Discussion
Already said this in another thread:
1. Legalise all drugs and tax them accordingly. This would genrate revenue additional revenue and also save money: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drug...
2. Legalise brothels and tax them accordingly.
3. Close tax loopholes that allow individuals and companies to doge UK taxation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article59... and http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/bar...
But in addition
4. Re-intr9duce the dog licence at £200 per year
5. Rate cakes at 15% rather than the current 0%
6. Rate caravans at 15% rather than the current 0%
7. Rate fiction books at 15% rather than the current 0%
1. Legalise all drugs and tax them accordingly. This would genrate revenue additional revenue and also save money: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drug...
2. Legalise brothels and tax them accordingly.
3. Close tax loopholes that allow individuals and companies to doge UK taxation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article59... and http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/bar...
But in addition
4. Re-intr9duce the dog licence at £200 per year
5. Rate cakes at 15% rather than the current 0%
6. Rate caravans at 15% rather than the current 0%
7. Rate fiction books at 15% rather than the current 0%
R11ysf said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. In the US instead of council tax they pay a property tax (amongst state and city tax as well) which is essentially a tax on the value of your home - somewhere circa 5%. If the owner of a property had to pay 5% or the value of his 2nd home 10% on 3rd etc etc this may be another factor added in to the buy to let equation.
Put another way when I was young I thought you worked hard, saved up for a deposit, borrowed 3-5 times your salary then bought a house. After you'd worked a while and done well you paid off your house maybe you bought a 2nd (holiday) home. No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit, leverage yourself up massively with bank's money, if it goes up in value you use the fictional equity to buy another one and repeat until the whole thing goes t*ts up and then hand the keys back.
How many people do you know with second homes? I know a guy who earns under 30k a year who has 17 houses. This should not be allowed. The worst case for him is to walk away and start again. If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
Put another way when I was young I thought you worked hard, saved up for a deposit, borrowed 3-5 times your salary then bought a house. After you'd worked a while and done well you paid off your house maybe you bought a 2nd (holiday) home. No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit, leverage yourself up massively with bank's money, if it goes up in value you use the fictional equity to buy another one and repeat until the whole thing goes t*ts up and then hand the keys back.
How many people do you know with second homes? I know a guy who earns under 30k a year who has 17 houses. This should not be allowed. The worst case for him is to walk away and start again. If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
R11ysf said:
This should not be allowed.
Why not?R11ysf said:
The worst case for him is to walk away and start again.
No, the worst case for him is that he loses everything he owns and still owes the banks money. R11ysf said:
No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit,
Really, where are these 110% mortgages at the moment? R11ysf said:
If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
Define reckless? He may have a very well thought out plan.
scotal said:
R11ysf said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. In the US instead of council tax they pay a property tax (amongst state and city tax as well) which is essentially a tax on the value of your home - somewhere circa 5%. If the owner of a property had to pay 5% or the value of his 2nd home 10% on 3rd etc etc this may be another factor added in to the buy to let equation.
Put another way when I was young I thought you worked hard, saved up for a deposit, borrowed 3-5 times your salary then bought a house. After you'd worked a while and done well you paid off your house maybe you bought a 2nd (holiday) home. No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit, leverage yourself up massively with bank's money, if it goes up in value you use the fictional equity to buy another one and repeat until the whole thing goes t*ts up and then hand the keys back.
How many people do you know with second homes? I know a guy who earns under 30k a year who has 17 houses. This should not be allowed. The worst case for him is to walk away and start again. If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
Put another way when I was young I thought you worked hard, saved up for a deposit, borrowed 3-5 times your salary then bought a house. After you'd worked a while and done well you paid off your house maybe you bought a 2nd (holiday) home. No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit, leverage yourself up massively with bank's money, if it goes up in value you use the fictional equity to buy another one and repeat until the whole thing goes t*ts up and then hand the keys back.
How many people do you know with second homes? I know a guy who earns under 30k a year who has 17 houses. This should not be allowed. The worst case for him is to walk away and start again. If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
R11ysf said:
This should not be allowed.
Why not?R11ysf said:
The worst case for him is to walk away and start again.
No, the worst case for him is that he loses everything he owns and still owes the banks money. R11ysf said:
No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit,
Really, where are these 110% mortgages at the moment? R11ysf said:
If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
Define reckless? He may have a very well thought out plan.Quite simply this country has a shortage of land and as such the housing stock is at a premium. The 2nd/3rd home buying helped accelerate this bubble massively.
