Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Opium of the People

New Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Opium of the People

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. South East London is worth taking a look - the part of London Borough of Bromley from Beckenham-Clockhouse- Anerley all quite nice with improving transport links, . eg this for 400k in Clock House http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42010963.html
  2. Would it work as a rational policy for taxing private landlords if HMRC moved to incentivise the BLT landlord to act with social responsibility to tenants if he is to gain any tax advantage? The general principle for the taxation of rental income should be that the Landlord is liable to pay income tax on the net profits of the letting. S/he can offset expenses for management (up to a fixed 10% of the rent), repairs, utility bills, but NOT any costs of the loan taken out to purchase or improve the property. Landlords who grant an assured tenancy (ie with security of tenure),and within a system of rent control (so that an assured tenancy is within the scheme if the rent is below the LHA rent, and where future increases can be contained by reference to the Rent Officer ), can offset their mortgage interest costs as an expense of the letting. Other Landlords cannot do this, unless they decide to grant an assured tenancy to an existing tenant and to bring the tenancy thereafter within rent control. In relation to capital gains, the default position would be that the Landlord would be liable to pay Capital Gains Tax on the disposal of the property as a % of the difference between the purchase and disposal price. (This percentage is currently 28% for basic rate tax payers, but with generous lettings allowances for landlords and allowances for those who have lived for a period of time in the property themselves which can be exploited by “flipping” the property in which the landlord himself lives or by transferring it between husband and wife). The only concession would be that for each year where the landlord could show that the property had been let out on an assured tenancy within the LHA for a property of that size could obtain a tax relief from CGT for each year when it was so let. So… a Landlord who bought a property for £200k in 2013 and sold it in 2023 for £300k, would experience a capital gain of £100k. This would be taxable at 28% on current rules – £28000. For each year that the landlord had let it under an assured tenancy and on a rent within the rent controls he would be entitled to a reduction in the capital gain. The gain in the example averages £10k per year, so if our landlord had rented it out as a socially responsible landlord for 5 years of the 10 years, his chargeable gain would be reduced by £50k and his tax bill by £14k. The scheme of local government support for grants for property repair and improvement would also be geared towards the socially responsible landlord. Grants would become 5 or 7 year loans Loan which would be repayable by the landlord over that term. However exemption from making payments would be given for each year within the 5/7 year repayment period that L could show he continued to let the premises under an assured tenancy at a rent within the rent control limit. Result 1 – a possible socialisation of the market - creating landlords willing to invest in the long term, affording tenants security of tenure, a lower rent and some state subsidy for major repairs where landlords are in it for the long term. State tax concessions and grants are directed here. Result 2 – landlords who are in it for the short term/ profit oriented treated as investors - just as if they had invested in shares. No tax concessions. Questions: The idea is to expose landlords who treat their property as a pure speculative investment to full consequences of taxation of such an investment, but to reserve to those who invest for the longer term and at the expense of according more equitable rents and rights to their tenants the (generous) tax concessions which all BTL landlords presently have. Does it work? Does it equalise the playing field between FTBs and families on the one hand who might be looking to buy, with "socially responsible" landlords in the same market, while tilting the advantage somewhat agaisnt the speculative landlord? Would this have sufficient impact on the rental market to make more landlords be willing to rent at sensible rents and for the long term?
  3. Faversham has properties coming in around your price tab and with fast links to London.
  4. Thanks for posting that table robo1968. It shows a comparison of median gross pay including overtime between workers in local govt, public sector, private sector and whole economy. The data I presented clearly relates to council employees: Mr 35k a year sitting in his council office being the person who attracted most opprobrium in this forum. I stand by the points made. Full time Local Govt male employees are lower paid than males in the private and rest of public sector. Women do relatively better in local govt and are a little better paid than private sector but less well paid than rest of public sector. The 40% pay gap in the private sector between men and women is what distorts the picture. Will be nice to see some HPC-ers taking up the cudgels on behalf of women workers in the sector to correct this scandal. You up for being the first name on the petition Si? Generally… take a look at the occupational role data for pay in local government and tell me where the overpaid roles are. I don’t see it in that data. The government has cut cut and cut again local government budgets. Spending has increased in Education Health and Police (and probably the quangocracy and higher civil servants). So is it the nurses, doctors, teachers, police who are the overpaid fat cats? I suspect it’s the expansion of management roles of commissioning and meeting targets that need some serious looking at. The creation of elaborate and inefficient bureaucracies at the expense of the front line. The reality in the local govt sector is one as elsewhere of deskilling and cutting the pay of the masses and creating jobs on 75k plus for a layer of managers. The Middle got squeezed bad.
  5. This thread's subtitle is Reality in the UK. Many of the forum posters need a reality check about pay levels in the public sector. Thought I would check out the stereotype of Mr 35k sitting on his backside in a council near you. The Local Government Association carries out regular Local Government Earnings Surveys. The latest one 2008-9 is HERE http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1956061 Gross mean Full Time equivalent pay of a local government worker in 08-9 was £20448 in England and Wales Gross median Full Time equivalent pay was £17652. Your typical local government worker is not Mr 35k but very likely his wife on half that rate. In April 2009 the median national full time earnings figure was £489 per week (£25428 per year) - this is across the private and public sectors. See Office of National statistics date HERE http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/Patterns-of-Pay-1997to2009.pdf The LGA Survey also gives occupational averages within Local Authorities Mr 35k in a local authority turns out to be eg. An Architect- earns £35021 in a shire county - His private sector counterpart earnt £45k (see survey of earnings undertaken for RIBA) HERE http://www.feesbureau.co.uk/i/reports/AESummary.pdf Or perhaps a Building Control Officer in a Unitary Authority (£35980) Chartered or certified accountant in a shire district (£33462) Chartered Surveyor in a London Borough ( £36177) Trading Standards Officers, EnvironmentalHealth Officers, Solicitors, Planning Officers all on a simlar level. These 35k posts are all professional posts requiring long training and some considerable technical skill. Pay rates in the private sector generally exceed these by a margin. I got too weary to check for the authoritative stats for each of these professions but challenge people to come up with authoritative private sector data on a profession by profession basis to show the public sector workforce are the fat cats. Shame the data did not give figures for the managerial layer of commissioners and performance monitors and section heads who are now paid daft sums. IMO this is where the waste is. But even here their private sector comparators are likely to be paid dafter sums still....
