Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
lewissheridan

Vote In New Law On Multiple Home Ownership!

Recommended Posts

I propose a new and radical law in light of the current house price madnesses that is affecting the young adults of today, first time buyers, and people who would like to buy themselves a home. This new radical reform is born from the notion that BTL properties have been instrumental to the sprialling value of UK homes and perpetuating the misery that is affecting the hard working britons who seek to buy a home and begin their life and start a family. The proposal is simple and it is this.

1. A home is to be a home, that is a place whereby you live. It is not an asset class for any investment vehicle or savings, although may be considered such in retirement / inheritance situations.

2. You may own 1 primary abode - that is you only need one house to live in. You may own a maximum of 1 other property for letting purposes. Any revenue shall be subject to tax. And you may privately own up to 5 properties which will not be leased out.

I thank you,

Who's in agreement with the above ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose a new and radical law in light of the current house price madnesses that is affecting the young adults of today, first time buyers, and people who would like to buy themselves a home. This new radical reform is born from the notion that BTL properties have been instrumental to the sprialling value of UK homes and perpetuating the misery that is affecting the hard working britons who seek to buy a home and begin their life and start a family. The proposal is simple and it is this.

1. A home is to be a home, that is a place whereby you live. It is not an asset class for any investment vehicle or savings, although may be considered such in retirement / inheritance situations.

2. You may own 1 primary abode - that is you only need one house to live in. You may own a maximum of 1 other property for letting purposes. Any revenue shall be subject to tax. And you may privately own up to 5 properties which will not be leased out.

I thank you,

Who's in agreement with the above ?

I have always said the best way to sort out the housing problem is to somehow make BTL less attractive than other investments........

The tenancy laws and taxation of BTL are more realistic proposals than the above.......needless to say any changes would have to be phased in to prevent a BTL exodus so quick all their tenants were homeless ..but it's definitely workable over a 5 or 10 year period............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose a new and radical law in light of the current house price madnesses that is affecting the young adults of today, first time buyers, and people who would like to buy themselves a home. This new radical reform is born from the notion that BTL properties have been instrumental to the sprialling value of UK homes and perpetuating the misery that is affecting the hard working britons who seek to buy a home and begin their life and start a family. The proposal is simple and it is this.

1. A home is to be a home, that is a place whereby you live. It is not an asset class for any investment vehicle or savings, although may be considered such in retirement / inheritance situations.

2. You may own 1 primary abode - that is you only need one house to live in. You may own a maximum of 1 other property for letting purposes. Any revenue shall be subject to tax. And you may privately own up to 5 properties which will not be leased out.

I thank you,

Who's in agreement with the above ?

So housing associations and local councils can't own more than one property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" young adults of today, first time buyers, and people who would like to buy themselves a home" :huh:

You've not answered the question. Under your proposal, are corporate bodies like local councils and housing associations allowed to own and rent out multiple properties? If they are, then what is to stop a BTL investor from setting up a shell company to own their properties, thus circumventing your proposed law? If they are not, then what do you plan to do with all of their tenants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've not answered the question. Under your proposal, are corporate bodies like local councils and housing associations allowed to own and rent out multiple properties? If they are, then what is to stop a BTL investor from setting up a shell company to own their properties, thus circumventing your proposed law? If they are not, then what do you plan to do with all of their tenants?

" young adults of today, first time buyers, and people who would like to buy themselves a home" excludes by virtue of its defination housing organisations / associations and the like. But you do bring up a valid point, of what needs addressing, and my answer is that the practise of masqarading as a housing association contravenes the first clause:

"A home is to be a home, that is a place whereby you live." whereby you live, if you set up a company to own multiple homes then you would indirectly be in violation of that condition. Then i suppose the next question will be how is this enforced, well by only having government bodies, local authorities, and licensed housing associations. So that we don't have 'cowboy' landlords and 'property developers' buying up mass homes to sap every penny from the people that would like a home to live in.

I hope that answers your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, I think a ban would be too difficult to enforce. You could set up a company for each house or buy each house in another person's name with them holding on trust for you (it was restrictions on the transfer and holding of land that led to the courts inventing trusts in the first place!).

Also, what do you do with people who already own 10 houses? Do they have to sell overnight? They'd all be running off to the European Court of Human Rights.