As for losing everything, if you put 50k into a 300k house you have something to lose. If you slap 10k into a place and then leverage and re-leverage again and again your initial 10k controls several hundred thousand pounds worth of houses where comparatively you lose a lot less. This is a brilliant risk to take if you don't care about the downside. Upside I'm a millionaire and have a massive capital appreciation on assets I've never had to pay for, downside I lose "everything" but in reality it is always worth the shot.
Admittedly the 110% mortgages have gone for the moment, but to be honest they should never have been allowed in the first place. Banks have to maintain a capital ratio and so should individuals. If you can afford it then buy it, if you can't save some more. If that was followed all the way through then housing would be more affordable for all.
btdk5 said:
R11ysf said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. In the US instead of council tax they pay a property tax (amongst state and city tax as well) which is essentially a tax on the value of your home - somewhere circa 5%. If the owner of a property had to pay 5% or the value of his 2nd home 10% on 3rd etc etc this may be another factor added in to the buy to let equation.
Put another way when I was young I thought you worked hard, saved up for a deposit, borrowed 3-5 times your salary then bought a house. After you'd worked a while and done well you paid off your house maybe you bought a 2nd (holiday) home. No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit, leverage yourself up massively with bank's money, if it goes up in value you use the fictional equity to buy another one and repeat until the whole thing goes t*ts up and then hand the keys back.
How many people do you know with second homes? I know a guy who earns under 30k a year who has 17 houses. This should not be allowed. The worst case for him is to walk away and start again. If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
Whats wrong with it?? The renters pay the mortgages.Put another way when I was young I thought you worked hard, saved up for a deposit, borrowed 3-5 times your salary then bought a house. After you'd worked a while and done well you paid off your house maybe you bought a 2nd (holiday) home. No it seems you borrow 110% of the value of the house with no deposit, leverage yourself up massively with bank's money, if it goes up in value you use the fictional equity to buy another one and repeat until the whole thing goes t*ts up and then hand the keys back.
How many people do you know with second homes? I know a guy who earns under 30k a year who has 17 houses. This should not be allowed. The worst case for him is to walk away and start again. If the banks are to be forced to reduce reckless risk taking then so should people.
plasticpig said:
Already said this in another thread:
1. Legalise all drugs and tax them accordingly. This would genrate revenue additional revenue and also save money: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drug...
2. Legalise brothels and tax them accordingly.
3. Close tax loopholes that allow individuals and companies to doge UK taxation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article59... and http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/bar...
But in addition
4. Re-intr9duce the dog licence at £200 per year
5. Rate cakes at 15% rather than the current 0%
6. Rate caravans at 15% rather than the current 0%
7. Rate fiction books at 15% rather than the current 0%
Yes to all of those. Can we expand "Cakes" to read "Confectionery" ? Hadn't realised that caravans are zero-VAT rated. That's terrible. Can we add VED for caravans also, please ? They do use the roads, IIRC, so only fair they should contribute. Sliding scale based on length or MGW or whatever.1. Legalise all drugs and tax them accordingly. This would genrate revenue additional revenue and also save money: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drug...
2. Legalise brothels and tax them accordingly.
3. Close tax loopholes that allow individuals and companies to doge UK taxation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article59... and http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/bar...
But in addition
4. Re-intr9duce the dog licence at £200 per year
5. Rate cakes at 15% rather than the current 0%
6. Rate caravans at 15% rather than the current 0%
7. Rate fiction books at 15% rather than the current 0%
SGirl said:
GT03ROB said:
I'd increase the rate of income tax to 80% for all volvo drivers as they drive slowly & generally clog up the roads.... 
I can tell you categorically that we don't all drive slowly. 
Skodaku said:
SGirl said:
GT03ROB said:
I'd increase the rate of income tax to 80% for all volvo drivers as they drive slowly & generally clog up the roads....
I can tell you categorically that we don't all drive slowly. 
Skodaku said:
Can we add VED for caravans also, please ? They do use the roads, IIRC, so only fair they should contribute. Sliding scale based on length or MGW or whatever.
I'd really rather you didn't as any change like that is bound to be worded in such a way as to catch the trailer I use to tow the race car.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff