BTL as a pension fund - why not?
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
What type of downward expectation should those seeking a place to live make?
They should be looking at what they can afford, not what their baby boomer parents could afford. Those days are gone and they aren't coming back.If you can afford a one bed flat needing work, buy that and do the work. In a few years you'll have enough equity to buy something bigger.
The trouble with most of those howling about property is that due to their age, they're gen y or gen me me me, and they really do think they're worth it.
Unable to afford a 4 bed detached like mammy and daddy bought does not equate to a lack of access. It equates to unrealistic ambitions.
My dad was a factory worker. I work in the City. I managed to buy the same sort of house I grew up in because I studied hard, worked hard, and saved hard for a decade, and have a significantly higher income than my parents. I was lucky. If, however, you had middle class parents and you're middle class yourself, well, you'll have to aspire to the sort of property factory workers bought in your folks generation. That's life.
What I'd like to see is a rule that says, "If you want to rent a property as an investment, please build it first yourself"
At least it'd provide builders with work for say 6-8 weeks and materials sales. Plus, there'd be +1 on the supply side.
I think its a little bit distasteful investing(read cornering a market)in a basic human need - shelter. A lifetimes of graft to line the pockets of Billy Bunters.
Just think it typifies where we as a nation have gone wrong.
Raise the rents to cover rising costs? Good luck with that.
Oh, and when you want out, just hope there's an orderly queue of young people willing and able to buy.
At least it'd provide builders with work for say 6-8 weeks and materials sales. Plus, there'd be +1 on the supply side.
I think its a little bit distasteful investing(read cornering a market)in a basic human need - shelter. A lifetimes of graft to line the pockets of Billy Bunters.
Just think it typifies where we as a nation have gone wrong.
Raise the rents to cover rising costs? Good luck with that.
Oh, and when you want out, just hope there's an orderly queue of young people willing and able to buy.
LucreLout said:
They should be looking at what they can afford, not what their baby boomer parents could afford. Those days are gone and they aren't coming back.
In actual fact, even the smaller, cheaper properties are beyond a lot of first timers - especially in the southern half of the country.I think you are being far too callous and disingenuous in asserting that they want too much. From what I can see, an awful lot of them just want to be able to afford SOMETHING.
LucreLout said:
They should be looking at what they can afford, not what their baby boomer parents could afford. Those days are gone and they aren't coming back.
If you can afford a one bed flat needing work, buy that and do the work. In a few years you'll have enough equity to buy something bigger.
The trouble with most of those howling about property is that due to their age, they're gen y or gen me me me, and they really do think they're worth it.
Unable to afford a 4 bed detached like mammy and daddy bought does not equate to a lack of access. It equates to unrealistic ambitions.
My dad was a factory worker. I work in the City. I managed to buy the same sort of house I grew up in because I studied hard, worked hard, and saved hard for a decade, and have a significantly higher income than my parents. I was lucky. If, however, you had middle class parents and you're middle class yourself, well, you'll have to aspire to the sort of property factory workers bought in your folks generation. That's life.
My parents first house they bought as first time buyers, a fairly non descript terraced house, would now sell for £1/2 million. Admittedly that is London, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a property market where the next generation can earn considerably more in real terms than their parents but never be able to buy the houses they did. If you can afford a one bed flat needing work, buy that and do the work. In a few years you'll have enough equity to buy something bigger.
The trouble with most of those howling about property is that due to their age, they're gen y or gen me me me, and they really do think they're worth it.
Unable to afford a 4 bed detached like mammy and daddy bought does not equate to a lack of access. It equates to unrealistic ambitions.
My dad was a factory worker. I work in the City. I managed to buy the same sort of house I grew up in because I studied hard, worked hard, and saved hard for a decade, and have a significantly higher income than my parents. I was lucky. If, however, you had middle class parents and you're middle class yourself, well, you'll have to aspire to the sort of property factory workers bought in your folks generation. That's life.
Eric Mc said:
In actual fact, even the smaller, cheaper properties are beyond a lot of first timers - especially in the southern half of the country.
I think you are being far too callous and disingenuous in asserting that they want too much. From what I can see, an awful lot of them just want to be able to afford SOMETHING.
