is mostly a London and SE thing.
The problem is too many people are paying far more in rent than they would be paying a mortgage. Many landlords build portfolios that aren't all fully occupied. The AirBnB market, as an example, two bed in Greenwich Peninsula (as it's now called) cost £800 for three nights, rent that for say 9 nights £2,400 but empty for the other 21 days or so.
Second homes, sit there for many weeks empty.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
I find the rent v mortgage comparison a tad weak to be honest - There are plenty of costs that a tenant does not incur but I take the point that in some areas rents are too high.
Homes being empty though, that's a disgrace
mikeyjh
Well-known member
That doesn't help solve the stock issue, it simply means more people could buy. In fact, I suspect that if house prices drop then we'd see fewer homes bring built.
All that said, the housing market in this country is soundly screwed - As long as we see our homes as vehicles of wealth creation and therefore obsess about owning them, we'll have a problem.
How can it be justified to stop someone buying something?
How much do you think a £350K semi (typical price round here) needs to drop in price so someone on £20-25K a year (typical round here) can afford to buy? I'll tell you. About £275K. That's about 80%.
Stopping people buying and renting a property for £600-£800 a month (typical here) is not going to trigger the sort of readjustment you imagine.
And ironic you imagine market forces (readjustment) will automatically lead to a favourable outcome following your decidedly, centralist, socialist intervention.
Moreover what about all the multiple ownership now? If folk are forced to sell off their current rental stock they will not do so at knock down prices. Why should they? Unless you force them.
Why not go the whole hog and simply take money from the rich as a sort of readjusting windfall measure
darkwolf666
Well-known member
I am going to make a massive assumption that you live in an area where rents are relatively low. My 3 bed house in Sittingbourne costs me £950 per month. For reasons I don’t wish to go into here I am not able to get a mortgage but know for certain the cost to buy my house would have been considerably less per month.