  6. Too much ill informed misinformation in this thread about who can inherit the tenancy of a council tenant! Statutory successors are defined as the close members of the family who lived in the home with the tenant for at least the last year before the tenant’s death. Close family members are defined by blood/marriage/civil partnership relationship to the deceased tenant. It’s mainly spouses/civil partners, children who inherit the tenancy under these provisions. Most councils are vigilant in policing the bona fides of those who qualify to succeed to a tenancy. The County Court has jurisdiction to resolve grey areas/disputes through possession proceedings. Only one succession to the tenancy is allowed. If the family member who qualifies as the statutory successor would be underoccupying the council can defeat their right to succeed to the tenancy. But the council would instead be obliged to offer a secure tenancy of accommodation suitable to the household size of the successor. So a single daughter who has cared for mum in the family 3 BR home in her declining years would not succeed to the tenancy of the 3 BR home. She would however get an offer of a 1 BR flat. Spouses and civil partners are not subjected to the underoccupation rule. If grandpa and grandma have lived in the family home for 40 years and one dies, the survivor is not forced to leave. One area which causes hardship in real life is this. In multi-generational households headed by spouses or long term cohabiting partners, the one and only statutory succession occurs when a spouse/cohab dies. When the surviving spouse/co-hab dies the resident kids have no right to succeed to the tenancy and no right to be rehoused into smaller accommodation under the underoccupation rules. They get evicted (even if they have kids and a family of their own living in the family home). With the exception of the last rule, these are humane rules and on the whole work well or can be made to work well by a council which knows its tenants. They grant a basic dignity and respect for the realities of family life:- Elderly people can and do wither and die if forced out of their family home of many years at a time when they are more vulnerable through bereavement from a partner. Incentives to downsize to accommodation congenial to the elder with a supportive approach to allocation and support are one thing. Compulsion to move should have no place and … so far.. the law reflects the mores of common decency. Current rules allow carers to succeed to a tenancy, having foregone career and earning potential to care for a frail or senile parent in his/her declining years. The “children” inheriting homes on the death of the tenant are mostly stay-at-home adults of any age from 18 –75 who have simply lived with ma or pa in the family home for most of their lives. As is reflected on this board, this is a lifestyle “choice” enforced on increasing numbers of people by the realities of housing costs. Statutory successors are, by proxy, the people who the deceased tenant (had he/she been a homeowner of modest means) would have left the home to by their will, or who would have inherited the property and the right to live there under the rules of intestacy. Be careful in what you wish for in seeking abolition of these rules on grounds of decency as well as cost. The forcing of more working class folk into uncertain private sector renting arrangements benefits nobody except the Lenders/BTL landlords. The social costs of evicting so many bewildered and vulnerable social tenants from their family homes are unfathomable, but the pounds and shillings pence costs to the tax payer of paying for their housing are very likely to exceed those of maintaining such successors in their home. If there is to be a curtailment of rights of successors, it should be that of the right to buy,
  7. Could you add to the questions.. Public Sector hard hit already Third sector hard hit already Else.. there is no relevant box to tick
  8. I think many forum posters are missing the big story about Local Housing Allowance. This is the impact on the working poor. • Approximately 3.3 million households renting privately • Of these at March 2010 just over 1 million households (1,015,330) are in receipt of LHA • Seven out of eight households claiming LHA are working households. The Capping of LHA will impact on relatively few households. But the Big Hit will be Calculating Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates using the 30th percentile of market rents rather than the 50th percentile. The Guardian Data Blog gives the most interesting analysis of the impact of this on working households http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jul/15/housing-benefit-cuts-local-analysis There is a link to the Chartered Institute of Housing’s detailed data analysis. I recommend you follow this up to see the impact in each area of the country, and for each size of accommodation. Person in average income household living in average rent accommodation sounds about right to me. But look at the impact on such a houshold in the example cited.. The CiH have worked out exactly what this means across the country - and this is the data we're bringing you today. So, for a couple with three children in Grant Shapps constituency of Welwyn Hatfield, on the average gross salary for constituency (in 2009) of £575.60. Their income right now splits like this: • take home earnings £438.25 (based on new increased tax allowance) • Child benefit £47.10 • Child Tax Credit £55.15 • Total income £540.50 Their weekly outgoings look like this: • Rent (at 50th Percentile) £212.88 • £28.73 need to pay in council tax (amount for Band D in Welwyn Hatfield) • Housing Benefit before change £111.37 • Housing Benefit after change £82.61 They will have lost £28.76 in housing benefit a week - that's £1,495 a year. Their total disposable income after paying rent is £381.50 a month. They will have gained only £1.40 a week from the government's increasing the tax allowance - £72.80 a year. Increasing the tax allowance, designed to take the poorest out of tax altogether, is costing the Treasury £3.7bn. This doesn't take account of budget changes to tax credits and assumes a 6% contribution towards a pension.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.