I don't think this is the case
It might be in Kensington and Chelsea, but most elsewhere you have people already on the property 'ladder', who continue to fully mortgage up in order to move up the ladder, bouyed by the rising price of their own home (which gives them a larger deposit on the next property).
First time buyers are almost entirely supported by parents and inheritances.
It's the 'developers' who really seem to be moving the market though, they pay cash and flip for a fast profit after giving it a lick of paint and fitting the ugliest kitchen they can find, or let it out. With prices going up there are more and more people doing this - its like 2006 again. Estate agents are reporting record levels of interest.
I think it would be a good idea to double or even treble stamp duty on second and subsequent property purchases (owning more than one, not moving) to cool this down
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:12, Reply)
It might be in Kensington and Chelsea, but most elsewhere you have people already on the property 'ladder', who continue to fully mortgage up in order to move up the ladder, bouyed by the rising price of their own home (which gives them a larger deposit on the next property).
First time buyers are almost entirely supported by parents and inheritances.
It's the 'developers' who really seem to be moving the market though, they pay cash and flip for a fast profit after giving it a lick of paint and fitting the ugliest kitchen they can find, or let it out. With prices going up there are more and more people doing this - its like 2006 again. Estate agents are reporting record levels of interest.
I think it would be a good idea to double or even treble stamp duty on second and subsequent property purchases (owning more than one, not moving) to cool this down
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:12, Reply)
This would be a great idea if it was straightforward to see which property is the 'primary' one and all people were honest.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:35, Reply)
it can't be impossible either
Since they were able to identify first time buyers when they introduced the stamp duty break
Edit to add: and anyone who wasn't 'honest' would just be committing fraud
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:38, Reply)
Since they were able to identify first time buyers when they introduced the stamp duty break
Edit to add: and anyone who wasn't 'honest' would just be committing fraud
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:38, Reply)
From what I recall
Th qualification for that was entirely down to signing a form saying this was your first property purchase. Not exactly rigorous, but still fraud if you do claim wrongly.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:43, Reply)
Th qualification for that was entirely down to signing a form saying this was your first property purchase. Not exactly rigorous, but still fraud if you do claim wrongly.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:43, Reply)
They can tell a first time buyer from their N.I number on the payslip
You'll find a lot of property owners will put the extra homes in the names of family members.
I agree though a second home should be treated as a luxury item and taxed as such.
Here's an idea if we're proposing law changes.
Tax relief on travel for those that need to journey a certain amount of miles to let people spread out from the cities.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:44, Reply)
You'll find a lot of property owners will put the extra homes in the names of family members.
I agree though a second home should be treated as a luxury item and taxed as such.
Here's an idea if we're proposing law changes.
Tax relief on travel for those that need to journey a certain amount of miles to let people spread out from the cities.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 8:44, Reply)
Its really, really simple
People need a place to live. They also need to work.
They can't afford to live where they work.
Therefore they need to live somewhere else and travel to work.
But the green lobby has decided that travel is bad and that it should be taxed to buggery to stop people doing it.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 9:53, Reply)
People need a place to live. They also need to work.
They can't afford to live where they work.
Therefore they need to live somewhere else and travel to work.
But the green lobby has decided that travel is bad and that it should be taxed to buggery to stop people doing it.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 9:53, Reply)
What is this?
Londoners taking their hangovers out on the internet day?
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 10:31, Reply)
Londoners taking their hangovers out on the internet day?
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 10:31, Reply)
Peoples needs now are not long term needs, or rather we need to change
Dressing our problems up in the clothes of "we need a low carbon economy" is ignoring the elephant in the room that oil WILL run out, and we'll all be fucked if we're still living in the current set-up.
Shifting the current economic problem in to "well people just need to travel MORE!" only makes our future more bleak.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 10:23, Reply)
Dressing our problems up in the clothes of "we need a low carbon economy" is ignoring the elephant in the room that oil WILL run out, and we'll all be fucked if we're still living in the current set-up.
Shifting the current economic problem in to "well people just need to travel MORE!" only makes our future more bleak.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 10:23, Reply)
If you're worried about low carbon then you need to tell Inda and Pakistan to stop developing at take one for the team.
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 9:35, Reply)
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 9:35, Reply)
There is such a thing as "personal responsibility" here, and setting an example
(as well as developing and pioneering the technology that others can use to follow our example).
Otherwise it is "do as we say, not as we do".
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 10:25, Reply)
(as well as developing and pioneering the technology that others can use to follow our example).
Otherwise it is "do as we say, not as we do".
( , Fri 2 May 2014, 10:25, Reply)