Ridiculously entitled baby-boomer complains that she can't sell her £1m home

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[WangerMan]

Subsequent generations have that too, though. More so, I'd say.
It only took the right DotCom trade or winning lottery ticket and BOOM - £18mil plus to play with. In fact, what's the latest lottery win, $1.6 BILLION.
Plus you have all the high-paid jobs nowadays, like pilots and ATC, marketing and advertising, 10% of the population earns more than £100k and 50% earn more than £35k.

...yes that all sounds completely legit...

 

[Scam]

Not against the idea, but how would that work in practice? Does the value get assessed every year? Or just the last value it sold at? (snip)

If it was just based on last sold for price then people would be reluctant to move possibly... why would my parents move from a 4 bed detached paying LVT based on 300k a year to something smaller but an increase in LVT

The idea is that your house is assessed every year. A very quick Google shows that's how it works in Amsterdam, for one;

Home owners pay a yearly real estate tax (onroerende-zaakbelasting) based on the value of their property. Real estate includes any building, such as a residence or place of business. Tenants of offices in commercial buildings also need to pay real estate tax. The municipality reassesses the value of all properties every year. This valuation is called the WOZ-waarde (WOZ is short for Wet waardering Onroerende Zaken, or the Immovable Property Tax Act). Tax is based on this valuation. The method of payment varies by municipality. Tenants of social housing annually receive a notification of their accommodation's WOZ-waarde, which has an impact on the maximum rent they can be expected to pay.

(snip)

If you want to blame anyone for not providing property for younger people, blame the government or builders for not building affordable housing.

the 1M house market has no bearing on 1st time buyers.

Of course it does. The market moves as a whole. If the upper end of the market goes up (more £1m+ properties) then the bottom end moves too. Even more-so, because investors get in on the action. You can't solely blame the government or builders for our broken market, because the more the market has inflated, the more investors have jumped in (especially when BTL became so easy - thanks Gordon Brown) and the more the market inflated even more. People love to espouse the "free market" conveniently forgetting the UK property market has been totally skewed by investors and BTLers. You only have to look at articles like this to show it. (what a sad story, by the way)

She is.
She just has to wait and find someone with enough money.... and there will be someone.

Not necessarily, what does she do then? Hold on for £950k in her entitled way, or drop the price and admit defeat? As said before, she's not entitled to sell her house for any amount. Donald Trump could start a nuclear war or something entirely random, and property prices might crash by 50%. Is she still entitled to sell it for £950k? lol.

If they want to strive properly, have them ditch the avocado toasties, BMWs, tablets, consoles, gym memberships, thousand pound iPhones, and whatever else they're wasting money on instead of saving... or have them vote for a government that won't let overseas developers and foreign landlords own property, and charge us exorbitant amounts to fund their own luxury lifestyles.

Well, I can't believe it took us until page 4 for someone to have a mini-tantrum about technology and eating-out being a lot cheaper than it was 40 years ago Saving? Pull the other one, it's hard to find an easy-access ISA nowadays that covers inflation, let alone the inflation of property prices

 

[francky]

Can you explain to me, how the price of a 1m property affects the price of a £150K starter home in a given area?.....you say they move up and yes the market will generally follow a similar pattern, moving up or down...but the price of those homes is usually determined by how many buyers are trying to get that limited set of properties in a given area...but either way that wasn't my original point anyway.

Im 30......ive worked since I was 20....I bought a £450k property about 2 years ago with my GF....if in 30 years it was worth £850k....does that make me entitled or a bad person for my house being worth that? because that is the impression I get from some?

 

[dowie]

The idea is that your house is assessed every year. A very quick Google shows that's how it works in Amsterdam, for one;

You realise that if the UK were to reassess council tax every year and/or increase the variation then you'd likely be negatively affected by it if you're in central London in a property that has more than doubled.

Gentrification would perhaps accelerate as it wouldn't just be renters who feel the pressure to move out as prices rise but longstanding home owners seeing their council tax bills rising would be incentivised to move out too.

 

[Dis86]

You realise that if the UK were to reassess council tax every year and/or increase the variation then you'd likely be negatively affected by it if you're in central London in a property that has more than doubled.

Gentrification would perhaps accelerate as it wouldn't just be renters who feel the pressure to move out as prices rise but longstanding home owners seeing their council tax bills rising would be incentivised to move out too.

Or it would go the other way and property price increases would reduce as people feel disincentivised to pay more tax. I'd also imagine the number of empty homes would reduce due to the owners not wishing to pay tax on something that's not earning them money.

