roaminblue said:Balti said:roaminblue said:I'm not sure what taxing landlords more would do, though.
It may mean some more properties on the market for sale, but would it be enough to bring down the inflated prices of properties enough so the young could buy?
We do, however, need to increase the supply. Increase supply, the price goes down. We need to incentivise development, wholesale.
the properties that ''Buy To Letters'' buy are the very same properties that First Time Buyers would buy
and they are now even using the government guarantee and prices are on the up (but nowhere else cos there is no money anywhere else).
Anyone who owns more than one property ( i.e. they are only owning the property to earn an income from a tenant or they are so rich they can just deny ownership to someone else cos they can always outbid them) should be TAXED in fucking spades. They distort the market and and stop young kids buying their first place. They need to be viewed as homes again and not just sources of rental income for capital rich bastards.
No, I understand your point, but I'm asking would it have the effect you are suggesting. Housing supply is fairly rigid, development isn't as fast as other countries.
By taxing landlords, you're disincentivising them from buying to let, yes. But would that increase in supply enough to bring down the prices to an affordable level. Wouldnt the young still face a massive challenge to raise a deposit?
It's a genuine question, I don't know what proportion of houses are buy to let, or rented out.
I do know that about 35% of properties in the last year were bought for cash, so there are ways people can buy and let out without a buy to let mortgage.
Balti said:roaminblue said:Balti said:the properties that ''Buy To Letters'' buy are the very same properties that First Time Buyers would buy
and they are now even using the government guarantee and prices are on the up (but nowhere else cos there is no money anywhere else).
Anyone who owns more than one property ( i.e. they are only owning the property to earn an income from a tenant or they are so rich they can just deny ownership to someone else cos they can always outbid them) should be TAXED in fucking spades. They distort the market and and stop young kids buying their first place. They need to be viewed as homes again and not just sources of rental income for capital rich bastards.
No, I understand your point, but I'm asking would it have the effect you are suggesting. Housing supply is fairly rigid, development isn't as fast as other countries.
By taxing landlords, you're disincentivising them from buying to let, yes. But would that increase in supply enough to bring down the prices to an affordable level. Wouldnt the young still face a massive challenge to raise a deposit?
It's a genuine question, I don't know what proportion of houses are buy to let, or rented out.
I do know that about 35% of properties in the last year were bought for cash, so there are ways people can buy and let out without a buy to let mortgage.
I'd just suggest that that 35% were not your average first time buyer coming out of uni now with their £9K p.a. starter debt that the ''Labour'' party gave them
Perhaps 'Buy to Let'ters exploiting the former?
Labour did this, ''Labour'' fpmsl.
Property ownership should be a basic right for all young people.
Instead of which they are just exploited right form the start.
''Labour'' my fucking arse
roaminblue said:Balti said:roaminblue said:No, I understand your point, but I'm asking would it have the effect you are suggesting. Housing supply is fairly rigid, development isn't as fast as other countries.
By taxing landlords, you're disincentivising them from buying to let, yes. But would that increase in supply enough to bring down the prices to an affordable level. Wouldnt the young still face a massive challenge to raise a deposit?
It's a genuine question, I don't know what proportion of houses are buy to let, or rented out.
I do know that about 35% of properties in the last year were bought for cash, so there are ways people can buy and let out without a buy to let mortgage.
I'd just suggest that that 35% were not your average first time buyer coming out of uni now with their £9K p.a. starter debt that the ''Labour'' party gave them
Perhaps 'Buy to Let'ters exploiting the former?
Labour did this, ''Labour'' fpmsl.
Property ownership should be a basic right for all young people.
Instead of which they are just exploited right form the start.
''Labour'' my fucking arse
No, the 35% are definitely not young people. For some reason I thought you were just talking about the buy to let mortgage rather than anyone who rents out.
Personally, I can't see past increasing supply as an option. This could bring down prices on buying and renting.
Trouble is, if the market is as inelastic as I think it is, wed have to increase supply a huge amount.
As I said previously, I'm not convinced that hitting the landlords would necessarily translate to a big enough reduction in price, and young people would still struggle to get on the buying ladder.
That said, he only places seeing much increase in price is surrey and London, where prices are now above crisis levels.
Other areas have seen huge drops in prices. The worry then is if areas such as Yorkshire are still down and people are still struggling to get in the market, how far do prices need to go before they are affordable. This in itself could lead to problems on the otherwise. Would affordable housing bring down prices so much that many of us end up in negative equity? Paying back mortgages for suddenly massively over valued properties?
