100% inheritance tax. You want your parents house? buy it on the open market.
It would solve the housing crisis in about well, instantly. But no one would vote for it.
It wouldn't solve the housing crisis, but it would help. As would taxing/limiting holiday homes, whether airbnb or sole use and mostly empty (the latter is the worst).
The concentration of housing stock in a few hands is part of the problem, the lack of building is the other part.
It's so dysfunctional that we (for some definition of we) collectively consider increased house pricing as a good thing. Everything else, we want it to get cheaper, at least relative to salaries.
I genuinely don’t understand the drive to own a house.
My Mortgage: £600
income if i rent flat out: £1100
That will be taxed and not the reason i bought it but it made good financial sense to buy it as really wouldn’t want to be paying to rent a place just like it.
the answer is more good quality social housing.
X% tax on BTL
X% tax on Air BnB
X% tax on non Dom / overseas buyers
Also, x% tax on 2nd home owners and cancel right to buy policy. Councils that do build rental properties are constantly fighting an uphill battle as the properties they do build get sold off under right to buy & they have to then go through all the work of getting a new development built, which after a few years then gets bought through right to buy...
I genuinely don’t understand the drive to own a house. Surely good quality social housing is a more sustainable and lower stress model
Either you're confusing *what you'd like to happen* with the reality, (that we don't have enough social housing), or you're being disingenuous.
Here in Bristol, tens of thousands of people are on the waiting list, and wait times for all but the most direly urgent cases are many years. Private rentals are ludicrously expensive.
Yes we need to improve our social housing but to say you don't understand why people in the UK want to own a house is just silly.
Here in Bristol, tens of thousands of people are on the waiting list, and wait times for all but the most direly urgent cases are many years. Private rentals are ludicrously expensive.
Yes we need to improve our social housing but to say you don’t understand why people in the UK want to own a house is just silly.
Yeah, lived around Bristol for a while, rented for a while as we moved from another area and it was creeping up way too much, probably a good 30% over the last 3 years, which is just unsustainable.
As for the original question, i've seen them talk about 50 year mortgages, not really 100 years, this sounds more reasonable (for an unreasonable market!), as for why buy, because i can't see myself in retirement being able to pay the level of rent we're seeing these days, around here a similar house to rent is £1250, and this isn't an expensive area or big house, that's £15000 a year after tax just on rent!
My Mortgage: £600
income if i rent flat out: £1100
I just looked and got something very similar, certainly couldn't afford my current home.
just like to add thats rent not income once mortgage paid.
though looking at sold prices from 15-20 years ago round here you really would be rolling in it if you were a professional landlord who started buying back then, but thats due to ‘up and coming’ price rises that have levelled off now and i see them being single digit/flat for a while.
i probably couldn’t afford to buy this flat now on my own though it would still be affordable for a working couple to buy or rent (in London).
According to an article in the Big Issue from Governt Council tax statistics there are 288,000 houses in the UK which have been empty for six months or more (Oct 2021)
.
But as I said above the cheap houses are not where people want to live (or feel they have to live to be able to work) the problem is spreading jobs around the country better.
Another factor at play here is pension freedoms and the derisory returns you get from traditional ‘safe’ savings like NS&I or annuities and if you’re not prepared to take the risk on other investments - BTL is as solid as it gets. The flip side is that commercial property is likely to face an ‘adjustment’ at some stage with lower demand for city centre office and retail spaces but the Government doesn’t want to face the consequence of a big write-down on an economy dependant on property price stability or growth. The irony is that as we are likely heading for a recession, then a huge stimulus in social housing building could help employ many people, but the Tories passion for “small government” means it’s unlikely to happen. We have a chronic shortage of housing on the Islands - but the increase of material prices post covid and skilled labour shortages means there’s virtually no building as the cost to build exceeds market value.
Build more homes. We need a decade or 3 of building many more homes to fix the lack of supply
From the previous page:
"I’m not sure how to readjust the market but 10 times average salary to buy a house is not sustainable."
