UK Politics VIII

[Eurytus]

Pebs: nasty mess, I hope it gets sorted soon. :( But your situation is not quite the same as Eurytus': you're not buying the second property in order to let it, in fact you'd happily get shot of it if you could do so without a loss. That's very different from investing in buy-to-let instead of, say, buying shares; and it would actually be fairly simple to exempt cases such as yours.

Someone doesn't appear to be listening. I am buying a second property to LIVE IN.

The point is that at the moment, it's insanely easy and (for most people) profitable to get into BTL if they have the capital. The returns are high, and although there are regulations to comply with (HMO rules and so forth) the fact is - and I speak from professional knowledge, since I employ a housing adviser - local authorities do not have the resources to actually make landlords live up to these if they don't want to. That's something of a digression, though: the point is, you can discourage BTL quite easily by taxing at the point of purchase (so cases like yours would be exempt), and to do so would be a legitimate social policy move.

Capital which I got by careful and prudent saving.

Other, first time buyers could have also got that capital had they saved and then they could buy.

My situation is exactly the same as theirs.

All of my capital that I will use to buy the property is from my personal savings. I will not use an existing property to pay towards the purchase. Therefore I have no advantage over a first time buyer.

The difference is the choices I made in what to do with my money. I have not taken a holiday for my entire working life. I make sure I saved enough to pay off my home.

Its laughable that I should be criticised for that. But then life seems full of grasshoppers rather than ants.

[ljkeane]

Its laughable that I should be criticised for that. But then life seems full of grasshoppers rather than ants.

Don't be ridiculous, tax policy is used all the time to disincentivise activities that are detrimental to society and to the economy and I don't see any reason why this should be any different. People have provided perfectly rational arguments as to why this would be good policy and your main argument appears to be that it would be bad because it would have an impact on you. While I'm sure that's very convincing for you don't be surprised when nobody else agrees regardless of how many accusations of 'envy' you throw around.

[Eurytus]

Don't be ridiculous, tax policy is used all the time to disincentivise activities that are detrimental to society and to the economy and I don't see any reason why this should be any different. People have provided perfectly rational arguments as to why this would be good policy and your main argument appears to be that it would be bad because it would have an impact on you. While I'm sure that's very convincing for you don't be surprised when nobody else agrees regardless of how many accusations of 'envy' you throw around.

Why exactly would it be good policy? To reward the profligate?

To encourage people to spend what they don't have?

To waste rather than save?

With views like that its no wonder Britain has a truly astounding level of personal debt, quite beyond that of mortgages. Its encouraged. For those who try to portray all the problems at the door of housing policy they might want to consider that people appear unable to manage their expenditure in areas quite removed from home ownership.

[ljkeane]

Why exactly would it be good policy? To reward the profligate?

To encourage people to spend what they don't have?

To waste rather than save?

With views like that its no wonder Britain has a truly astounding level of personal debt, quite beyond that of mortgages. Its encouraged. For those who try to portray all the problems at the door of housing policy they might want to consider that people appear unable to manage their expenditure in areas quite removed from home ownership.

So you can't think of an argument beyond this Daily Mail level crap then? Well I'm convinced.

[MinDonner]

Yes yes, the housing crisis is all the fault of those irresponsible poor people. :rolleyes:

Save your money? Fine. Spend it in a way that actively disadvantages society? Not so much.

[Eurytus]

So you can't think of an argument beyond this Daily Mail level crap then? Well I'm convinced.

Labelling something as "daily mail crap" is not an argument you know. I can only assume you don't have one to make since you must rely on personal attacks.

[Eurytus]

Yes yes, the housing crisis is all the fault of those irresponsible poor people. :rolleyes:

Save your money? Fine. Spend it in a way that actively disadvantages society? Not so much.

It doesn't disadvantage society. The people I rent my existing house out to pay less than they would for a mortgage and considerably less than they would for a mortgage plus factoring fees and insurance.

So its a benefit to them.

[ljkeane]

Labelling something as "daily mail crap" is not an argument you know. I can only assume you don't have one to make since you must rely on personal attacks.

Neither is vague hand waving about 'rewarding the profligate' without addressing the specific issue at hand, you know.

[Eurytus]

Neither is vague hand waving about 'rewarding the profligate' without addressing the specific issue at hand, you know.

Nothing to address. They have the same chance to buy as me. The key difference is that I chose to save my money, foregoing flippant purchases. Others choose to take holidays and eat out all the time. And other things that don't result in being able to actually own your own home.

Rather than accept the consequences of that choice they choose to hit out at those who chose to be prudent. Misplaced anger clearly.

