i never called it ownership.

however its a much more useful form of renting than being at the mercy of mega corp rental conglomerates….

…so you can be at the mercy of your MegaCorp employer and lose ÿour house and job simultaneously? you’re barking up the wrong tree

So in other words housing is becoming less of a sacred cow; Osbourne’s move against buy-to-let is part of a wider campaign against homeowners which is only going to escalate.

except the people being taxed more aren’t “homeowners”, they’re people running businesses

where did i say that ……

myfirst statement was the worlds changed …….

its not 1918 anymore – just because it workedthen doesnt mean it will work now….partly for the reason you have suggested but also a host of other reasons.

Why is it that some people presume that the government has some kind of moral obligation to set economic policy so that homeowners have an asset that must endlessly appreciate in value way, way beyond rates of inflation, pay rises etc?

Wait, you mean my house isn’t a brick box that shits money?!

the example was to show people how our attitudes to home ownership have changed, its much more prevalent for people to think they are in some way entitled to own their house. Its a more modern idea than people imagine. I’m not saying the old way is better just highlighting how lucky we actually are to ‘mostly’ own our houses. Even if the banks really own most of them 🙂 We are lucky compared to many of our ancestors.

It’s also a British thing. Much higher rental rates in France and Germany, I seem to remember.

the example was to show people how our attitudes to home ownership have changed

That graph really shows the huge change in wealth distribution over that period. Inequality was very high in 1918.

I’m a bit late to this party but here are my thoughts…….

We moved into our current gaff 10 years ago and at the time I thought it was overpriced, along with everything else on the market but as we had made cash on our old place had some protection from any crash as well as affordable mortgage payments

As I type this prices in my town are just stupid, it’s nothing special but there is no way a newly qualified teacher or policeman would be able to afford it, and it’s hardly Chelsea so even those with the money wouldn’t want to

Over the last 10 years the two biggest drivers on price have been landlords buying up private properties and student houses going hand in hand with the expansion of the local college

The mentality of many has been you can’t lose with property
Until July 8th they may have had a point, I have occasionally been jealous of their bottle in taking on hugely leveraged mortgages for multiple properties even if I never agreed that they had any skill as investors

The thing is that even I saw this in the budget 6 weeks or so ago and it raised a wry smile
So why has it taken this long for the so called experts to read about it in the Telegraph?

My main conflict of interest is that with 2 teenage kids they may now have a chance to buy somewhere in the future if they want to, although I rented till my mid 30s for flexibility so they may too

And as for anybody with 20 buy to lets on mahoosive interest only mortgages?
We’ll I’d imagine the shrewder ones would have banked some profit but those you hear crowing in pubs and dinner parties about how you can’t go wrong may now be about to learn a harsh life lesson

If I knew how to spell my favourite German word I now would 🙂

be at the mercy of your MegaCorp

I do not work for The Man, for that reason. 😉

So why has it taken this long for the so called experts to read about it in the Telegraph?

I knew about it at the budget, even before as I refused to vote for tories or labour at the election, this being one of the issues.

I live abroad but own property in the UK, it does seem a particularly british thing this obsession with house prices. The sales prices in London are ridiculous – a 1 bed flat is now going for c 350k outer SW London v 250k 18 months ago.

My first purchase – I have the original sales price in the lease – sold for 96k in 1997. They are c 400k now, so pretty much quadrupling in 18 years. The same flat was c 200k in 2006 so that looks like it doubles every 10 years.

These capital prices are academic of course once you have bought the place, assuming no debt. You don’t actually feel any wealthier if the bricks & mortar you own are worth 100k, or 200k as the tax structure (CGT) means you can’t chop & change.

The problem lies in the market created by the govt – anyone can buy property & not be penalised for owning more than they need. I follow the Lakes mkt & it’s being mooted that second home owners up there will pay a premium to owner occupiers on council tax. We had a holiday home there & 10 years ago we paid 10% council tax, then 50% & now 100%. If that went to say 125% it would deter outsiders.

I have no intention of selling anything, prices may rise or may fall, its not a cash flow. They’ve never been empty & if they did, it would let in a few days.

i bought my first house this year

the previous owner had bought it in 2000 and sold it to me 15 years later for a 384% profit 😐

If that went to say 125% it would deter outsiders

You’re kidding right?

Someone who can spend £500k on a 2nd home isn’t going to be put off by an extra £250/year in Council Tax!

the previous owner had bought it in 2000 and sold it to me 15 years later for a 384% profit

Hmm, not if they’d bought it with a mortgage and had been paying it for the last 15 years. As an example; a £100k repayment mortgage at an average of 5% over 15 years works out at £142k.

