General Election 2017

[Demitri_C]

34 minutes ago, choffer said:

 

Wont let me quote you choffer. But you purchased it 6 years ago in those 6 years I bet it has gone  up significantly especially in West London. I would not be surprised if it's gone up more than 25%. What part of West London so you live as prices in West London are ridiculously expensive due to its location.

Since when is Edinburgh in this country? 

Final paragraph I completely agree choffer it's scandalous!

I think @awol realises a very good point and a good idea. I think the increase in stamp duty has not helped things either. 

 

[TrentVilla]

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

Isn't one of the problems in London the amount of foreign capital that is used to buy housing stock as investment property, thus driving up prices across the board? 

Not meaning to unleash my inner Socialist but could there be an argument to restrict those type of purchases in certain post codes to stop or reverse things becoming so unbalanced across the housing market? 

Fair one if someone from abroad is actually living in the property (not a 'British houses for British people' policy!) but if it's sat empty or being rented for huge amounts by a foreign individual or corporate entity eventually it becomes completely unsustainable.

Always knew you were a Commie really

I agree though, there should be some control in place on overseas ownership of housing stock. Never going to happen though when so much of the economy is dependent upon rising house prices, house sales and asscociated spending. Not to mention stamp duty.

[Demitri_C]

15 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Always knew you were a Commie really

I agree though, there should be some control in place on overseas ownership of housing stock. Never going to happen though when so much of the economy is dependent upon rising house prices, house sales and asscociated spending. Not to mention stamp duty.

Yep I agree awol for prime minster!

[Demitri_C]

19 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

So someone who has a large and cheap house in the North should be taxed more than someone with a small expensive one in the South?

You should email that to Tory HQ you might win a prize. (Don't worry if you've not got May's email, send it to anyone you like she is reading them all anyway)

Haha 

But on a serious note because a house is worth more, doesn't necessarily mean they have a lot of money!

[TrentVilla]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Haha 

But on a serious note because a house is worth more, doesn't necessarily mean they have a lot of money!

Neither does it being bigger which was kind of my point.

[PieFacE]

6 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Haha 

But on a serious note because a house is worth more, doesn't necessarily mean they have a lot of money!

Not trying to be an arse, but if you're inheriting £400+k, and you don't have a lot of money, why wouldn't you buy a big house outside of London and live mortgage free? 

[choffer]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Wont let me quote you choffer. But you purchased it 6 years ago in those 6 years I bet it has gone  up significantly especially in West London. I would not be surprised if it's gone up more than 25%. What part of West London so you live as prices in West London are ridiculously expensive due to its location.

Hounslow. Current valuation circa £340k

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Since when is Edinburgh in this country? 

 

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Final paragraph I completely agree choffer it's scandalous! 

[Chindie]

7 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

Not trying to be an arse, but if you're inheriting £400+k, and you don't have a lot of money, why wouldn't you buy a big house outside of London and live mortgage free? 

Because London.

I must admit the fixation with the capital is irritating. It's an anomaly. Something has to be done about it, and ignoring someone inheriting a property worth £X00k because 'it's London duh!' isn't the answer.

[Awol]

17 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Yep I agree awol for prime minster!

I'd get loads of votes from VT.

[PieFacE]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Because London.
 

This bit doesn't make sense to me, give me sunny Birmingham every day 

Nah, each to their own and all that, I just don't know how people can justify living in London just because it's "London" when the pricing is absolutely absurd. 

 

[darrenm]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

I'd get loads of votes from VT.

Hi Theresa 

[Risso]

51 minutes ago, Awol said:

Isn't one of the problems in London the amount of foreign capital that is used to buy housing stock as investment property, thus driving up prices across the board? 

Not meaning to unleash my inner Socialist but could there be an argument to restrict those type of purchases in certain post codes to stop or reverse things becoming so unbalanced across the housing market? 

Fair one if someone from abroad is actually living in the property (not a 'British houses for British people' policy!) but if it's sat empty or being rented for huge amounts by a foreign individual or corporate entity eventually it becomes completely unsustainable.

The Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings at least attempts to address that.  A property that is owned by a foreign company or trust cops for an annual charge.  At properties of £2m-£5m it's £23K.  At £5m+ it's £55K.  Probably not enough to deter your average RAV (Russians, Arabs and Villains) in Mayfair, but big enough that's it's a pain in the arse and might make them think twice.

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

This bit doesn't make sense to me, give me sunny Birmingham every day 

Nah, each to their own and all that, I just don't know how people can justify living in London just because it's "London" when the pricing is absolutely absurd. 

 

Salaries go up drastically for IT at least inside the M25. Central even more so. But then you either have to live in London and pay the property tax or spend 4 hours commuting from outside every day where the prices aren't that much lower in commuting hotspots. 

[choffer]

2 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

Nah, each to their own and all that, I just don't know how people can justify living in London just because it's "London" when the pricing is absolutely absurd.

I can't speak for anyone else but I moved to London 17 years ago saying I'd do 2 years. I've been trying ever since to get out but only ever find roles in London. Although the economics of London life can be off-putting, the economics of being able to pay the bills outweighs that.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

This bit doesn't make sense to me, give me sunny Birmingham every day 

Nah, each to their own and all that, I just don't know how people can justify living in London just because it's "London" when the pricing is absolutely absurd. 

 

I agree entirely.

Theres certain jobs that will attract people to London (anything financial services will have some connection there - I have to head down there reasonably often for instance, and if you're particularly ambitious in that sector chances are you're going to end up there) and obviously there's people whose background is London based, who are slowly being squeezed out of the city, meaning it'll end up like Perth soon, a city which has become so expensive in many ways thats service workers struggle to actually afford to live there any more.

But I would struggle to personally want to go there. I've not got much to keep me in Brum these days, and the nature of the job means I would find work in London, but no thanks. Even the salary bump isn't worth it.

[Wainy316]

Higher tax for Micah Richards.  What's not to love.

[Awol]

16 minutes ago, Risso said:

The Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings at least attempts to address that.  A property that is owned by a foreign company or trust cops for an annual charge.  At properties of £2m-£5m it's £23K.  At £5m+ it's £55K.  Probably not enough to deter your average RAV (Russians, Arabs and Villains) in Mayfair, but big enough that's it's a pain in the arse and might make them think twice.

Any idea how that tax stacks up against increase in the property valuation per annum? 

As you say though, as a way to secure gains ill gotten elsewhere a relatively small tax (vis property value) is inconsequential.  

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Shows how little people know. 425k in London buys you a very small home.  It's a fact London prices are higher than anywhere in the country.  People are having to pay over the odds for properties and struggling to live and keep up with their mortgages. So for me this is completely wrong, price value of a property does not determine whether your skint or not.

Like bicks says it's a death tax, can't see why anyone would argue that as that's exactly what it is!

Allow me to try - a 'death tax' is a logical absurdity. There can only be one direction of redistribution - from the dead to the living - because dead people can't own property or be taxed. They're dead. The only questions are which living people are the beneficiaries, in what proportionate amounts, and how the wealth is collected. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Isn't one of the problems in London the amount of foreign capital that is used to buy housing stock as investment property, thus driving up prices across the board? 

Not meaning to unleash my inner Socialist but could there be an argument to restrict those type of purchases in certain post codes to stop or reverse things becoming so unbalanced across the housing market? 

Fair one if someone from abroad is actually living in the property (not a 'British houses for British people' policy!) but if it's sat empty or being rented for huge amounts by a foreign individual or corporate entity eventually it becomes completely unsustainable.

Foreign capital is definitely a big issue, especially given a lot of these purchases occur as cash transactions. Other issues include supply, yes the housing starts data is pathetic, and also, low interest rates, which has been the key policy instrument used by the Bank of England since the financial crisis. 

[Risso]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Allow me to try - a 'death tax' is a logical absurdity. There can only be one direction of redistribution - from the dead to the living - because dead people can't own property or be taxed. They're dead. The only questions are which living people are the beneficiaries, in what proportionate amounts, and how the wealth is collected. 

It's a bit semantic.  Upon death, a person's assets become their estate.  As you rightly say, where the assets of the estate end up, largely determines the rate of tax payable.