[ljkeane]

So again you don't have an argument other than that it would have an impact on you?

[Eurytus]

So again you don't have an argument other than that it would have an impact on you?

The fact that I answer in paragraphs whilst you answer in snide one liners that don't actually say anything clearly indicates who here has an argument. And its not you.

Since you don't wish to debate I am done with you.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

It doesn't disadvantage society. The people I rent my existing house out to pay less than they would for a mortgage and considerably less than they would for a mortgage plus factoring fees and insurance.

So its a benefit to them.

I think that the main problem here if the location. I'm sure where you live house rentals are a lot less than mortgage rates.

in the UK this is most defiantly not true. Infact average rental prices are normally equal to whatever you would be paying if you purchased a 95% - 100% mortgage for the same property. Where as normally your mortgage payment theoretically falls over years as inflation rises. Rents keep increasing to match house prices.

the main reason for this is the lack of affordable rents at a realistic price and that no-one with a spare house wants to let it out for less than the market value. Its a supply and demand problem.

[Eurytus]

I think that the main problem here if the location. I'm sure where you live house rentals are a lot less than mortgage rates.

in the UK this is most defiantly not true. Infact average rental prices are normally equal to whatever you would be paying if you purchased a 95% - 100% mortgage for the same property. Where as normally your mortgage payment theoretically falls over years as inflation rises. Rents keep increasing to match house prices.

the main reason for this is the lack of affordable rents at a realistic price and that no-one with a spare house wants to let it out for less than the market value. Its a supply and demand problem.

It is entirely possible that I am charging too little. Certainly for a desirable property (my place is rare in that its a 2 bedroom house with parking right in the city centre) I do appear to charge less than some people do for a 2 bed flat out of town.

Certainly once I remove the associated costs from the income (insurance and the factoring fee for instance) I receive less than the mortgage was before I paid it off (which I did before renting it out, which was unwise from a tax point of view).

Once I factor income tax into the equation I make way less than the mortgage was.

[Zoë Sumra]

Down south where I am mortage payments are on the whole cheaper than renting an equivelent sized property. Could be that this is the result of buy to let, as they've all got their own mortgages to pay as well, rather than a long term trend though.

*nods* And yet someone paying that amount of rent often can't get a mortgage to pay the same or slightly lower rate per month, because the banks realise that paying out that much money each month just on housing is unsustainable - and this was true even before the credit crunch.

Eurytus, how are house prices in your area, as a multiple of income? How about rental prices? Tenants' rights?

ETA: Sorry, just saw this:

It doesn't disadvantage society. The people I rent my existing house out to pay less than they would for a mortgage and considerably less than they would for a mortgage plus factoring fees and insurance.

So its a benefit to them.

So rents aren't nearly as high as they are in the UK. I see.

It's odd to hear someone criticising people for spending money on frivolities instead of saving and putting money into housing on the grounds of... no evidence at all. I realise you find this very difficult to believe, but the case simply is that in many parts of the UK, you have no chance of saving up enough money to buy a house without either market price crashes, massive work bonuses or family gifting, because the difference between (earnings) - (rent while waiting to buy + food + transport + necessaries) is too little, and the cost of buying housing - particularly freehold housing - is too great.

[mormont]

Mormont, how is the demographic development in the UK? Is it similar to Germany, (i.e. a probably shrinking population, depending on the future amount of immigration)? If so, it could be dangerous to put all the eggs in one basket, i.e. your house...

Probably true. It's also true that the existing market conditions - which have seriously delayed the age at which most first-time buyers enter the market and mean that many never will - exacerbate the problem in the same way. Sooner or later, the bottom is going to fall out of the market in a serious way, unless something is done.

The bottom line is that I chose to invest in paying off my mortgage. Others chose to spend on non essential products or holidays.

Both me and the other person got taxed on the income we earned.

I should not be taxed a second time because I choose to use my money differently (and more wisely) than they.

Well, that happens all the time. In fact, many of those 'frivolous' expenditures are heavily taxed to discourage them. But your financial choices were wise. Paying off your mortgage early is a good idea: nobody's criticised that. The thing is, that's an entirely separate issue to what you then invest your money in. So don't conflate the two.

Not setting a very good example as a mod are we? Quick to break out the snide insults.

Oh, that's not an insult. I just meant it wasn't a class issue. *innocent look*

OK, I'm poking a little fun at you. You're coming over as extremely pompous and humourless (not for the first time). You can't complain if people are tempted to take the piss a bit as a result. ;)

Absolutely and utterly incorrect.

