And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..

[Scam]

Ah yes, the generation that blames everyone else and expects the world to give them everything for free.

You're talking about the boomers presumably? The ones that had free further education, cheap housing, final salary pensions etc. Oh and then massive property inflation just to ensure they can live in the lap of luxury in retirement? Thouht so. Just checking we're on the same page..

If you removed buy to let. Then all the people who rent but have zero deposits would be homeless.

Not if we had proper council housing. Let's not forget all the boomers that were lucky enough to buy their council houses at a discount and have now sold them on for vast sums.

It creates a growing wealth divide. And it's unfair.

Inheritance only creates a wealth divide now because of property inflation. For the average joe anyway.

House prices can and will increase, because government will do everything in their power to ensure that they do. This includes not building anything.

Exactly. At the moment they're just building luxury apartments that FTBs can't afford. Thus further enabling the BTL nonsense.

They can do a lot more than they do now, look at what other countries do. Affordable housing schemes, rent control, land value taxes, second home taxes, taxing rental income at income tax rates, etc etc.

We don't do these things, not because we can't. But because we don't want to.

Yep. Maybe once there are some renters in government, a new generation perhaps, things will start to change.

EDIT: We should really implement something like this: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-could-earn-the-government-400bn-in-25-years

A seller, or an estate if the last owner has died, would pay a percentage of the difference between the price at which a property was bought and the price at which it is sold. Levied at a rate of 10%, and assuming houses rise in value by only 1% a year, the tax would raise £421bn over 25 years for the Treasury, calculates Johnson.

 

[HACO]

Exactly. At the moment they're just building luxury apartments that FTBs can't afford. Thus further enabling the BTL nonsense.

Yep. Maybe once there are some renters in government, a new generation perhaps, things will start to change.

EDIT: We should really implement something like this: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-could-earn-the-government-400bn-in-25-years

Capital gains tax on property is a no brainier. Most countries have it, we don’t. “Landowner” has become a protected class, exempt from taxation.

 

[The Running Man]

That tax can be at 100% above a certain level, equivalent to a cap. Are you really debating transaction technicalities? We're not drafting legislation here.

Wouldn't you just make a company ,I.e an asset management company and then make your son/daughter the MD or whatever.

How would you stop this?

 

[AiiR]

It's 8x the average wage.

I agree that in the grand scheme of things £200k isn't a lot. But when it would take the average person 8 years to get "not that much", without spending a penny, there is something very, very wrong.

What's really wrong is that wages in this country are way too low. Have been for decades.

This is the correct answer, why not focus the attention on how far wages have fallen behind inflation?

I still stand by that 200k is not a lot of money these days on it's own. Yes when you compare it to the average salary it seems a lot, but compared to what it can get you - not enough to warrant setting the cap to.

 

[dowie]

That tax can be at 100% above a certain level, equivalent to a cap. Are you really debating transaction technicalities? We're not drafting legislation here.

The technicalities can be rather important here - how you structure such a scheme affects how people react to it.

Might go for eariler transfers for example... why have investments compounding over decades in your name and taking a larger portion of a cap later when you can transfer them earlier and take up a lesser portion of a cap etc..

 

[HACO]

Wouldn't you just make a company ,I.e an asset management company and then make your son/daughter the MD or whatever.

How would you stop this?

You can have provisions in the law for all of these. Many countries have these restrictions, there’s always some way to evade (laws are never perfect), but they do bring in a lot of revenue. Again, we’re not drafting legislation here to send to parliament, the spirit of what I’m saying is clear, there should be limits (into tens of millions) to tax-free transfer of wealth between individuals.

 

[HACO]

The technicalities can be rather important here - how you structure such a scheme affects how people react to it.

Might go for eariler transfers for example... why have investments compounding over decades in your name and taking a larger portion of a cap later when you can transfer them earlier and take up a lesser portion of a cap etc..

We should debate technicalities when there’s a bill to pass in parliament. Until then, it’s the big picture view of those taxes/caps that matters on a forum like this, not technicalities. We’re not passing laws here

 

[dowie]

You can have provisions in the law for all of these. Many countries have these restrictions, there’s always some way to evade (laws are never perfect), but they do bring in a lot of revenue. Again, we’re not drafting legislation here to send to parliament, the spirit of what I’m saying is clear, there should be limits (into tens of millions) to tax-free transfer of wealth between individuals.

That isn't what was claimed - the claim was limits full stop, a cap... and the poster proposing it wanted 200k.

I don't see why there needs to be a limit, just having a tax is sufficient IMO

 

[dowie]

We should debate technicalities when there’s a bill to pass in parliament. Until then, it’s the big picture view of those taxes/caps that matters on a forum like this, not technicalities. We’re not passing laws here

I never claimed we were - a cap seems pointless and people will just avoid it - esepcially if the only people targeted are worth tens of millions.

 

[Eurofighter]

They need to build better infrastructure in the north so that more people move there. Manchester underground for starters.

 

[The Running Man]

They need to build better infrastructure in the north so that more people move there. Manchester underground for starters.

