Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

first time buyer as defined...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-first-time-buyers/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-first-time-buyers

"A first time buyer is defined as an individual or individuals who have never owned an interest in a residential property in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world and who intends to occupy the property as their main residence."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, mrtickle said:

Yes, that's a very good point to be fair. And very good summary in your later post too!

 

Thank you mrtickle! Your post got me thinking about what a leveraged BTL landlord might think. I'm probably wrong though, many of them are probably oblivious. It'll be alreet :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, guest_northshore said:

"...making available £15.3 billion of new financial support for housing over the next five years, bringing total support for housing to at least £44 billion over this period"

Thanks.  So more HtB support? - because they don't build or buy houses themselves.

Extremely rough calculation just to get a ball park idea of the amounts involved - £8 billion (roughly £44 billion divided by 5) is only about £27000 per house (for 300,000 each year) per year  - so they're adding roughly £9000 per house each year?

Or they're keeping the same subsidy per house but building more of them with that ball park level of subsidy?

?

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, crazypabs said:

first time buyer as defined...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-first-time-buyers/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-first-time-buyers

"A first time buyer is defined as an individual or individuals who have never owned an interest in a residential property in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world and who intends to occupy the property as their main residence."

The guidance says that but the statutory regulations - the law - seems to use a different definition. It talks about purchasing - not having an interest in. Hence my confusion.

It also differs from the help to buy and lifetime ISA bonuses - you can claim under those schemes as an FTB if you buy jointly with a person who isn't an FTB. But you wouldn't be eligible for the stamp duty relief if you buy jointly with a non FTB - even just getting half the relief if you buy equal shares. 

Why do they have to make these scams - sorry schemes - so impenetrable and inconsistent?

Edited by MARTINX9
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, guest_northshore said:

"...making available £15.3 billion of new financial support for housing over the next five years, bringing total support for housing to at least £44 billion over this period"

44 billion, house building ceo’s must be rubbing their hands together.. straight in their pockets.. in exchange for some million pound shoe boxes.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, macca13 said:

44 billion, house building ceo’s must be rubbing their hands together.. straight in their pockets.. in exchange for some million pound shoe boxes.. 

To be fair to Hammond he does at least show generosity to his friends.

More big bonuses all round for the CEOs and directors of the big house builders on top of the huge payouts already  - all funnelled from the taxpayer. And no outrage about it at all - as of course we are helping first time buyers aren't we?!  It is an absolute scandal at a time when we are cutting benefits for the disabled and social care for the elderly. I could cry it's just so disgusting!

Of course councils who want to borrow more to build council housing have to go through huge hoops and bid for the tiny sums extra they will get to borrow - money which will have to be repaid in future unlike the sums developers get.

Edited by MARTINX9
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, billybong said:

Thanks.  So more HtB support? - because they don't build or buy houses themselves.

Extremely rough calculation just to get a ball park idea of the amounts involved - £8 billion (roughly £44 billion divided by 5) is only about £27000 per house (for 300,000 each year) per year.

Or they're keeping the same subsidy per house but building more of them with that ball park level of subsidy.

?

I don't believe anything Government says on private housing supply or affordability so who knows. They plan to review land banks, urban planning reform, town development corporations,  developer contributions towards affordable housing infrastructure - apparently DCLG will be setting out more details on that side of things later - but we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

100% agree.  The Tory party is a f***ing disgrace.

Disgusting.

Baseball bats and riots..,, can’t see any other way.. 

Maybe Corbyn would crash the house prices..?

When Tories took over debt was about £650 billion, now it’s £1.7 trillion,, they are not exactly being frugal with our money like the lying turds keep making out.. they just need removing from the planet permenatly.. maybe the could run a mission to mars.. one way of course.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, billybong said:

Thanks.  So more HtB support? - because they don't build or buy houses themselves.

Extremely rough calculation just to get a ball park idea of the amounts involved - £8 billion (roughly £44 billion divided by 5) is only about £27000 per house (for 300,000 each year) per year  - so they're adding roughly £9000 per house each year.

Or they're keeping the same subsidy per house but building more of them with that ball park level of subsidy.

?

Does this money include the £10bn extension to Help to Buy announced in October?

Spreadsheet referenced high density housing in passing today. He wouldn't have done so without a reason, which leads me to conclude that Build to Rent is to be the principal beneficiary going forward rather than HtB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

To be fair to Hammond he does at least show generosity to his friends.