I scrimped and saved to pay off my houses mortgage myself, when I was living in it. I used no rental income to pay off the mortgage AT ALL. I did it myself.

My second house I will also pay for myself.

Breaking out the tiny violins again... it's fine, and as I say even wise, that you did this. But come on. You seem to be angling for sympathy for doing something that is in your own financial interests. (Either that or praise, I'm not sure.) You did this out of self-interest, so expecting either praise or sympathy is just a bit pathetic, really.

Its typical of the subject that people would choose to portray all landlords as corrupt vultures.

I know of many private landlords who are. I also know of many who're excellent landlords. But that's really irrelevant to whether BTL is desirable from a social policy point of view. It's a separate argument about regulation of landlords.

Someone doesn't appear to be listening. I am buying a second property to LIVE IN.

Someone appears to be nitpicking. You own one and let one. What difference does it make which is which?

Capital which I got by careful and prudent saving.

Other, first time buyers could have also got that capital had they saved and then they could buy.

My situation is exactly the same as theirs.

Betcha it's not.

The world is not made up of spendthrift fools on one hand, and yourself on the other. People's lives are not identical: they have different life events, different life choices, different incomes, different expenditures. It's not 1% as simple as you are making it out to be. If you really believe this argument, you're one blinkered guy.

Labelling something as "daily mail crap" is not an argument you know.

Ah,but labelling something as 'the politics of envy' is? All your arguments have been of exactly the same merit as what you're complaining about here.

The difference is the choices I made in what to do with my money. I have not taken a holiday for my entire working life.

Maybe you should. You may have money, but to me you appear rather impoverished just the same.

[Eurytus]

So rents aren't nearly as high as they are in the UK. I see.

It's odd to hear someone criticising people for spending money on frivolities instead of saving and putting money into housing on the grounds of... no evidence at all. I realise you find this very difficult to believe, but the case simply is that in many parts of the UK, you have no chance of saving up enough money to buy a house without either market price crashes, massive work bonuses or family gifting, because the difference between (earnings) - (rent while waiting to buy + food + transport + necessaries) is too little, and the cost of buying housing - particularly freehold housing - is too great.

I am from the UK and my property is rented out there. And I very much understand the situation in the UK.

[MinDonner]

I am from the UK and my property is rented out there. And I very much understand the situation in the UK.

But clearly you don't, if you can (with a straight face) say things like

They have the same chance to buy as me.

The housing market of today is VASTLY different from the housing market of even ten years ago. I bought my house at the 2006 price of £195k; from looking at the land registry entries, the previous owners had bought it a mere 5 years earlier at £105k (and no, believe me, they DIDN'T make any significant structural improvements in the meantime). You had nothing more than blind luck in getting onto the ladder when you did, and having the gall to blame today's would-be buyers for not being able to scrape up an additional ninety thousand pounds is just crass and rather baffling. That's a lot of fucking holidays.

[Eurytus]

The housing market of today is VASTLY different from the housing market of even ten years ago. I bought my house at the 2006 price of £195k; from looking at the land registry entries, the previous owners had bought it a mere 5 years earlier at £105k (and no, believe me, they DIDN'T make any significant structural improvements in the meantime). You had nothing more than blind luck in getting onto the ladder when you did, and having the gall to blame today's would-be buyers for not being able to scrape up an additional ninety thousand pounds is just crass and rather baffling. That's a lot of fucking holidays.

I had to move 80 miles away to afford a house and even then it was still 4 times my salary and so I needed a very large deposit indeed. So don't talk to me about it being hard now.

[Zoë Sumra]

I had to move 80 miles away to afford a house and even then it was still 4 times my salary and so I needed a very large deposit indeed. So don't talk to me about it being hard now.

Only four times? Pish.

[mormont]

It's been said many times before, but somehow the latest policy announcement from the coalition made me wonder again how many Lib Dem voters are sitting at home wondering how a Lib Dem government - a Lib Dem government [/Kinnock] - is introducing a compulsory 'work for your benefits' programme. After tripling tuition fees and slashing the social housing budget. Regardless of what you think of the merits of the policy, to see Lib Dem ministers defending it is astonishing and somewhat weird.

You can only blame the deficit for a certain amount of this: the rest is down to the quiet takeover of the party by the 'Orange Book' faction, hardly commented on at the time but now becoming more clearly significant with pretty much every announcement from the coalition. (Remember, in the Orange Book David Laws argued for the abolition of the NHS and Nick Clegg for repatriating agricultural policy from the EU, ideas that would be regarded as on the radical fringe even of the Tory party.)