Nope.I think you are being far too callous and disingenuous in asserting that they want too much. From what I can see, an awful lot of them just want to be able to afford SOMETHING.
There are literally thousands of flats for sale within a commutable distance of London for £125k or less. Eminently doable for someone in their 20s.
They can have something, it just won't be what mammy and daddy have.
JagLover said:
My parents first house they bought as first time buyers, a fairly non descript terraced house, would now sell for £1/2 million. Admittedly that is London, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a property market where the next generation can earn considerably more in real terms than their parents but never be able to buy the houses they did.
London is its own special case. I couldn't afford to buy in London either so have to schlep in on the train. No sympathy if little Terrence or Theresa have to sit on the other side of the aisle, sorry.LucreLout said:
Nope.
There are literally thousands of flats for sale within a commutable distance of London for £125k or less. Eminently doable for someone in their 20s.
They can have something, it just won't be what mammy and daddy have.
To be honest, this is the first time in all the debates I have seen on TV or heard on the radio where the inability of those who feel they cannot afford to buy was down to the fact that they were being too choosy.There are literally thousands of flats for sale within a commutable distance of London for £125k or less. Eminently doable for someone in their 20s.
They can have something, it just won't be what mammy and daddy have.
Worst case scenario for a landlord is a UKIP led government/coalition that gets us out of europe and straight into a recession with a massive crash in the number of renters for the market who will move back to the mainland (and let's not forget all those non-eu migrants that add to the demand).
Other things that might harm rental prices/houses prices would be rent controls which are proposed by some labour MP's and controls on foreign ownership of property.
Other things that might harm rental prices/houses prices would be rent controls which are proposed by some labour MP's and controls on foreign ownership of property.
OP, go see a financial adviser and get your retirement fund sorted out properly. It is madness to have all of your pot in one sector, you need to spread the risk around.
Personally I think people talk a lot of b
ks about how many billions of pounds they have made on property, conveniently forgetting interest (the price of the house has just about got to double to cover this), legal fees, stamp duty and any repairs and improvements they have made. They just say "I bought this house for £100,000 and now it's worth £200,000. Bully for you, what did it really cost? Most of the housing bubble is a self full filling prophecy and it is as though "home owners" (the banks normally really own them) have this divine right to make a pile off cash on a house purchase.
Personally I think people talk a lot of b
ks about how many billions of pounds they have made on property, conveniently forgetting interest (the price of the house has just about got to double to cover this), legal fees, stamp duty and any repairs and improvements they have made. They just say "I bought this house for £100,000 and now it's worth £200,000. Bully for you, what did it really cost? Most of the housing bubble is a self full filling prophecy and it is as though "home owners" (the banks normally really own them) have this divine right to make a pile off cash on a house purchase. LucreLout said:
edh said:
Hope so. I'm an advocate of Land Value Tax. Says it all when the UK's richest man is a landlord..
The UK's richest man is many things. Do you wish to tax all of them, and at what rates?I believe that we should be taxing the unimproved value of land and that it should be a significant part of the government's revenue, replacing existing transaction taxes on property, and reducing some taxes on income and consumption.
Grosvenor Estate would certainly be a big loser under LVT. Banks fuel property investment & it's time that UK investment was more productive.
BL Fanboy said:
What I'd like to see is a rule that says, "If you want to rent a property as an investment, please build it first yourself"
At least it'd provide builders with work for say 6-8 weeks and materials sales. Plus, there'd be +1 on the supply side.
I think its a little bit distasteful investing(read cornering a market)in a basic human need - shelter. A lifetimes of graft to line the pockets of Billy Bunters.
Just think it typifies where we as a nation have gone wrong.
Raise the rents to cover rising costs? Good luck with that.
Oh, and when you want out, just hope there's an orderly queue of young people willing and able to buy.
At least it'd provide builders with work for say 6-8 weeks and materials sales. Plus, there'd be +1 on the supply side.
I think its a little bit distasteful investing(read cornering a market)in a basic human need - shelter. A lifetimes of graft to line the pockets of Billy Bunters.
Just think it typifies where we as a nation have gone wrong.
Raise the rents to cover rising costs? Good luck with that.