Back in 1987 I bought my first flat - a nice little 2 bedroom 1st floor place above a shop - for 27K. I sold it 18 months later for 45K. Its supposed value had grown by a grand a month. I bought as a first time buyer on 3x my salary and 1x partners salary. The lady that bought from us was downsizing so she could just about afford the 45K while we moved into a house that cost us 56K.
I said at the time that house prices couldn't possibly continue to rise like this simply because if first time buyers on average national wage at 3x1 plus 1x1 couldn't obtain mortgages to buy at the bottom of the ladder then the whole ladder was compromised.
Look where we are now . . .
According to an article in the Big Issue from Governt Council tax statistics there are 288,000 houses in the UK which have been empty for six months or more (Oct 2021)
that’s a small number and a lot of those will be empty and waiting to be sold, just like the flat my partner is buying for us to both live in, owners have relocated to Scotland and the buying/selling process is now over six months.
the bigger issue is probably ‘executive developments’ owned by overseas investors or those wealthy foreign nationals with family at universities
Btl and Airbnb is mostly noise around the edges of house prices, and for btl the taxes and laws are being cranked up year on year.
Imo the best way to subdue the market would be capital gains tax on your primary residence. Say 40%. Reducing the amount that housing equity inflation affects the market will subdue things nicely
Inheritance tax - loads of ways round it if you have the money to pay an ifa.
Rents have gone up c20% this year, in sw London, partly due to increased costs, elec safety, higher borrowing costs, energy performance certs, more regs on the way too.
No idea what the solution is, I would sell mine to my long term tenants if I was offered a cgt amnesty. The liability dies with me so i may as well just let the investments run.
See, I look at renting a (social, I’m on about social housing not privately rented) house much like car leases
Similar in some ways. You pay lots of money and end up with nothing at the end of the term.
I genuinely don’t understand the drive to own a house
How can you not? When you rent, your money goes into someone else's pocket. When you buy, it ends up in yours. How can this not be desirable?
Lunacy pure and simple !!
Hmm rents dead money whereas buying a house gives you equity.
I moved to my current house owing £5k on the previous one due to the current party of government's mishandling of the economy in the 80's (others owed even more). At least a social housing rent won't see the renter personally lose money.
Just a thought.
Isn't the problem not too few houses but too many people? Too many people also creates most of our problems. Might I suggest pollution, shortages etc.
You might realise that socialism isn't my thing but even I would completely remove any right to buy etc. If it is owned by the government/nation/callit what you will it should stay owned by the government.
However any attempt to remove peoples rights to do what they like with their money is doomed to failiure and so it should be. It isn't natural.
However in an attempt to take a more socialist view maybe:
Much of the problem is what is built and where. The should be no excuse ever to build on any agricutural or green site. Ever. That would, as well as proecting our rural and agricultural areas keep the prices down. Force developers to use brown field sites or not at all. Stop planning permission for executive properties. A family of two adults needs at the most 3 bedrooms (for kids getting into their teens) and a single bathroom. Force the end of extensions to create oversize homes. Many a perfectly acceptable rural family dwelling has had a whopping extension added to create a second bathroom, a spare bedroom and a huge kitchen. Stop that, force development to keep things sensible and the situtaion could improve.
My only experience of European housing is when I lived in Switzerland. In the 5 years I was there my rent didn't increase but my salary did. Basically if you were able to stay in the same place for say 20 years you'd pay the same rent. You'd offset it on the piller scheme. There is a lot of housing in Switzerland so you can choose. And the quality is exceptional.
Back now in the UK and bought a house at maybe the top of the of the market. So I'm lucky that I can overpay.
This country needs to build a lot more houses
Unless you are suggesting some form of "ethnic cleansing" whoch i doubt, we just need to build more houses..
I think he's just pointing out the obvious, that the world in general and the UK in particular, are grossly overpopulated.
The UK housing crisis is just one symptom of this (and a very minor one compared to, say, climate change)
Genocide would be one answer and would undoubtedly get quick results but is unlikely to be very popular, a much reduced birth rate would take longer but is likely have more support. We are starting to see it in some of the developed world, Japan and Italy on particular, but it needs to be more drastic to have a significant impact.