Manchester is underground enough as it is...


But seriously you can walk end to end manchester from Victoria Station to the Hilton in about 30 mins...



There is also the metro link an 3 train stations from surrounding areas

 

[FoxEye]

An awful lot of the cheaper market is owned by landlords to rent to the huge student population and low income earners, effectively trapping those around minimum wage from getting on the housing ladder locally.

In some respects it's like how payg electric meters used to be, those on lower incomes are paying more in rent than monthly mortgage repayments would be on a property they would be allowed to get a mortgage on.

This is the thing that most aggrieves me.

The middle-classes (and even more so the rich) aren't just buying top-end properties.

They're actively buying up all the starter houses. The "cheapest" housing on the market. Purely to deny it to the lowest earners and to force them into servitude via paying rent. As well as turning all the 2+ bed houses into so-called "studio" flats, where your kitchen is also your toilet and bedroom.

They are also quite proud of doing this.

We could stop this over night by preventing the cheapest housing from being owned by BTL landlords.

But of course we would never, ever, ever do that. It's a BTL landlord's human right to own as much starter housing as they can can their hands on, and to extract huge amounts of money from the poorest in society.

 

[Jono8]

Houses that don't require major work before moving in, that go on the market under £175k in Southampton, are almost as rare as hen's teeth.

Flats with private gardens, outside the less desirable parts of the city, rarely go for under £150k.

2-bed flats for rental rarely go for under £750pcm now.

An awful lot of the cheaper market is owned by landlords to rent to the huge student population and low income earners, effectively trapping those around minimum wage from getting on the housing ladder locally.

In some respects it's like how payg electric meters used to be, those on lower incomes are paying more in rent than monthly mortgage repayments would be on a property they would be allowed to get a mortgage on.

There are certainly some issues that need fixing like this. When I used to rent, I was paying £800 a month for a tiny one bed flat. I now pay the same on a mortgage for a 3 bed detached house (slightly less expensive area, but not massively so) and this is only within a 5 year timespan.

However I do think the difficultly with getting on the housing ladder is exaggerated. For example, an old colleague at work (on the same fairly modest salary as me) would **** and moan all the time about the housing market and how it was impossible to get on it etc. I managed to get on it though, and so did others I worked with on the same pay. I also had no help with anything (ie no deposit or money/help from parents). Granted I went in with my partner (who earned even less than me!) but then i think its unrealistic for everyone to own their own home just for them personally anyway.

Essentially, I think the system is far from perfect , but a lot of the most vocal complainers do not help themselves ..

 

[stockhausen]

. . .
Not if we had proper council housing. Let's not forget all the boomers that were lucky enough to buy their council houses at a discount and have now sold them on for vast sums.
. . .

Interesting that you blame people born at a particular time for this rather than Thatcher and the Tories - deflection and distraction are wonderful tools of deception

I suspect that your irresponsible, profligate "Boomer" parents also spent vast sums on streaming, holidays, mobile 'phones, trainers, designer brands and consoles

 

[FoxEye]

but then i think its unrealistic for everyone to own their own home just for them personally anyway.

Why tho? The situation today wasn't always the case.

We should we just accept it now? Why should we let BTL landlords own all the starter properties?

 

[Jono8]

Why tho? The situation today wasn't always the case.

We should we just accept it now? Why should we let BTL landlords own all the starter properties?

For a start, we have nowhere near enough property or land for every adult individual to have their own house and solely occupy it!

I agree that the BTL thing is an issue and needs regulation though.

 

[2004typer]

Manchester is underground enough as it is...


But seriously you can walk end to end manchester from Victoria Station to the Hilton in about 30 mins...



There is also the metro link an 3 train stations from surrounding areas

Yeah, spend a lot of time in Manchester, definately walkable to all parts so wouldn't justify an underground. City quite well served by all the over ground rail lines from the burbs too. Of course, if the city size creeps in years to come then this may change.

Even the Salford part is just over the river from Deansgate, so still very close.

 

[dowie]

Why tho? The situation today wasn't always the case.

We should we just accept it now? Why should we let BTL landlords own all the starter properties?

BTL landlords don't own all the starter properties.

Likewise preventing immigration isn't going to solve this to the point where any single low income person can just buy an entire house. I'm not sure that is a problem that needs to be solved in the first place tbh..

 

[FoxEye]

BTL landlords don't own all the starter properties.

Literally every single last one? No, clearly.

Enough of them to be a problem... yes.

You might not think it's a problem that low earners are locked into paying more in rent than they might pay with a mortgage on the same property, but many of us see that as exploitation of the poor by the rich.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Literally every single last one? No, clearly.

Enough of them to be a problem... yes.

You might not think it's a problem that low earners are locked into paying more in rent than they might pay with a mortgage on the same property, but many of us see that as exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Take landlords out of the equation. Renters cannot get a deposit together.

How do you fix that issue?

Rent is based on supply and demand.

I can't just jack up rents by £500 a month. Tenants would find somewhere cheaper to rent.

Otherwise I'd jack them all up by £500.