What is the average amount to retire on?

[CarlosFandango11]

gvij said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

Welshbeef said:

red_slr said:

So when is this stock market correction coming?

Given FTSE at all time high you could argue were maybe near the peak so sell now then wait and buy back later - or risk it and let it smash

Is it at an all time high in real terms?
Selling now is also risking it - missing out on future increases and income.

That's what they would have said the week before any previous crash... No one will sell at the absolute peak consistently or but at the lowest point but as long as you do somewhere on the curve its all food. If sealing you have to wish the next owner the best of luck with it same as they wish you when you buy in a crash and everyone is panicking.

Is it a week before the next crash? Almost certainly not. It could be many years before the next one.

[jeff m2]

Just because the 100 has reached the same level as prior to the Dot com crash (actually more telecom crash) does not, or should not raise alarm.
The current P/E of the 100 is around 16, fairly normal. In 1999 it was approaching 30.
30 is high for those not versed in P/Es.

But this is about pensions which are drip fed over time. Volatility and the occasional hiccup will actually enhance the end number.

A down year in your first year of distributions can be detrimental though as it can hinder indexing going fwd.

Doesn't anyone here like mid caps
(that's where the growth is)

[Countdown]

Welshbeef said:

Well mine are all funded and actually thinking about it so is my wife's (school teacher/was)

Assuming she was/is in the TPS then it's unfunded.

[jonny70]

Welshbeef said:

So BTL is frankly a no brainer

Not sure about this. The next government will need to increase taxes. They have already hit pensions.Over the past decade BTL has been exceptionally popular and plenty folks have made lots of money from it. If the government need to raise more taxes this could be avery likely scenario.

Also a lot of BTL have low yields ATM with an increase in i/r over the long term and a mortgage being a long-term commitment this could eventually make the monthlies not add up.

We are also in the midst of an asset bubble because of loose monetary policy and the effects of quantitate easing. FTSE 100 at the highest ever, property has gone up 10% and more over the past few years yet inflation is close to nil, wage growth is close to nil ,interest rates are 0.5%

[Welshbeef]

jonny70 said:

Not sure about this. The next government will need to increase taxes. They have already hit pensions.Over the past decade BTL has been exceptionally popular and plenty folks have made lots of money from it. If the government need to raise more taxes this could be avery likely scenario.

Also a lot of BTL have low yields ATM with an increase in i/r over the long term and a mortgage being a long-term commitment this could eventually make the monthlies not add up.

We are also in the midst of an asset bubble because of loose monetary policy and the effects of quantitate easing. FTSE 100 at the highest ever, property has gone up 10% and more over the past few years yet inflation is close to nil, wage growth is close to nil ,interest rates are 0.5%

But it is paper gains - even if the govt put a 90% capital gain tax on sale then what would you do? Sit tight wait until the next govt or the one after that etc -- only those who desperately needed to sell would be impacted.

Remove the allowance of tax relief on BTL mortgage interest - answer change it to a company ownership instead ( which make passing it on to avoid IHT even better) as such if the govt tried to remove the mortgage interest as an allowable deductible then all companies would no longer be able to deduct loan interest from profits... Never going to happen.

[Claudia Skies]

jonny70 said:

property has gone up 10% and more over the past few years

Which is small beer compared with the stock market is up 25% in the last 3 years. What's more,

• you don't pay Stamp Duty to buy the stock market,
• you don't pay solicitors and estate agents to buy/sell the stock market, and
• you don't have to deal with difficult tenants or dripping taps in the stock market.

[bad company]

Claudia Skies said:

jonny70 said:

property has gone up 10% and more over the past few years

Which is small beer compared with the stock market is up 25% in the last 3 years. What's more,

• you don't pay Stamp Duty to buy the stock market,
• you don't pay solicitors and estate agents to buy/sell the stock market, and
• you don't have to deal with difficult tenants or dripping taps in the stock market.

You could add that shares do not require painting, repairing or insuring etc.

Mind you shares can and do go down in value.

[gvij]

Property is usually geared though a house increasing from 200 to 220 usually has only around 30k in equity at the beginning. Uk property has done incredibly well in certain desirable areas.

