wudking

500 properties for under £100,000 really isn't very many if you compare it with the average number of hosuesolds who earn under £30000 a year in cumbria (or many rural communities). Young people leave cumbria because of jobs and because it rains a lot and I would agree that the the consequences of this are a problem. Those who stay either get the limited number of good jobs or more likely the less well paid jobs so there is a need for housing to retain a lower average price. Second home ownership becomes a problem as it takes housing out of supply. It is OK if it is like your friend's second home and let out for the whole year as that brings money to the community (I hope you encourage your friend to suggest to those who rent the house that they buy locally produced goods). The problem is with inefficient use of housing stock where people own a house and it is largely unused as it drives up price through lack of supply (oil market anyone or maybe it's peak housing). I beleive the proposal to use taxation to mitigate this problem is a good one as it puts the money back into the community in one way or another.

How about a 200% tax rate or more but with a minimum occupancy clause. I grew up in cumbria and many farms supplemented their income with holiday cottages and the same is true I guess in many rural areas. If there was a 200% tax based on a minimum occupancy clause i.e. if your house was rented out for more than 45 weeks you would pay normal tax, if it was 35 weeks you would pay 150%, 30 weeks 200% etc etc. This would encourage low prices for renting and encourage business in the off season and I believe would improve the community by making a less seasonal business. This tax should apply for all empty housing to encourage a more efficient use. How many people would keep an empty house in case prices went up if it was costing them £3000 a year in tax? House prices are imaginary letters from the tax man are real!

Surely it should come as no suprise that first time buyer salaries are so high. The current FTB is the one who can afford it (and the amazingly blinkered self cert). The thing is in a more sensible market the people on an above average salary would be buying an above average house.

There are probably many flaws in this thought but maybe not. A bank does not like to make a loss of it's own and therefore has to set its own interest rates relative to it's own costs. Surely if the banks costs are rising due to bad debt, rising utility bills, increasing staff wage demands surely they will have to increase interest rates whatever even if this means losing new customers. Surely this also applies for the country as well and even if we have a consumer slow down we can't support spending forever by lowering rates at a time of increased national costs.

My solution would be capital gains tax on property. It would then be closer to other asset classes and would help to eliminate the ladder mentality. Modest inflationary house price gains in the region of 1 to 2 would remain below the CGT threshold but in times of crazy growth all home owners who moved house would have to forfit some of there unintended windfall and would probably not over inflate their house. It's great to make 60 grand on a house but it would hurt if you had to give 25 of it back to Gordon especially when you have to increase your morgage for the new bigger house you want to buy.

I think the customers had this coming to them. They were right in taking the bank to court as I would agree the charges are excessive and unfair but they can't demand to be a customer. I've almost been stitched by the bank though and think that there behaviour can be despicable. When I was a student the bank stopped a check that was cashed late that would have made me go over my overdraft limit by £7. They then charged me £15 for the privalage of them stopping it and then another £15 for the first £15 making me overdrawn. Since this was just before I graduated and I had a job waiting and I complained alot they agreed to waive the charges but I do think the banks over charge for some simple things and it's not as if you have a choice in todays society. 2.5% to pay for an electronic sales system is another one that annoys me. That in my mind seems like daylight robbery however I don't actually know how much the switch/maestro system costs banks.

I'm an FTB who could afford but has decided to wait (Age 29, moved around a bit in my early / mid 20's and didn't believe that house prices would go up so much as to pay all the estate agents /solicitors fees etc). Like many others I was suprised by how many other people in the poll can afford and won't pay and I wonder how many people won't buy because they feel they have something to loose. I've saved / invested hard the last few years and have enough for a fairly healthy deposit thanks to the 2003 - 2006 bull run in the stock market. In the course of learning to invest I have become interested in fundamentals and I believe the current house prices are not backed up by fundamentals and inflationary pressures exist. I feel I stand to loose my deposit /savings if I sell all my assets and buy a house as I believe that housing will come down. Friends of mine who have not saved or who have done well in housing and are now moving up the ladder (pyramid scheme in my mind) are far happier to risk more money in property and I think this is because they feel they have nothing to loose. Those who have done well have done so through leveraging and not risking much money they personally have saved and those on 100% morgages feel that their only risk is not being on the property pyramid. Do any other FTB's who can afford but wont pay feel the same way?

In Britain we should be able to compete with any other country for any product where labour is not a major cost as we already have a developed infrastucture (if a little creaky). Unfortunately Labour is often part of the problem as bureaucracy tax is taking money away that should go into R&D. I suppose it depends on how you see the end point for society. I like the idea that we all work less, have to do less of the crap work, and get to spend more time as we wish and to me that vision of the future involves high tech manufacture rather than a call centre.

No Need to Ban buy to let. Just make it expensive to own any sort of empty property (excluding holiday cottages let to different people for at least 5 months a year). That way a landlord / seller will have to lower the price to fill it.

Who are going to buy these houses?

Isn't this how buy to let works. i.e. A perfectly reasonable business proposal when using cleared capital. It's just when you are trying to make a 4% yield on top of borrowed money that it probably fails.

Do we really risk deflation? I thought the BofE was basing everything on the CPI which is already close to the cost of goods production. The economy can probably still support a bit more price cutting but not much. The cost of raw materials on the other hand will go up due to demand unless we have quite a big world wide recession as most of the raw materials producers are close to maximum production without more investment in plant / mines etc.

I think they are very wise. Owe the bank £200 000. You have a problem. Owe the bank £200 000 000 the bank has a problem. Form a PLC and you can continue to draw an overly large sallary from your company right up to the day it folds and you don't suffer any where near the same amount as the guy who has just foolishly morgaged himself to the hilt for his house.

Maybe my understanding of the legal system is wrong and I'm sure there will be someone on this forum who can correct me if it is but I thought if someone were to steal your car and then sell it it would still technically belong to you (or the insurance company if they had paid up). The police could then take it from whoever it was sold to (in receipt of stolen goods?) and they would get nothing. How is this different other than the person who "bought" the stolen good was they bank when they agreed to remorgage the property?

I know that nursing is a degree. I was being ironic. I was implying that having a degree in a specific subject in this day an age is not an indicator that you will be involved in that profession however by being a vocational degree you do have a good fall back option if the economy slows etc