The best way of engineering that result is through tax. A special tax on BTL income and/or BTL capital gains and/or a double Council Tax payable by the owners of BTLs.

The problem though is that much of the increased cost would be passed on to the tenants anyway and it would also reduce the amount of rental stock. To counter this, perhaps the revenue raised could be ring-fenced to provide more council housing, but there doesn't seem much appetite to provide more of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need. The market is inefficient but it does mean that fools suffer. Back in 1988 house prices also went sky high but this was not due to BTL this was due (as is the case this time around) to Banks throwing money at anyone who can breathe and owns a suit.

The fact that BTL is part of the market merely means that prices have risen to 6 times earnings rather than 5. Even without BTL you still would not have been able to afford the house you want Muppets with cash would have priced you out as they have done every other time cash is made readily available from banks.

If you want a law that works I would suggest the following. Banks have to lend responsibly or be held responsible for the mess they create (i.e. if they don't check up on the person and don't ensure that they can afford the loan at say 8% interest rates) they are reasonable for any shortfall and cannot recover it from the person foolish enough to ask for that 6x earnings self cert mortgage.

Edited by eek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what do you do with people who already own 10 houses? Do they have to sell overnight? They'd all be running off to the European Court of Human Rights.

Do they have to sell overnight ? well why not, how about a 12 month grace period to sell their homes or have them surrenderred at the end of the period. Hmm, they'd run to the European court of human rights ? why so ? quite ironically really yet all these people priced out of owning a home can't run to the european court of human rights and say due to the governments mis-managament of the country i can't afford a home for myself! surely that's worst !! compared to "...i used to own 100 houses and makes loads of money but now i have to sell them all because it's been decided i'm a greedy rat profiting on others misfortune.." urm, i know which one is closest to human rights, and it's not the latter.

That said it's not a scaving attack on you, but just the example you put. I would have no empathy for a person who owned 10 homes, instead i would ask why do you own 10 homes, is it necessary you own 10 homes! Answer - no of course it isn't, so stop being a parasite to the housing market and sapping it of what it's there for ' to provide homes', yes that's right, homes, not profits, the banks make enough profit from the mortgages anyway.

I think tax is probably the way to go to reform, and if that's the case i would advise 90% tax on all profits made on property ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" young adults of today, first time buyers, and people who would like to buy themselves a home" excludes by virtue of its defination housing organisations / associations and the like. But you do bring up a valid point, of what needs addressing, and my answer is that the practise of masqarading as a housing association contravenes the first clause:

"A home is to be a home, that is a place whereby you live." whereby you live, if you set up a company to own multiple homes then you would indirectly be in violation of that condition. Then i suppose the next question will be how is this enforced, well by only having government bodies, local authorities, and licensed housing associations. So that we don't have 'cowboy' landlords and 'property developers' buying up mass homes to sap every penny from the people that would like a home to live in.

I hope that answers your question.

Since the first clause is gibberish, it's not surprising that I ignored it. Hint: "whereby" doesn't mean what you think it means.

So, no more university halls of residence then, universities not being "government bodies, local authorities, or licensed housing associations". And private hospitals can't set up nurses' homes but NHS ones can, which probably violates EU competition law. No more private nursing homes, either, so I hope you've budgetted for a vast expansion in local-authority-run nursing homes. I'm also at a loss to work out how you tell the difference between a hotel and a luxury block of flats that are owned and rented out by the same company -- are you going to have a cap on the maximum length of stay permitted in hotels? Or might it just be simpler to ban hotels as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My manifesto: (the first one may be happening soon)

a) Replace council tax with land tax – the local revenue will then be dependent on the desirability of the area. This would incentivise release of land for building purposes,

b ) Remove stamp duty from housing transactions to aid liquidity and encourage people to move closer to work/schools.

c) Introduce severe (80%) capital gains tax for primary residences and BTL properties. For example 80% of the gain in price achieved, less inflation, less any home improvements. This would discourage speculation/foreign investment. Tax on rental income unchanged. This tax could be paid locally to incentivise local investment.

d) Use above to fund incentives for investing and saving in real growth areas eg companies, research, education. (Property pensions could turn into a disaster. Bricks don’t grow etc etc.)

e) Take property out of SIPPs

f) Second home owners to pay the full council tax, or even higher council tax (120%?). If you want a holiday in the UK, just hire a holiday home for a week, no need to buy one!

g) Tighten lending criteria of bank/building societies to 3.5x income. Tighten rules to make self-cert mortgages harder to get (use of tax returns ?). Thus incentivising people to earn more, rather than borrow more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a law that works I would suggest the following. Banks have to lend responsibly or be held responsible for the mess they create (i.e. if they don't check up on the person and don't ensure that they can afford the loan at say 8% interest rates) they are reasonable for any shortfall and cannot recover it from the person foolish enough to ask for that 6x earnings self cert mortgage.

Agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose a new and radical law in light of the current house price madnesses that is affecting the young adults of today, first time buyers, and people who would like to buy themselves a home. This new radical reform is born from the notion that BTL properties have been instrumental to the sprialling value of UK homes and perpetuating the misery that is affecting the hard working britons who seek to buy a home and begin their life and start a family. The proposal is simple and it is this.

1. A home is to be a home, that is a place whereby you live. It is not an asset class for any investment vehicle or savings, although may be considered such in retirement / inheritance situations.

2. You may own 1 primary abode - that is you only need one house to live in. You may own a maximum of 1 other property for letting purposes. Any revenue shall be subject to tax. And you may privately own up to 5 properties which will not be leased out.

I thank you,

Who's in agreement with the above ?

I don't think BTL or holiday homes should be banned and neither should the amount you own be restricted, but I agree it should be taxed a lot more heavily than it is now, especially holiday homes which are hardly taxed at all (until you sell). Council tax on a hoilday home should be more than a residential home, I believe at present it's actually less.

Edit for spelling purposes!

Edited by laughing_goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree 100%

So, expensive mortgage indemnity premiums on every mortgage, then, paid for by the borrower and making big fat profits for the insurance industry. That will help a lot, I'm sure. No one is going to make a secured loan if they can't actually then repossess if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they have to sell overnight ? well why not, how about a 12 month grace period to sell their homes or have them surrenderred at the end of the period. Hmm, they'd run to the European court of human rights ? why so ? quite ironically really yet all these people priced out of owning a home can't run to the european court of human rights and say due to the governments mis-managament of the country i can't afford a home for myself! surely that's worst !! compared to "...i used to own 100 houses and makes loads of money but now i have to sell them all because it's been decided i'm a greedy rat profiting on others misfortune.." urm, i know which one is closest to human rights, and it's not the latter.

That said it's not a scaving attack on you, but just the example you put. I would have no empathy for a person who owned 10 homes, instead i would ask why do you own 10 homes, is it necessary you own 10 homes! Answer - no of course it isn't, so stop being a parasite to the housing market and sapping it of what it's there for ' to provide homes', yes that's right, homes, not profits, the banks make enough profit from the mortgages anyway.

I think tax is probably the way to go to reform, and if that's the case i would advise 90% tax on all profits made on property ;)

Unfortunately experiements of the "You have 10 houses so we'll give 9 to those who need them" sort didn't work out too well in Russia and Eastern Europe in the last century so they are unlikely to get another run in our lifetimes. There'd definitely be a lot of scope for them in this country which hasn't had land reform since the Normans stole nearly all the land off the Saxons in 1066 with extreme violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the first clause is gibberish, it's not surprising that I ignored it. Hint: "whereby" doesn't mean what you think it means.

So, no more university halls of residence then, universities not being "government bodies, local authorities, or licensed housing associations". And private hospitals can't set up nurses' homes but NHS ones can, which probably violates EU competition law. No more private nursing homes, either, so I hope you've budgetted for a vast expansion in local-authority-run nursing homes. I'm also at a loss to work out how you tell the difference between a hotel and a luxury block of flats that are owned and rented out by the same company -- are you going to have a cap on the maximum length of stay permitted in hotels? Or might it just be simpler to ban hotels as well?

You assume too much, all the above you mentioned are 'licensed' or 'legitimate' business/government activities, those activities don't constitute to a private individual having multiple home ownership for profit. I think you're missing the point somewhat. Hotels are legitimate businesses, they create hotels, not homes. If this was to become legislation then obviously all these details will have to be carefully defined.

So in answer to your question :

"So housing associations and local councils can't own more than one property?"