Oh, and when you want out, just hope there's an orderly queue of young people willing and able to buy.
Eric Mc said:
LucreLout said:
Nope.
There are literally thousands of flats for sale within a commutable distance of London for £125k or less. Eminently doable for someone in their 20s.
They can have something, it just won't be what mammy and daddy have.
To be honest, this is the first time in all the debates I have seen on TV or heard on the radio where the inability of those who feel they cannot afford to buy was down to the fact that they were being too choosy.There are literally thousands of flats for sale within a commutable distance of London for £125k or less. Eminently doable for someone in their 20s.
They can have something, it just won't be what mammy and daddy have.
Where I grew up (Egham) you have places like Ascot, Virginia Water, Sunningdale etc right there. As you can imagine the prices are nuts.
However go a few miles the other way and you get Feltham, Ashford, Stanwell etc. Where do people want to live vs where can they easily afford to live? You got it.
edh said:
What a stupid question - I'll only tax things I can point at, OK?
I believe that we should be taxing the unimproved value of land and that it should be a significant part of the government's revenue, replacing existing transaction taxes on property, and reducing some taxes on income and consumption.
Grosvenor Estate would certainly be a big loser under LVT. Banks fuel property investment & it's time that UK investment was more productive.
It wasn't a stupid question, but it sure was a stupid answer....I believe that we should be taxing the unimproved value of land and that it should be a significant part of the government's revenue, replacing existing transaction taxes on property, and reducing some taxes on income and consumption.
Grosvenor Estate would certainly be a big loser under LVT. Banks fuel property investment & it's time that UK investment was more productive.
Unimproved value of land is subjective. Stuffing barrat boxes on greenbelt isn't an improvement.
Things you can point at... So no income taxes or ni. Just property taxes... If you don't see how that won't work, I can't help you. It would be an unmitigated economic disaster from which the country would not recover.
LucreLout said:
edh said:
What a stupid question - I'll only tax things I can point at, OK?
I believe that we should be taxing the unimproved value of land and that it should be a significant part of the government's revenue, replacing existing transaction taxes on property, and reducing some taxes on income and consumption.
Grosvenor Estate would certainly be a big loser under LVT. Banks fuel property investment & it's time that UK investment was more productive.
It wasn't a stupid question, but it sure was a stupid answer....I believe that we should be taxing the unimproved value of land and that it should be a significant part of the government's revenue, replacing existing transaction taxes on property, and reducing some taxes on income and consumption.
Grosvenor Estate would certainly be a big loser under LVT. Banks fuel property investment & it's time that UK investment was more productive.
Unimproved value of land is subjective. Stuffing barrat boxes on greenbelt isn't an improvement.
Things you can point at... So no income taxes or ni. Just property taxes... If you don't see how that won't work, I can't help you. It would be an unmitigated economic disaster from which the country would not recover.
Eric Mc said:
I still don't think that this is what is deterring first time buyers. I CAN see it being a problem for those who want to (to use that horrible phrase), move up the property ladder.
Why?They have bigger houses in cheaper areas too. Very few can afford a 3 bed in Mayfair, but most can buy a 3 bed in Essex or Luton as a second or third move.
FTBs have unrealistic expectations of what they can afford and that holds them back. One bed flats are affordable within 30 miles of anywhere in the UK, so it isn't property prices that's stopping them.
Eric Mc said:
So you keep saying. Just repeating something over and over does not make it correct.
Well, I've demonstrated it with publicly available facts. You've disagreed based on .... nothing.If flats are affordable, and I've shown that they are, then it cannot be prices holding the young back. If they are unwilling to buy a cheaper one bed and commute, then it is the excess of their aspirations over their ability which restrains them, no?
Eric Mc said:
So you keep saying. Just repeating something over and over does not make it correct.
So if it's not affordability (as in, they can afford a small place in a less desirable area), what in your opinion is stopping first time buyers?Certainly in my experience, kids of friends and relatives who are supposedly in the position to buy their first place either have no deposit to speak of (spent their 20s in PCP cars and going abroad 2 or 3 times a year) or have a small deposit but want a 3 bed in a nice area or a bijou terrace near the bars and shops when all they can afford is a flat in a less smart area of town.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff