Did you not mean 'nothing to help those who can't be arsed to aspire to owning their own home?', as 98 % of home buyers will be better off?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Gorgeous George's Autumn Statement
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,594
I think he probably meant more "nothing to help those who haven't got a hope in hell of ever getting on to the housing ladder because they are the victims of circumstances way beyond their control." There are plenty of very capable people in very responsible jobs - nurses, firemen, police - who will never be able to consider purchasing their own property because of house prices, their own family background or whatever.
But I think he more likely meant the vast numbers of people - helpless and vulnerable people like pensioners and people with mental health problems who are being deprived of the care they desperately need because of government cuts. I am a trustee of the major provider of benefits and employment advice in Southampton, where all the staff have undergone suicide awareness training. Some of the stories one hears of people who have been to tribunals because they have lost their invalidity benefit or whatever are just laughable - like the case of the man with serious emphesema and breathing problems who had the case against him overturned by the chairman of the tribunal before he had even recovered his breath from wheeling his wheelchair in to the court. The same man has since been back to the tribunal twice more because the DWP has tried to remove his support through other means..... and thankfully they have failed on each occasion.
And my own personal attitude to hearing of such a case is very much "there but for the Grace of God go I!" A society which is unwilling or unable to support its most vulnerable members quite frankly disgusts me.
No doubt people will come up with the examples of people who are pictured playing golf and so on when they are supposed to be bedridden. Those who play/abuse the system in that way disgust me as well.
Chicken Runner61
We stand where we want!
- May 20, 2007
- 4,609
Unless you are well off at this present moment I don't think Osbourne's statement, the last 4 years and next few years if the Tories remain in power is going to do anything for your children and grandchildren.
A life of mundane work, forever paying rent and tied to the government tax yoke awaits them. Freedom liberty and democracy a plenty, Choice, availability and time to enjoy available to the rich
A life of mundane work, forever paying rent and tied to the government tax yoke awaits them. Freedom liberty and democracy a plenty, Choice, availability and time to enjoy available to the rich
Mr Bridger
Sound of the suburbs
According to some of you lefties on here that's that's the best way to do things rather than have an 'obsession' of owning you own home. Come on all have a word with each other and decide what's the best way forward
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
For those buying a £1.9m property the tax before today would have been £95,000...From today it is an eye watering jump to £141,750
At £2.1m the move is 'only' from £147,500 to £165,750
The 'Mansion Tax' is now simple, clear & payable on purchase in one hit and includes only those that choose to buy at those levels (and excluding the need for valuations, annual checks, re calculations & dispute resolving and dragging in grannies who want to die in their home)
At £2.1m the move is 'only' from £147,500 to £165,750
The 'Mansion Tax' is now simple, clear & payable on purchase in one hit and includes only those that choose to buy at those levels (and excluding the need for valuations, annual checks, re calculations & dispute resolving and dragging in grannies who want to die in their home)
surely rather than securing anyone's future it's funking up the future for future generations. We've just been fortunate enough to buy an (admittedly lovely) house in Newhaven. But even here people will soon be out priced.
Mr Bridger
Sound of the suburbs
So what will happen to your house when you croak, I take it your not passing in on to your kids/ grand kids?
My opinion is that the private buy to let market has royally f*cked the housing market for everybody else. Certainly, if I had the money, I'd buy a flat or two, because it's a no brainer - as a long term investment, you can't really lose. Even in times where you can't find a tenant, the worst scenario is that you're servicing a loan on a property that will only increase in value in the long term. However, what that has done is push prices up at the lowest end of the housing market (1 and 2 bed flats) to the extent that prices are too high for most people a few years into their careers and looking for a place of their own.
But this is a problem that could be eliminated at a stroke - absolutely clobber people with stamp duty and captial gains unless this is going to be their place of residence. As a nation, we should be encouraging investment in companies that actually make things, not in pricing young people out of the housing market.
But none of this should have any bearing on these changes to stamp duty legislation, which was previously absolutely appalling. And what is depressing is how many government and how many years in government it takes for someone to implement the bleedin' obvious. This is a fairly "every day" policy that affects people's lives. It is shocking that Labour saw fit to implement it so badly, and pretty poor that the coalition have taken 4.5 years to bother addressing it.
Last edited:
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
With respect, I found your first statement rather odd. He is making it easier, or rather cheaper, for people to buy a house, and what would the majority do with that house when the big day comes - pass it on to their children etc.
I think your second para is generalising and simplistic, to put it mildly. There will always be people doing "mundane work" as you put it - who else will do these necessary tasks? Is it necessarily wrong that some or even perhaps many will do such work? And who are the rich - the usual word "rich" is trotted out - if those poor souls toiling are paying rent, then by your logic, the roughly 70% of the population who own their home are the rich.
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Helping their buy to let landlord mates out again nothing to see here. Bedroom tax anyone?
BTL may have helped fuel a price increase but it is anything but the only or main cause. Property inflation was going on well before BTL became popular ( partly because of a certain Jock raiding pension pots ). Despite the stories that landlords are making filthy profits, BTL, as a income earner, isn't very profitable. Once you take into account mortgage interest, maintenance and insurance, there is little left. Unless you have a portfolio of dozens of properties there is no chance of living off the income.
The market inflation is primarily driven by the greed of home owners wanting a large 'profit' on their current property so they can upgrade to something well beyond their means if there wasn't such rampant property inflation.
As for stamp duty and CGT - BTL investors already pay this as well as income tax. Maybe CGT should be introduced on primary residences - that would kill off ridiculous hikes in prices.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
There's a million buy-to-let landlords out there including the likes of Emily Thornberry's millionaire husband. George and CMD are mates with all of them? That's pretty good going considering how unpopular they are (according to you and your chums on the left).
This wins my award for post of the year. Thanks Simster.
You say it's not very profitable, I'd say it was *very* profitable as long as you can get a tenant in. Especially since the risk is so low. You're almost guaranteed to make a killing on capital gains. But you talking about not being able to live off BTL income as if that's somehow relevant? Try spending £200k on shares instead of a flat (including a loan of say, £160k) and you couldn't live of that either. What's your point?
My point is that BTL needs to be discouraged as a means of investment because it creates problems at the low end, and isn't benefiting the economy in any way.
That remains to be seen, and in many cases the opposite is true. There will be a ton of properties that the vendors felt were worth between £250k and £265k, where they felt forced to market them at £249,999, and which they've already told the agents to re-list at the 'correct' price.
- Thread starter
- #156
Maybe, but all signs point to the property market rapidly cooling over the last 6 months or so. Stuff isn't selling, and prices are being reduced. Sellers are having to be a bit more realistic on the valuations they believe they are selling at because, simply, they're not selling.
Through nothing but luck alone, it seems to be a pretty decent time for this change to come in and I don't think the jump in valuations around the prior band cut-offs is going to be too pronounced.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,894
Just hear the Tories favourite tagline mentioned again on 5Live " George Osborne has made it easier for people who want to work hard to get on...." Fortunately the caller was immediately upbraided by someone in the studio who reminded them that most people are already working hard to stand still ! and that most nurses and teachers are being denied a 1% wage rise and often less in the private sector yet MP's vote themselves an 11% pay rise on their earnings of £67,000 a year !
I think we can all see who is " Getting On " , it's not the man in the street on stagnant wages with spiralling costs who is now shopping at Lidl and Aldi in order to stay afloat.
I think we can all see who is " Getting On " , it's not the man in the street on stagnant wages with spiralling costs who is now shopping at Lidl and Aldi in order to stay afloat.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Yes, fair point and this could also happen albeit only where the house is of that supposed value. The argument is presumably only valid at the £250.000 area -is this right?
Good.
The agents they interviewed on our local news last night reported that they were taking calls from vendors asking them to do this. That doesn't mean they'll be succesful in selling at the new price anyway - maybe the artificial ceiling that the previous cut-off imposed, will effectively remain in place anyway (simply because people locally are used to that type of property 'only' fetching that figure, so not being prepared to pay more).
Very true.
But nevertheless, they are fairer. If someone has a property worth £255k on the open market, why should they have that value artificially reduced? I'd go further - these changes in stamp duty will expose far more significant issues. [MENTION=3779]seagullsovergrimsby[/MENTION] is right when he says that paying less in stamp duty will only mean those affected house prices will rise, for example.
Ultimately though, the real issues are at a macro level - aside from discouraging BTL (which needs to happen IMO), none of our governments have done enough to encourage industry away from London. We need to be creating jobs in areas where the housing stock is sitting idle. We can't just keep building in SE England.