Answer is: Yes they can. Without contradicting clause 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My manifesto: (the first one may be happening soon)

a) Replace council tax with land tax – the local revenue will then be dependent on the desirability of the area. This would incentivise release of land for building purposes,

b ) Remove stamp duty from housing transactions to aid liquidity and encourage people to move closer to work/schools.

c) Introduce severe (80%) capital gains tax for primary residences and BTL properties. For example 80% of the gain in price achieved, less inflation, less any home improvements. This would discourage speculation/foreign investment. Tax on rental income unchanged. This tax could be paid locally to incentivise local investment.

d) Use above to fund incentives for investing and saving in real growth areas eg companies, research, education. (Property pensions could turn into a disaster. Bricks don’t grow etc etc.)

e) Take property out of SIPPs

f) Second home owners to pay the full council tax, or even higher council tax (120%?). If you want a holiday in the UK, just hire a holiday home for a week, no need to buy one!

g) Tighten lending criteria of bank/building societies to 3.5x income. Tighten rules to make self-cert mortgages harder to get (use of tax returns ?). Thus incentivising people to earn more, rather than borrow more.

a) is a good idea, but the tax needs to be based on the developed value of the land assuming it is developed to the maximum extent allowed by its current planning permission.

B) is relatively neutral -- probably harmless since you're replacing the revenue elsewhere.

c) might or might not be a good idea, but you can't get there from here. It's not possible to start charging CGT on primary residences without either introducing such an element of unfairness that the government falls, or the market is screwed over for years. If you think you can do it, then make a proposal for the transition period and I'll shoot it down for you. Remember they key point is that the only fair way to value a property is by selling it in the open market.

d) will create a new speculative bubble wherever the incentives are most tempting.

e) will continue a long-running unfortunate distortion in the investment market.

f) is redundant, since you abolished council tax in a).

g) is impossible. Banks from elsewhere in the EU are entitled to lend money to UK citizens. If you tighten up on documentation of income, banks will simply stop asking for information on people's income at all. In te end, you can't prevent a loan being made if both the lender and the borrower want it.

You assume too much, all the above you mentioned are 'licensed' or 'legitimate' business/government activities, those activities don't constitute to a private individual having multiple home ownership for profit. I think you're missing the point somewhat. Hotels are legitimate businesses, they create hotels, not homes. If this was to become legislation then obviously all these details will have to be carefully defined.

So in answer to your question :

"So housing associations and local councils can't own more than one property?"

Answer is: Yes they can. Without contradicting clause 1.

I'm not assuming, you're changing what you said every time I point out that it's nonsense. What is your full list of acceptable reasons for any person or intistution to own more than one residential property? We can't even begin to comment on the lunacy of this policy until we have that list.

I think you've missed my point on hotels. There is no differerence that you can define in law between a managed and rented block of flats and a hotel. The average tenancy period is longer. And that's the only difference. If you think you can define the difference, then go ahead, but don't just say that hotels are OK but BTL properties aren't unless you can say what the difference is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, expensive mortgage indemnity premiums on every mortgage, then, paid for by the borrower and making big fat profits for the insurance industry. That will help a lot, I'm sure. No one is going to make a secured loan if they can't actually then repossess if necessary.

no because I would ban those as well. However, I wouldn't ban repossession, Banks would simply not be allowed to seek redress for any additional shortfall.

The incentive is threefold:-

1) They actually spend an hour checking that Fred Bloggs is who he claims to be (which the bank is legally supposed to do and doesn't).

2) They will share information (ala the new Egg / Co-op/ BarclayCard agreement) so that Banks can sensibly reach a decision on what they want to do. Yes they can take risky loans but its on their own heads that they do.

3) Banks won't lend stupid ratios on houses because its not in their interest to end up with a property in negative equity.

By removing the incentive to lend money (even if only by a little bit) it will stop M3 money supply going mad. A rapidly expanding money supply creates an asset bubble in the economies money sink. For most countries that sink is property and it does absolutely no-one any good over the short (land is expensive, so rent is expensive so costs are higher), medium or long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it's about time we agreed a constructive manifesto to prevent boom and bust in the property market, and bring the standard of UK accommodation up to the standard of other countries?

Put it on the front page for all to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no because I would ban those as well. However, I wouldn't ban repossession, Banks would simply not be allowed to seek redress for any additional shortfall.

