so we should keep a broken system to keep some people mega rich rather than make it fair
What affect would taxing second homes have on the economy
- Thread starter NotAGolf
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,376
- Location
- Derbyshire
This is my exact argument against repeated minimum wage increases. At what point does the factory owner say "Stuff this" and move manufacture abroad?
Cap rental prices and plenty of second home owners will sell up.
Match the rental price to what a mortgage would cost on that property plus a small percentage on top to cover costs. You shouldn't expect a tenant to cover the mortgage, costs and profit. Either own the property outright to make a profit or settle for them paying your mortgage for you.
Match the rental price to what a mortgage would cost on that property plus a small percentage on top to cover costs. You shouldn't expect a tenant to cover the mortgage, costs and profit. Either own the property outright to make a profit or settle for them paying your mortgage for you.
Funny how people with money consistently say, "You can't change the way the game is played, it will destroy society as we know it."
This has happened every single time people at the bottom were given thrown a bone. "You can't introduce minimum wage, it will destroy businesses up and down the country." "You can't give workers rights, it will destroy businesses up and down the country." "You can't free the slaves," etc, etc, etc.
The money many BTL landlords have is given them by the renters. How can they "take their money with them" when they leave? The only money they have is what they've leeched from the renter classes. The renter classes won't follow their BTL masters when they leave (may the door hit them hard on the ass as they do).
There is a problem with corporate home ownership. It's happening in parts of the US right now, where entire areas are being bought up by massive investment funds, purely for the rental income. And they are putting rents up and up and up and forcing people out of their homes, because they can. It's become (in the US) a massive, massive problem in some parts. And no doubt it would happen here too, because we similarly lack laws to prevent business ownership of residential property.
However there is literally no point in even discussing this. We are facing Tory rule with no end in sight. Labour are a shambles and will not see office again for decades. The Tories are the future, short and long-term, and they will not penalise 2nd/3rd/4th/10th home ownership. It's pure fantasy expecting the Tories to curb profiteering off a very limited resources like land or property. All things exist to make profit, esp for them and their mates. They all have massive property portfolios, as do a lot of Labour MPs. All charlatans, all bent as a dog's back leg.
This country is not a socialist country neither to people in this country care about social cohesion or the welfare of the common man. We've been bred for the dog-eat-dog lifestyle; it's all we know.
Personally I look forwards to the return to Victorian conditions for the working poor. At some point I'm hopefully going to put my money where my mouth is and leave this shrine to dog-eat-dog selfishness that we call a country. I hate how skewed everything is to those with no principles. I hate how our politicians manage a veneer of respectability despite being as bent as any you could find in Afghanistan. I hate how none of the parties care about society, and most of that stems from how little the electorate care about each other. Every man for himself, that's the British way.
A perfect example of the attitude of the Brits and their tunnel vision for their own personal enrichment at any cost. The factory owner doesn't care a hoot about his employees, and would pay them nothing if he could get away with it. He probably campaigned against min wage in the first place. He view his employees like you'd view a pair of boots or a calculator. A tool, nothing more. He cares nothing for their welfare nor for his responsibilities toward them.
If he can outsource production he will. It will mean he can own a bigger house and more premium cars. That is all he cares for.
This is the prevailing mindset in this country. There is no other goal than to enrich ourselves. So sick of it all. So very sick of this selfish country and its selfish people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,304
- Location
- 2
Is NotAGolf HACO in disguise?
It doesn't matter that the effective rate is lower as a proportion of the property value. What matters is more expensive properties are in higher bands so a mechanism already exists to collect more tax from those properties. The actual amount collected is what matters rather than the percentage argument as they're still paying higher tax than a lower band.
I'm happy for the law to change as long as it isn't a lefty solution that costs more to administer than is collected.
People renting houses out put those houses in a company. No effect on house prices whatsoever.
Exactly how is the government going to force these lenders?
Are you asking a question or making a statement?
Council Tax on second homes is not 10%.
Indeed - and moreover, why would they want to? Doesn't anyone remember Northern Rock?
Wasnt it the US government that pressured lenders to lend money to people not able to afford to buy houses (sub prime mortgages) that was the start of the world financial crash?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,988
- Location
- South Wirral
Not really, just good old fashioned greed. Watch "Margin Call" and "The Big Short" for good background on it all.
You said council tax, apart from a few house shares it has always been the tenant that is burdened with council tax not the landlord.
But it won't affect the mega rich. It will affect the already struggling middle class, whose personal homes will have their value decimated.
It won't destroy business but it will raise the cost of goods and the general populace would end up with a an effective pay cut as they see a reduction in spending power, but that is an argument for a different thread.
Side note.
Dear diary today I learnt that you can highlight text to quote it. Not sure how i missed that for so long.
Forcing banks to give 100% LTV mortgages whilst simultaneously causing house prices to crash? I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong there 
A wonderful idea in principal... in the real world however, what a mortgage costs is open to so many variables. Is this based on a mortgage over 10 years? 20? 30? What LTV are we looking at? Any particular lender? What happens when the landlord changes mortgage, do they change the rent mid-term? "Oh Hi Mr & Mrs Tenant, I've decided to shorten my mortgage term by 15 years, your rent is now 3x what it was last month"
A wonderful idea in principal... in the real world however, what a mortgage costs is open to so many variables. Is this based on a mortgage over 10 years? 20? 30? What LTV are we looking at? Any particular lender? What happens when the landlord changes mortgage, do they change the rent mid-term? "Oh Hi Mr & Mrs Tenant, I've decided to shorten my mortgage term by 15 years, your rent is now 3x what it was last month"
The houses would just shift to company ownership. All that would happen is we would flush out some small rental investors only for big organisations to eat up all the properties. Look at what Lloyds is doing at the moment. They are one of the biggest landlords in the UK now.
Eh? Your proposing making a lot of people a lot poorer and a small number of people a lot richer
Also some massive international banking cluster **** as the regulatory hell of forcing them to give out 100% mortgages in a housing crash and how that would affect them in over countries.
It's kinda like protesting your heating bill by setting yourself on fire as far as ideas go