 

[balky12]

The idea is that your house is assessed every year. A very quick Google shows that's how it works in Amsterdam, for one;

I will ignore the 'a very quick google'. I tried not include Amsterdam as you previously mentioned, partly for your sake... it has a population of 900k and so logistically it's in a different league to London.

Also I'm pretty sure Amsterdam has its own serious housing crisis...

 

[dowie]

Or it would go the other way and property price increases would reduce as people feel disincentivised to pay more tax. I'd also imagine the number of empty homes would reduce due to the owners not wishing to pay tax on something that's not earning them money.

So long as people still want to live in certain areas and are prepared to complete with others in order to do so then we'll still have various areas where some are priced out. It might well have some effect on empty properties, it would also hit some asset rich/cash poor residents who have lived in certain areas for years but now happen to be in possession of a home that would be very valuable if they were to sell up.

 

[Dis86]

So long as people still want to live in certain areas and are prepared to complete with others in order to do so then we'll still have various areas where some are priced out. It might well have some effect on empty properties, it would also hit some asset rich/cash poor residents who have lived in certain areas for years but now happen to be in possession of a home that would be very valuable if they were to sell up.

And that's the crux. We have people living in houses that they simply couldn't afford now because their generation has gotten us in to a horrendous housing situation. Sure, as individuals they may not be responsible but nor are those who cannot now afford a reasonable house despite working hard and earning good money.
It's like anything, if you can't afford to maintain it - including taxes - then sell it.
The current situation for housing in this country is simply not sustainable and needs reform. Leaving it as it is is not an option.

 

[francky]

So long as people still want to live in certain areas and are prepared to complete with others in order to do so then we'll still have various areas where some are priced out. It might well have some effect on empty properties, it would also hit some asset rich/cash poor residents who have lived in certain areas for years but now happen to be in possession of a home that would be very valuable if they were to sell up.

Yep.....London has a population of 8.7 Million but has only 3.5 Million dwellings...thats the issue.

 

[No1newts]

You're not quite getting it. She clearly isn't selling her house at market value because IT ISN'T SELLING. Market value is obviously below what she's got it advertised at.

Amen.

I WANT A MILLION POUND AND I'M DISGUSTED THST I CAN'T HAVE EXACTLY WHAT I WANT SO CHANGE THE LAW TO SUIT ME ME MEEEEEE.

Lower the price you whiny moo and sell it for what it's worth.

 

[balky12]

Amen.

I WANT A MILLION POUND AND I'M DISGUSTED THST I CAN'T HAVE EXACTLY WHAT I WANT SO CHANGE THE LAW TO SUIT ME ME MEEEEEE.

Lower the price you whiny moo and sell it for what it's worth.

Tbf her letter touched on the reprocussions of increasing stamp duty on her personal situation, government revenue, social mobility and first time buyers...

But yes, people seems to see old, £1m house and then vilify her for having 2 offers she accepted fall through because the buyers tried to pull a fast one last minute..

 

[balky12]

And that's the crux. We have people living in houses that they simply couldn't afford now

So the answer is to force everyone to downsize? Or move further out of desirable areas?

Meaning desirable places will only be for the rich (like they already are), and places further afield will have an increase in demand... wouldn't the knock on affect be that people already living further afield will have to sell up due to increase demand in their area, pushing prices up, meaning next LVT valuation prices them out?

 

[chrcoluk]

Entitled baby boomers? When you've worked for 40 years, paid your taxes, your endowment mortgage didn't add up, your state pension won't allow you to run any more than one bar on the gas fire and live in poverty and your private pension (if you have one) isn't worth diddly squat andyou've stumped up mortgage deposits for your kids. All you have left is the property you live in, a bit of cash and are probably going to live for another twenty years with no income.

No wonder she's holding out for as much as possible.

There is holding out and thats fine, but trying to get a tax removed and claiming she is putting a reasonable asking price up is another thing.

 

[Scam]

Or it would go the other way and property price increases would reduce as people feel disincentivised to pay more tax. I'd also imagine the number of empty homes would reduce due to the owners not wishing to pay tax on something that's not earning them money.

Exactly my point. A tax on property value would help control further inflation, as it would be in nobody's interest. The way it is now, far too many people benefit from rising prices; landlords, investors, home-owners, agents. If you take those benefits away, things would soon change.