I dont envy those who have to make those decisions that's for sure.
Balti said:roaminblue said:Balti said:I'd just suggest that that 35% were not your average first time buyer coming out of uni now with their £9K p.a. starter debt that the ''Labour'' party gave them
Perhaps 'Buy to Let'ters exploiting the former?
Labour did this, ''Labour'' fpmsl.
Property ownership should be a basic right for all young people.
Instead of which they are just exploited right form the start.
''Labour'' my fucking arse
No, the 35% are definitely not young people. For some reason I thought you were just talking about the buy to let mortgage rather than anyone who rents out.
Personally, I can't see past increasing supply as an option. This could bring down prices on buying and renting.
Trouble is, if the market is as inelastic as I think it is, wed have to increase supply a huge amount.
As I said previously, I'm not convinced that hitting the landlords would necessarily translate to a big enough reduction in price, and young people would still struggle to get on the buying ladder.
That said, he only places seeing much increase in price is surrey and London, where prices are now above crisis levels.
Other areas have seen huge drops in prices. The worry then is if areas such as Yorkshire are still down and people are still struggling to get in the market, how far do prices need to go before they are affordable. This in itself could lead to problems on the otherwise. Would affordable housing bring down prices so much that many of us end up in negative equity? Paying back mortgages for suddenly massively over valued properties?
I dont envy those who have to make those decisions that's for sure.
the market would set the righr sustainablve level
if it was not distorted by relatively rich speculatively greedy bastard landlords who can afford to pay more with a bigger deposit etc
tax them out as they are unproductive and not needed
just greedy twats
roaminblue said:Balti said:roaminblue said:No, the 35% are definitely not young people. For some reason I thought you were just talking about the buy to let mortgage rather than anyone who rents out.
Personally, I can't see past increasing supply as an option. This could bring down prices on buying and renting.
Trouble is, if the market is as inelastic as I think it is, wed have to increase supply a huge amount.
As I said previously, I'm not convinced that hitting the landlords would necessarily translate to a big enough reduction in price, and young people would still struggle to get on the buying ladder.
That said, he only places seeing much increase in price is surrey and London, where prices are now above crisis levels.
Other areas have seen huge drops in prices. The worry then is if areas such as Yorkshire are still down and people are still struggling to get in the market, how far do prices need to go before they are affordable. This in itself could lead to problems on the otherwise. Would affordable housing bring down prices so much that many of us end up in negative equity? Paying back mortgages for suddenly massively over valued properties?
I dont envy those who have to make those decisions that's for sure.
the market would set the righr sustainablve level
if it was not distorted by relatively rich speculatively greedy bastard landlords who can afford to pay more with a bigger deposit etc
tax them out as they are unproductive and not needed
just greedy twats
But tax is the first example of market distortion, is it not?
Plus, both of us are assuming efficient markets; I'd argue the housing market is anything but.
Anyway, good chat, but I'm too pissed to continue I think :-)
Still waiting for someone to justify this 25 percent subsidy to home owners no takers it would appearRocket-footed kolarov said:Pieblue said:You pair of pricks, climb out of your own arseholes and read my point againJosh Blue said:Get the fuck out
I am arguing for the council tenants not against them, I am from the same background you bell wafts, and neither of you know anything about me
agreed mate. Good points raised, wording and punctuation could have been better(probably explains why they misread you).I would be interested to see some more discussion of the point about 2nd homes, can anyone who has an opinion for the bedroom tax address this issue.
Pieblue said:Still waiting for someone to justify this 25 percent subsidy to home owners no takers it would appear
So why is it ok for you to get a 25 percent discount from the taxpayers for being a single occupant of a private property,but an occupant in social housing would be penalized by 14 percent per room over and above the one bedroom this government has decided is necessary. This is not an attack on you I just want the individuals on here who agree with the bedroom tax to explain why it's ok to subsidize one set of individuals but penalize a different set.I am particularly interested in their justification for the second home subsidy when the said home is unoccupied,unfortunately the silence is deafeningbluefrom78 said:Pieblue said:Still waiting for someone to justify this 25 percent subsidy to home owners no takers it would appear
If it's the 25% reduction in Council Tax you're talking about then that's applied to whoever's paying the Council Tax for the property. I'm currently renting a 1bedroom place and as I'm paying the bills get the discount despite not owning the place. From what I gather the discount is there because they calculate the Council tax based on 2 or more people in a property. (Might be wrong on the reasoning)