Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Muddlehead

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

900 profile views
  1. We don't have hyperinflation of everything though, so how is that correct?
  2. How long until they try Marion Maréchal-Le Pen?
  3. I think the main newspapers have had numerous articles covering tax rises, complete with helpful worked examples. I concluded that at least a large minority will have stumbled across such articles (if BTLers don't read the property section who does?) especially when headlines look interesting/worrying. There was more coverage of Brexit, but it was about numerous issues, with wide disagreement on the outcomes of leaving. Have you seen anyone arguing whether the SDLT surcharge or S24 will be good for landlords?
  4. There has been lots in the media about S24, but apparently this isn't travelling particularly fast
  5. Given the lack of knowledge amongst landlords of the upcoming tax changes how are they going to find out about one repossession? I wasn't talking about "what landlords will do." I said "it may be." I think it's interesting to consider what Osborne expected the outcome of the policy to be. They were obviously clever enough to come up with the policy, yet there seemed little admission from him or other policymakers of the extent of the impact.
  6. True, but landlords as a rule believe prices will rise. Surely those who don't think prices will rise have already sold.
  7. What happened in 2008? I suppose a lot of landlords decided to wait rather than panicking. On a more positive note, people didn't started piling in after prices fell a little. But this suggests many will wait more than a year before selling. Will many landlords face trouble before the taper is finished? Will many be defaulting on their loans as soon as the taper has finished? If not, then it may be into the 2020s before banks act.
  8. If enough people hold this view it may be a long time before there is a big wave of supply forcing prices down. I expect this is what Osborne predicted: People will hold property, only gradually selling their BTLs. So we can tax them heavily, but this will only slightly increase housing supply and decrease demand, so prices won't move much. But many of his calculations proved to be spectacularly inaccurate...
  9. This could probably be argued several ways, but it's important to note that regulations exist at least in part for the benefit of big business. This is particularly true of builders and banks. Compared to current regulations banks seem fairly cautious. Banks have been prohibited from than lending more than some percentage of total lending as high LTI mortgages (I think it was more than 4.5 times income), but they are nowhere near the limit. If banks wanted to, they could target risky customers. Instead they seem to want to compete for customers deemed not to be risky. But what would happen if banks change their lending requirements such that millions of renters could get mortgages? Prices would adjust and only a fraction of them would be able to buy. Similarly if millions of median wage earners read this thread and had a epiphany and went househunting prices would adjust and only a fraction of them would be able to buy.
  10. Why do you think a company that's been lending to people for generations "should" do it differently? Do you think lending rules should be determined by a government department? If so why do think it can do it better? If not, is there any mechanism other than hope that should make the banks behave differently?
  11. Couldn't the government pay builders to build? I think it is quite well established that large building firms own land for a long period of time and watch it's value appreciate. The building industry is an oligopoly (a few large builders dominate). Competition between firms is like the prisoner's dilemma. If one firm built on all of its land as fast as possible and tried to sell it's properties quickly, other firms it might earn high profits if none of its competitors responded. But surely they will respond, and so none of them would earn high profits (they would be high volume, low margin, flooding the housing market with supply, perhaps initiating a crash). So there remains a tacit collusion of builders to build on land at a fairly slow rate. Builders take risk when building as they don't know what the market will do in the years it takes to plan, build and sell. The current system forces them to focus on the value of land rather than building. Builders might be better placed to focus on housebuilding if the government owned the land and simply paid them to build.
  12. I'd say 1% is more like it. It means they will fight like hell to stop changes to letting agency fees.
  13. Currently builders earn a return on holding land for a long time before building (land-banking). Couldn't the government buy the land itself (compulsory purchase, or just hint at or impose land value taxes) and then pay builders to build, then sell the houses? Is there any reason why builders must own the land first, and own the finished houses?
  14. Why on earth would anyone destroy the country they love? But surely her insane economic policies will destroy France if she is given the chance
  • 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.