[Welshbeef]

gvij said:

Property is usually geared though a house increasing from 200 to 220 usually has only around 30k in equity at the beginning. Uk property has done incredibly well in certain desirable areas.

Very very often overlooked when doing direct comparisons with equity - unless of course people are borrowing to buy stocks.

[DonkeyApple]

Welshbeef said:

jonny70 said:

Not sure about this. The next government will need to increase taxes. They have already hit pensions.Over the past decade BTL has been exceptionally popular and plenty folks have made lots of money from it. If the government need to raise more taxes this could be avery likely scenario.

Also a lot of BTL have low yields ATM with an increase in i/r over the long term and a mortgage being a long-term commitment this could eventually make the monthlies not add up.

We are also in the midst of an asset bubble because of loose monetary policy and the effects of quantitate easing. FTSE 100 at the highest ever, property has gone up 10% and more over the past few years yet inflation is close to nil, wage growth is close to nil ,interest rates are 0.5%

But it is paper gains - even if the govt put a 90% capital gain tax on sale then what would you do? Sit tight wait until the next govt or the one after that etc -- only those who desperately needed to sell would be impacted.

Remove the allowance of tax relief on BTL mortgage interest - answer change it to a company ownership instead ( which make passing it on to avoid IHT even better) as such if the govt tried to remove the mortgage interest as an allowable deductible then all companies would no longer be able to deduct loan interest from profits... Never going to happen.

Jonny is right that BTL is a sitting duck for taxation. Not just because it is essential for the social fabric of this country to curb or halt the commoditisation of homes but also because it is a huge market now and for many voters it is seen as something rich people and immigrants are doing to rape the people along with eating babies.

As to how you do it? Well you increase stamp duty for non primRy residences if you were being altruistic and wanted to curb the practice gently and prudently. But as it would be about raising tax then you would want a mechanism that would encourage lots of owners to sell up and trigger CGT liabilities.

You already have tax on the yield but extending the mansion tax annual levy across to non primary residences regardless of value would do the trick.

[Claudia Skies]

bad company said:

Mind you shares can and do go down in value.

The idea has grown up that it's a one-way bet where you can't lose. This is the classic sign of a bubble.

It's only 8 years ago that speculators who'd borrowed to buy new build flats for BTL found themselves sitting on substantial negative equity.

[Welshbeef]

DonkeyApple said:

Jonny is right that BTL is a sitting duck for taxation. Not just because it is essential for the social fabric of this country to curb or halt the commoditisation of homes but also because it is a huge market now and for many voters it is seen as something rich people and immigrants are doing to rape the people along with eating babies.

As to how you do it? Well you increase stamp duty for non primRy residences if you were being altruistic and wanted to curb the practice gently and prudently. But as it would be about raising tax then you would want a mechanism that would encourage lots of owners to sell up and trigger CGT liabilities.

You already have tax on the yield but extending the mansion tax annual levy across to non primary residences regardless of value would do the trick.

Would it? As a landlord if I and all others have a levy charged don't you forsee mass rental increases???

Also you'd simply put then into a ltd company and then they would be treated by the same rules.



Stamp duty one off cost on a very long term investment 30-50 years. So no golden goose

[Countdown]

Welshbeef said:

Would it? As a landlord if I and all others have a levy charged don't you forsee mass rental increases???

Also you'd simply put then into a ltd company and then they would be treated by the same rules.



Stamp duty one off cost on a very long term investment 30-50 years. So no golden goose

SDLT already applies to NPR owned by Ltd Companies. IIRC the current threshold is £500k. It would be straightforward to remove the threshold.

[jonny70]

Claudia Skies said:

jonny70 said:

property has gone up 10% and more over the past few years

Which is small beer compared with the stock market is up 25% in the last 3 years. What's more,

• you don't pay Stamp Duty to buy the stock market,
• you don't pay solicitors and estate agents to buy/sell the stock market, and
• you don't have to deal with difficult tenants or dripping taps in the stock market.

My post should of said 10% in the past year. Its obvious enough to most the annual rises in property in the past few years.