How on earth are you going to ban them? If you ban explicit indemnity premiums, they'll increase the arrangement fee. If you ban arrangement fees, they'll increase the interest rate. Mortgage lenders are not going to taken on the level of risk you're asking them to accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no because I would ban those as well. However, I wouldn't ban repossession, Banks would simply not be allowed to seek redress for any additional shortfall.

The incentive is threefold:-

1) They actually spend an hour checking that Fred Bloggs is who he claims to be (which the bank is legally supposed to do and doesn't).

2) They will share information (ala the new Egg / Co-op/ BarclayCard agreement) so that Banks can sensibly reach a decision on what they want to do. Yes they can take risky loans but its on their own heads that they do.

3) Banks won't lend stupid ratios on houses because its not in their interest to end up with a property in negative equity.

By removing the incentive to lend money (even if only by a little bit) it will stop M3 money supply going mad. A rapidly expanding money supply creates an asset bubble in the economies money sink. For most countries that sink is property and it does absolutely no-one any good over the short (land is expensive, so rent is expensive so costs are higher), medium or long term.

But that's practically the effect of lax bankruptcy laws. I wouldn't think that banks would place too much faith on recovering negative equity from self-cert borrowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) is a good idea, but the tax needs to be based on the developed value of the land assuming it is developed to the maximum extent allowed by its current planning permission.

B) is relatively neutral -- probably harmless since you're replacing the revenue elsewhere.

c) might or might not be a good idea, but you can't get there from here. It's not possible to start charging CGT on primary residences without either introducing such an element of unfairness that the government falls, or the market is screwed over for years. If you think you can do it, then make a proposal for the transition period and I'll shoot it down for you. Remember they key point is that the only fair way to value a property is by selling it in the open market.

d) will create a new speculative bubble wherever the incentives are most tempting.

e) will continue a long-running unfortunate distortion in the investment market.

f) is redundant, since you abolished council tax in a).

g) is impossible. Banks from elsewhere in the EU are entitled to lend money to UK citizens. If you tighten up on documentation of income, banks will simply stop asking for information on people's income at all. In te end, you can't prevent a loan being made if both the lender and the borrower want it.

I'm not assuming, you're changing what you said every time I point out that it's nonsense. What is your full list of acceptable reasons for any person or intistution to own more than one residential property? We can't even begin to comment on the lunacy of this policy until we have that list.

I think you've missed my point on hotels. There is no differerence that you can define in law between a managed and rented block of flats and a hotel. The average tenancy period is longer. And that's the only difference. If you think you can define the difference, then go ahead, but don't just say that hotels are OK but BTL properties aren't unless you can say what the difference is.

How many properties do you own ?

Acceptable reasons ? I thought it was apparent in the rationale for the leglisation/manifesto.

I admit it is deliberately controversial and provoking, but it does expose people like yourself that will bite back and say 'why'. Well the why is 'us' first time buyers can't afford a home, and people like 'people that own mutliple homes' are part of the reason why this is the case, of course there are factors with credit, banks responsibility etc. My point is, do you think it's fair a person owns 10 properties and rents and make money and profit, whilst the first-time buyer has to continually stretch themselves and put themselves in so much debt that can't enjoy life, and yet landlords profit on their misery, which is exactly what is happening.

Until there is affordable housing for people in this country, I think the free property market needs to be reigned in and controlled by the government. The impetus here is not on profit, but surely on housing people! Hotels, hospitals and the like aside, it is easy to angle an attack on something that hasn't been given basis for argument to undermine the main premise of what i'm saying. The principle being, multiple home ownership is bad, and homes should not be for money/greed, but just exactly what they are: 'homes'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in agreement LS. Tax out, legislate out, whatever. After all, BTL was enabled through legislation in the first place.

Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit it is deliberately controversial and provoking, but it does expose people like yourself that will bite back and say 'why'. Well the why is 'us' first time buyers can't afford a home, and people like 'people that own mutliple homes' are part of the reason why this is the case, of course there are factors with credit, banks responsibility etc. My point is, do you think it's fair a person owns 10 properties and rents and make money and profit, whilst the first-time buyer has to continually stretch themselves and put themselves in so much debt that can't enjoy life, and yet landlords profit on their misery, which is exactly what is happening.

I'm not saying "why", I'm saying "how". Until you can answer "how", there's no point in debating "why".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.