Meaning desirable places will only be for the rich (like they already are), and places further afield will have an increase in demand... wouldn't the knock on affect be that people already living further afield will have to sell up due to increase demand in their area, pushing prices up, meaning next LVT valuation prices them out?

You've answered your own question. It'll work like this;
1 - Property prices go up
2 - Tax goes up
3 - Some people decide to move out
4 - The extra properties on the market mean there's more choice for buyers
5 - This means ... *drumroll* prices stop rising
6 - Tada! Bubble avoided.

I will ignore the 'a very quick google'. I tried not include Amsterdam as you previously mentioned, partly for your sake... it has a population of 900k and so logistically it's in a different league to London.

Also I'm pretty sure Amsterdam has its own serious housing crisis...

Well please do enlighten me. I don't have time to investigate the ins-and-outs of other country's tax law, I've only read about how it can help stem property bubbles.

The current situation for housing in this country is simply not sustainable and needs reform. Leaving it as it is is not an option.

Exactly. I like the way I post how bricks and mortar are earning £50k/year and people on here don't even blink. The opinion that property in this country should be going up that fast is so engrained into our society it's laughable. You can see why any ideas on reform get nowhere. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A HOME PEOPLE, NOT AN INVESTMENT VEHICLE.

 

[Dis86]

So the answer is to force everyone to downsize? Or move further out of desirable areas?

Meaning desirable places will only be for the rich (like they already are), and places further afield will have an increase in demand... wouldn't the knock on affect be that people already living further afield will have to sell up due to increase demand in their area, pushing prices up, meaning next LVT valuation prices them out?

Not at all. If we then find ourselves in a situation where people can't afford the tax on these houses and have to sell then supply has just gone up. Demand won't increase because it's now more expensive to own the property ergo with supply up, demand steady or down value decreases.

 

[balky12]

Exactly my point. A tax on property value would help control further inflation, as it would be in nobody's interest. The way it is now, far too many people benefit from rising prices; landlords, investors, home-owners, agents. If you take those benefits away, things would soon change.

You've answered your own question. It'll work like this;
1 - Property prices go up
2 - Tax goes up
3 - Some people decide to move out
4 - The extra properties on the market mean there's more choice for buyers
5 - This means ... *drumroll* prices stop rising
6 - Tada! Bubble avoided.

Well please do enlighten me. I don't have time to investigate the ins-and-outs of other country's tax law, I've only read about how it can help stem property bubbles.

In an ideal world yes.. but I'm not sure any realistic tax in desirable areas (such as London) will have any affect on supply/demand issues because demand is that great...

You also conveniently ignored the later parts of my post. Demand has to go somewhere. Less demand for London will create higher demand elsewhere... effectively you are making people downsize or move further afield. If you're pushing people down the housing ladder how do first time buyers then get on the ladder?

Also you kept mentioning Amsterdam and the fact they use a form of LVT. The short version is Amsterdam has a housing crisis.. so their LVT clearly doesn't work.

 

[balky12]

Not at all. If we then find ourselves in a situation where people can't afford the tax on these houses and have to sell then supply has just gone up. Demand won't increase because it's now more expensive to own the property ergo with supply up, demand steady or down value decreases.

Again I see the logic, however demand far outstretches supply.. there needs to be a massive downswing in demand for this to have the desired affect.

One that probably can only be achieved by eye watering taxation, which will hurt everyone. Unless you specifically target the super rich. We all know that never has the intended outcome.

I'm not against an LVT, I think it makes more sense than current council tax. I just don't think it will have the desired outcome.

 

[Pudney]

Yep.....London has a population of 8.7 Million but has only 3.5 Million dwellings...thats the issue.

Is that actually dwellings as in a living space (e.g. house, flat, space in shared occupancy building)? Because if so you'd only need less than 3 people per dwelling on average to make the housing stock sufficient for population needs.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Can you explain to me, how the price of a 1m property affects the price of a £150K starter home in a given area?.....you say they move up and yes the market will generally follow a similar pattern, moving up or down...but the price of those homes is usually determined by how many buyers are trying to get that limited set of properties in a given area...but either way that wasn't my original point anyway.

Im 30......ive worked since I was 20....I bought a £450k property about 2 years ago with my GF....if in 30 years it was worth £850k....does that make me entitled or a bad person for my house being worth that? because that is the impression I get from some?

You’re a bad ‘un and no mistake. I’m properly evil for taking on a 3 bed semi in London at it’s 1994 price as part of a divorce arrangement and flogging it for 10 times that amount 2 months ago.