[jonny70]

DonkeyApple said:

Welshbeef said:

jonny70 said:

Not sure about this. The next government will need to increase taxes. They have already hit pensions.Over the past decade BTL has been exceptionally popular and plenty folks have made lots of money from it. If the government need to raise more taxes this could be avery likely scenario.

Also a lot of BTL have low yields ATM with an increase in i/r over the long term and a mortgage being a long-term commitment this could eventually make the monthlies not add up.

We are also in the midst of an asset bubble because of loose monetary policy and the effects of quantitate easing. FTSE 100 at the highest ever, property has gone up 10% and more over the past few years yet inflation is close to nil, wage growth is close to nil ,interest rates are 0.5%

But it is paper gains - even if the govt put a 90% capital gain tax on sale then what would you do? Sit tight wait until the next govt or the one after that etc -- only those who desperately needed to sell would be impacted.

Remove the allowance of tax relief on BTL mortgage interest - answer change it to a company ownership instead ( which make passing it on to avoid IHT even better) as such if the govt tried to remove the mortgage interest as an allowable deductible then all companies would no longer be able to deduct loan interest from profits... Never going to happen.

Jonny is right that BTL is a sitting duck for taxation. Not just because it is essential for the social fabric of this country to curb or halt the commoditisation of homes but also because it is a huge market now and for many voters it is seen as something rich people and immigrants are doing to rape the people along with eating babies.

As to how you do it? Well you increase stamp duty for non primRy residences if you were being altruistic and wanted to curb the practice gently and prudently. But as it would be about raising tax then you would want a mechanism that would encourage lots of owners to sell up and trigger CGT liabilities.

You already have tax on the yield but extending the mansion tax annual levy across to non primary residences regardless of value would do the trick.

@WelshBeef , It would be unthinkable for the government to come up with a way of taxing landlords for more money? It obviously wont be tax relief on the mortgage interest as thats a business cost. An increase in stamp duty for BTL?, a BTL levy tax on each property per year ? I dont know but the government has the resources and expertise to find a way to tax BTL more.

As mentioned BTL has made a lot of people a lot of money over the past decade. The government need to raise taxes after the election , they have already hit pensions , it seems BTL is very likely possibility.

Welshbeef said:

Would it? As a landlord if I and all others have a levy charged don't you forsee mass rental increases???

Also you'd simply put then into a ltd company and then they would be treated by the same rules.



Stamp duty one off cost on a very long term investment 30-50 years. So no golden goose

Isnt it a complicated procedure to put property thats held in ones name in to a a company? would one/s mortgage lender allow this? It might work for professional landlords that have been in the game for a long time with a decent portfolio. But someone that has 1 or 2 BTL if it is possible will now have the cost of servicing a limited company to add to their costs of owning that single 2 bed flat!

Edited by jonny70 on Wednesday 25th March 15:06

Edited by jonny70 on Wednesday 25th March 15:07

[jonny70]

Claudia Skies said:

The idea has grown up that it's a one-way bet where you can't lose. This is the classic sign of a bubble.

Perhaps they believe in Gordon browns economics of "abolishing boom and bust".

[DonkeyApple]

Welshbeef said:

DonkeyApple said:

Jonny is right that BTL is a sitting duck for taxation. Not just because it is essential for the social fabric of this country to curb or halt the commoditisation of homes but also because it is a huge market now and for many voters it is seen as something rich people and immigrants are doing to rape the people along with eating babies.

As to how you do it? Well you increase stamp duty for non primRy residences if you were being altruistic and wanted to curb the practice gently and prudently. But as it would be about raising tax then you would want a mechanism that would encourage lots of owners to sell up and trigger CGT liabilities.

You already have tax on the yield but extending the mansion tax annual levy across to non primary residences regardless of value would do the trick.

Would it? As a landlord if I and all others have a levy charged don't you forsee mass rental increases???

Also you'd simply put then into a ltd company and then they would be treated by the same rules.



Stamp duty one off cost on a very long term investment 30-50 years. So no golden goose

You might be right that rents would increase to cover but it depends on what the rate is and whether it included social housing for example.

The main thing is that second homes and BTL assets are obvious things for a Govt to start taxing as property is theft and people love any tax that hits those they deem wealthier than them.