They also maintained it for the last 15 years, and then take off the inflation costs (about 50%).

At the moment I rent from a mega corp (but not in the UK).

“Luckily” for me they have a set of preferred vendors for things like electricity, internet and renters insurance… With all of these companies I get special rates.. It hard to say how special they are as no other company will give me a quote due to the postcode…

Putting all the power with a corporation will never work out well for the people at the low end and with loans being hard to come by it may be that your home is not your castle you just get to live there until you retire and the state pension is cut leaving you in the street…

faceless conglomerate tax dodging regimes based outwith the uk perhaps…..

1918 – largely estate/Crown/council owned.

Wrong.

At the time of the Glasgow rent strike, (1915)90% of households (of all classes) lived in private rented housing.

http://www.livingrent.org/2015/04/%EF%BB%BFyou-dont-get-anything-without-a-fight-a-potted-history-of-tenant-action/

I believe the situation was similar elsewhere in the UK. Widespread council housing arrived later.

PRS is making quite a comeback in the UK new housing market. I’ve recently been involved in something where there was a mix of private owned, affordable and private rental sector properties. There are quite a number of them coming onto the market in the SE.

Estate/crown housing – is private rental it was just administered differently basically it was renting off your employer back then

Read the poor had no lawyers by andy wightman if it remotley interests you how scotland came to be as it is . Warning it reads like a university review text but is very interesting and fully referenced

I see this has descended into something of a STW splitting hairs/personal differences/political leanings/conjecture debate..

Anyways.. can someone advise me?

I own a house (or rather the rights to pay the mortgage!) on a property recently valued at £149k near coastal mid-Wales. I’ve since moved away and am now renting, but also have been renting out my old house as a landlord. I put down something like £23k deposit on the property when I bought it 3 1/2 years ago. It’s value has risen (apparently) by a £k or a few since then.

So… I’m now in a situation where being a landlord doesn’t suit – the last tenants ran up 3 months rent arrears, caused damage and did a runner – and I am strongly considering selling as the better option. Selling the property means biting the bullet for 6-9 months ’till it sells (?) – and continuing to pay a mortgage on the property, while continuing to pay the rent where I live now. I will also probably have to fork out another £3k getting the place renovated, so that it sells promptly.

I gather I may own more equity on the house – now that I’ve paid 3 1/2 years payments on a 35 year mortgage, so I will (possibly) recoup more of the selling price, but then fees and all that vampire crap will eat into this. I’d feel I’d like to be able to get my deposit money back, but I’m not sure that will even be possible.

So… according to STW should I stick or twist? (continue to be a landlord, or sell up now?)

First time buyer by the way – so I literally have no idea what I’m doing.. 😯

Insurance job

I gather I may own more equity on the house – now that I’ve paid 3 1/2 years payments on a 35 year mortgage

You’ll be looking at pennies. Your repayments in this period will be largely paying the interest, not the capital.

You’ll probably get some of your deposit back but I doubt you’d walk away with £25k imo.

If your valuation is right then I’d suspect you won’t recover all of your deposit after fees. That doesn’t mean selling is a bad as it’ll cost you money to keep it. Depends how well it rents. I don’t imagine coastal mid Wales is a rental hotspot or likely to see much in the way of property price rises. I think I’d sell, live with losses and do something else with the money but it depends on your situation.

I was/sort of am in the same position NID. Only difference is I now live in home provided by my employer so the numbers make a bit more sense.

To be honest I’m not sure I would continue in your position and would cut your losses if you are able to look to buy where you are now. If you get a good tenant you are still liable for tax on your income from the house (and the repayment part of the mortgage payment does not count as an outgoing so making a profit to be taxed on is easier than you might think) and you will pay capital gains tax for the years you are renting it out if the house goes up in value irrespective of if it costs money just to keep the house at the same standard it was when you bought it. I would say it only makes sense to carry on if you couldn’t possibly afford to buy where you live now as it still keeps you in the housing market.

TheBrick – Member
Insurance job

^ That – I wouldn’t rent out a property without malicious damage cover, heard a few horror stories running into £10k+ including unpaid rent & damages (mate actually turned up in a van with a few of his mates in the dead of night to perform an “eviction” only to be confronted by the tennant with a video camera in one hand & a phone ringing 999 in the other… knew his rights apparently)

Okay… cheers guys. That’s STW decided it then, I’ll sell the house.

This whole thing makes me feel a bit sick, wish I’d never got into it now.. 😐

mcj78. Lame eviction attempt then. If someones not paying and wrecking the place get a phone jammer and heave ho. Id bet they won’t have the cash to get a lawyer and after the event the police won’t be that arsed. If anyones crying about their rights offer them a bed