100% inheritance tax. You want your parents house? buy it on the open market.
You want anything of sentimental value? Buy it on the open market.
Unintended consequences.
Hmm rents dead money whereas buying a house gives you equity.
Equity for what though? Depending on your house you might not have any scope to downsize later and then what? You still need somewhere to live.
I'm talking, like Kayla1 about a world where social housing is better provisioned than it is now btw.
As for why buy, look at Europe, plenty of renters there because their governments never pursued a policy of subservience under the guise of home ownership. Imagine having proper rent controls and tenancy protections that would make renting as secure as buying with the advantage that it allows you to remain mobile should you choose to do so.
multiple home ownership needs to be stopped
Europe, plenty of renters there because their governments never pursued a policy of subservience under the guise of home ownership.
it could be different these days, but i recall that european pension and insurance companies invested in residential property, rather than the markets. this seems to make a lot of sense.
an issue with low birth rates is financing the social services for the next generation that is too old to work.
reducing the birth rate can only work if you have immigration to cover the short fall.
in vancouver there are a lot of huge apartment buildings. if you ever see them at night you’ll notice that none of them have any lights on. this is because no bugger lives in them. i expect this is happening in all the money laundering hotspots all over the world. what really irritates me about this is that it inflated the housing market outside of the cities there the money is being laundered through real estate.
having had a mild vent, i’ll now go back to the beginning and read other people’s input.
an issue with low birth rates is financing the social services for the next generation that is too old to work.
That is a challenge that appears to be coming quickly for many countries, European ones in particular, and in a multi generational timeframe one you could argue we should embrace regardless to lessen the strain our consumption rates inflict on our environment.
Assuming that was a direction of travel, takes me back to the suggestion of prefabs, and also a building philosophy of minimising the footprint and making that footprint easy to remove if housing stock eventually becomes surplus to needs. Which obviously is over a longer timeframe tham any if us will live to see. And a lot longer than a term or two of keeping some Etonian in very expensive social housing.
The problem, as far as I can see it, is that some people can afford second (or more) properties. Owning these then reduces the available properties to other people. Supply and demand pushes prices up, and then you have to rent.
It's blindingly obvious, but tax penalties for these additional properties is needed.
You can only be in one house at a time, why do you have to have another one? If you really what a cute cottage in Cornwall, then you can help fund people who actually live there to buy a property locally.
BTL? again, more taxation please.
Despite the belief that the Right Wing want people to own property to make them feel rich, this doesn't keep the landowners in rent and lease charges. If the rich and landed keep all the properties to themselves then they get constant income from it.
If you actually get to buy your property, then it's yours, and your future generations, to keep.
If you actually get to buy your property, then it’s yours, and your future generations, to keep.
/ There to fund your care during you descent into a box
How can you not? When you rent, your money goes into someone else’s pocket. When you buy, it ends up in yours. How can this not be desirable?
If rent is properly controlled its cheaper than buying per month especially if you stay a long time. You dont have to pay for insurance repairs so no worrying about bills etc. The money you save by renting you can use to build a pension.
My sister owns a building in Amsterdam. They live on the ground floor and there are teo rentals above it . Onr of the rental units is rent controlled. Its had the same tenant 20 years paying a quarter of what a mortgage would be.
paying a quarter of what a mortgage would be.
Based on its value today or the value 20 years ago.....
No govt dares to pop the property bubble, too many vested interests depend on it.
It wouldn't be technically difficult to allow more house building and to increase taxes on 2nd home ownership (and/or some rent controls). Politically impossible under the current govt, it goes against their entire ideology.
Politically impossible under the current govt(s), it goes against their entire ideology.
FTFY
It's not just a Tory / Westminster issue.
Surely renting versus buying is down to your individual circumstances and no one should be critical really.
As for rent/lease being dead money - it's not it's the cost of using the asset during that period.
And certainly with cars - new cars leasing can often be extremely good value if it beats depreciation.
Anyway, home owners are mostly too cocky as they have been so used to low interest rates and inflating prices. If that flips around the story is completely different.
Be humble and look at the macro picture. Like everything in this current shit-hole government investment is the only way to properly correct the disparity.
Not against the 100 year mortgage particularly but..
Roll on several generations you will have families with multiple inherited rental properties. I think this is what many of the European capitals are like. Nothing ever sells just gets passed on and on.
We need to build.
Where do we build though? Nobody wants the building near them!
@mattsccm As I read it, the second part of your post contradicts the first part. Have I misunderstood?
However any attempt to remove peoples rights to do what they like with their money is doomed to failiure and so it should be.
but then you seem to suggest doing exactly that
A family of two adults needs at the most 3 bedrooms (for kids getting into their teens) and a single bathroom. Force the end of extensions to create oversize homes.
Neither approach seems workable to me, but I'm just trying to understand your point.
How can you not? When you rent, your money goes into someone else’s pocket. When you buy, it ends up in yours. How can this not be desirable?
I think some people in this thread are either deliberately not reading the 'social housing' bits of my posts, don't understand how it works (long term [u]secure[/u] leases, low rents, run as not-for-profit) or don't want to admit that it might be a better solution for lots of people than buying a house (and the associated headaches that come with it.)
a policy of subservience under the guise of home ownership
Very much this.
Based on its value today or the value 20 years ago…..
Not sure? The rent is about half a free market rent
What kayla says is the answer
Having a roof over your head not only gives you security it also massively reduces your outgoings in retirement which for many renters are picked up or subsidised by the state. The point about social care above is also very valid, a house in that context is another way of saving for future costs.
TH asserting that renting could be cheaper than buying is absurd. The house still needs to bought and a return made on it in a reasonable timescale otherwise the investor wouldn't invest. On top of that you still have repairs, someone has to pay for them. So at the very least the renter will pay the same as a home owner on a like for like property. Then the renter has to pay the additional costs of property management, landlords don't do it for free, tax on the landlords income and pretty much all landlords will want to do more than cover their costs, ie make a profit, otherwise what is the point.
After all that extra expenditure the renter has nothing and the landlord has a paid for asset which if they are still renting they will still do so for around market rate.
All this applies to social housing as well except maybe the profit element but in the case of social housing you're also paying for the social housing companies overheads as well.
Renting will always be more expensive unless subsidised and badly knocks social mobility.
All this applies to social housing as well except [s]maybe[/s] the profit element but in the case of social housing you’re also paying for the social housing companies overheads as well.
Which is fine by me. I'm contributing to lots of people's wages (not just one, ie a single landlord who [i]probably[/i] doesn't need even more money) and in exchange I get a house to live in and they'll come and fix it for me when it goes wrong.
A massive part of problem is people seeing houses as 'investments' or sources of income.
A massive part of problem is people seeing houses as ‘investments’ or sources of income.
They are thought, you cannot necessarily blame people for that as your statement seems to suggest. You should be blaming the system. Essentially, to improve matters the UK would have to shift to the left in a huge way. It's almost like saying that right-wing politics has shitty outcomes for the majority of people....
Is it not obvious that I already blame the system? 🤣
Well that sentence was blaming 'people' even though we probably both know that people behave as the system allows them to.
TH asserting that renting could be cheaper than buying is absurd.
Its not absurd at all. Its just Social Housing not built for profit, normally by the state to provide quality housing for its own people.
Doesnt always have to be the state, my Nan spent a good 20ish years in a genuinely nice Almshouse.
In theory renting could be cheaper but unlikely where the market is controlled by individuals and companies for profit. Reality is that’s how it works in UK and rents will rise in line with inflation and supply and demand. Mortgages in the main over the long term don’t follow this track. A mortgage of £1,000 per month today is likely to feel like loose change in 20 years accounting for inflation.
The answer to the problem is to increase supply. This is only going to be possible by making BTL / Second home a bad investment thus releasing properties back into the market and lowering prices. Unfortunately any government or (prospective one) wouldn’t get into power with this policy.