I'd certainly favour an annual tax on resi assets held by corporates, overseas entities or portfolios above a certain level. Removing some of the institutional money from the resi market would be a good thing.

[jeff m2]

DonkeyApple said:

Welshbeef said:

DonkeyApple said:

Jonny is right that BTL is a sitting duck for taxation. Not just because it is essential for the social fabric of this country to curb or halt the commoditisation of homes but also because it is a huge market now and for many voters it is seen as something rich people and immigrants are doing to rape the people along with eating babies.

As to how you do it? Well you increase stamp duty for non primRy residences if you were being altruistic and wanted to curb the practice gently and prudently. But as it would be about raising tax then you would want a mechanism that would encourage lots of owners to sell up and trigger CGT liabilities.

You already have tax on the yield but extending the mansion tax annual levy across to non primary residences regardless of value would do the trick.

Would it? As a landlord if I and all others have a levy charged don't you forsee mass rental increases???

Also you'd simply put then into a ltd company and then they would be treated by the same rules.



Stamp duty one off cost on a very long term investment 30-50 years. So no golden goose

You might be right that rents would increase to cover but it depends on what the rate is and whether it included social housing for example.

The main thing is that second homes and BTL assets are obvious things for a Govt to start taxing as property is theft and people love any tax that hits those they deem wealthier than them.

I'd certainly favour an annual tax on resi assets held by corporates, overseas entities or portfolios above a certain level. Removing some of the institutional money from the resi market would be a good thing.

Also you can't just put it in a wrapper. The wrapper (LLC) would have to be created and the property sold to the corp thus making C.G.s and stamp duty payable on the transfer in. (Now)
This is what high end foreign investors currently do. The house is not bought and sold, the corp is transferred. A Foreign corp like "35 Bishops" of course
The UK gov is well aware of this and I presume trying to do something about their lost revenues.

Whether this has anything to do with high end prices being off, not sure, but interest has recently moved to Japan.

[DonkeyApple]

jeff m2 said:

Also you can't just put it in a wrapper. The wrapper (LLC) would have to be created and the property sold to the corp thus making C.G.s and stamp duty payable on the transfer in. (Now)
This is what high end foreign investors currently do. The house is not bought and sold, the corp is transferred. A Foreign corp like "35 Bishops" of course
The UK gov is well aware of this and I presume trying to do something about their lost revenues.

Whether this has anything to do with high end prices being off, not sure, but interest has recently moved to Japan.

That wheeze was going on for years but didn't they change stamp duty to curb it? Either way, my personal opinion is that any form of wrapper should be taxed to buggery on residential assets.

However, as a second home owner I suspect that I will get nailed by the next govt, along with their mansion tax. The irony being that I own a second home as I cannot afford a real mansion in London having been priced off that ladder.

Successive govt's are going to need to fund an ever more costly NHS and pension bill as the Boomers age and that means they are going to have to tax the absolute crap out of everyone, which invariably means they will want to keep inflating their artificial property bubble to generate the fake wealth to then tax.

[jeff m2]

DonkeyApple said:

jeff m2 said:

Also you can't just put it in a wrapper. The wrapper (LLC) would have to be created and the property sold to the corp thus making C.G.s and stamp duty payable on the transfer in. (Now)
This is what high end foreign investors currently do. The house is not bought and sold, the corp is transferred. A Foreign corp like "35 Bishops" of course
The UK gov is well aware of this and I presume trying to do something about their lost revenues.

Whether this has anything to do with high end prices being off, not sure, but interest has recently moved to Japan.

That wheeze was going on for years but didn't they change stamp duty to curb it? Either way, my personal opinion is that any form of wrapper should be taxed to buggery on residential assets.

However, as a second home owner I suspect that I will get nailed by the next govt, along with their mansion tax. The irony being that I own a second home as I cannot afford a real mansion in London having been priced off that ladder.

Successive govt's are going to need to fund an ever more costly NHS and pension bill as the Boomers age and that means they are going to have to tax the absolute crap out of everyone, which invariably means they will want to keep inflating their artificial property bubble to generate the fake wealth to then tax.

That pretty much sums up why I am now sitting in New Jersey
Not that all is rosy here.