More big bonuses all round for the CEOs and directors of the big house builders on top of the huge payouts already  - all funnelled from the taxpayer. And no outrage about it at all - as of course we are helping first time buyers aren't we?!  It is an absolute scandal at a time when we are cutting benefits for the disabled and social care for the elderly. I could cry it's just so disgusting!

"at a time"? That's the phrasing that disingenuous politicians make when they want to divert from the subject. Just throw in something emotive, and then say "It is terrible that X is being proposed, at a time when <emotive claim>", and job done. (On Question Time nigh on every week, "at a time when we have nurses having to use food banks" is the flat-out lie that goes unchallenged over and over and over. The BBC love it)

In this case, it's your "cutting benefits for the disabled and social care for the elderly" - neither of which were announced in today's budget. I'm sure you will be able be able to back up your claim by posting proof of exactly which disability benefit cuts are going to happen, compared to someone claiming today, and by how much they will be reduced. Not someone moving from DLA to PIP, because the transition to PIP is not a new thing. So, if we are "cutting benefits" you must have meant someone who claims a PIP now, and will continue to be paid a PIP in future - please explain by how much are PIP payments to an individual being reduced? 

Edited by mrtickle
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

Does this money include the £10bn extension to Help to Buy announced in October?

Spreadsheet referenced high density housing in passing today. He wouldn't have done so without a reason, which leads me to conclude that Build to Rent is to be the principal beneficiary going forward rather than HtB.

Yes, I hated that. Not just because we build the smallest houses in Europe and because of John Prescott's ramping up of density rules, but because it was slipped in as if it was a GOOD THING.

"...in particular, building high quality, high density homes in city centres"

Conflating high quality with high density is a nasty "nudge theory" piece of double-speak. "High density" (for housing) was in the manifesto too IIRC, again as if it was a good thing that the people wanted.

 

Edited by mrtickle
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

"at a time"? That's the phrasing that disingenuous politicians make when they want to divert from the subject. Just throw in something emotive, and then say "It is terrible that X is being proposed, at a time when <emotive claim>", and job done. (On Question Time nigh on every week, "at a time when we have nurses having to use food banks" is the flat-out lie that goes unchallenged over and over and over. The BBC love it)

In this case, it's your "cutting benefits for the disabled and social care for the elderly" - neither of which were announced in today's budget. I'm sure you will be able be able to back up your claim by posting proof of exactly which disability benefit cuts are going to happen, compared to someone claiming today, and by how much they will be reduced. Not someone moving from DLA to PIP, because the transition to PIP is not a new thing. So, if we are "cutting benefits" you must have meant someone who claims a PIP now, and will continue to be paid a PIP in future - please explain by how much are PIP payments to an individual being reduced? 

Perhaps that is what was of note about today's budget - nothing about social care, nothing about policing nothing about fire services. But lots more money for developers it seems.

As to your point about cutting support for the vulnerable elderly and disabled it is estimated that nearly half a million of them no longer receive support from their local authority for their care needs who would have done so in 2010. Maybe it's not your gran or dad has been affected - but you might need care one day. 

Austerity it seems applies to them - but not the directors of the big house builders. So get off your high horse!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cuts-deny-social-care-to-483000-vulnerable-people-8dhrmlc5ppt

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Perhaps that is what was of note about today's budget - nothing about social care, nothing about policing nothing about fire services. But lots more money for developers it seems.

 

So - no new cuts today then. Thought so.

Your article you linked was from 2013. That's way past the "at a time" window, sorry. 

It's important to make points honestly without being a politician and doing that "at a time when <lie>" tactic. 

Edited by mrtickle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

The guidance says that but the statutory regulations - the law - seems to use a different definition. It talks about purchasing - not having an interest in. Hence my confusion.

It also differs from the help to buy and lifetime ISA bonuses - you can claim under those schemes as an FTB if you buy jointly with a person who isn't an FTB. But you wouldn't be eligible for the stamp duty relief if you buy jointly with a non FTB - even just getting half the relief if you buy equal shares. 

Why do they have to make these scams - sorry schemes - so impenetrable and inconsistent?

How would they ever find out? And if they did after you claimed, what's the worst thing that can happen? They ask for the money back? Between the HtB ISA and this you're looking at up to £8k. That's worth applying for even if not a first time buyer in the purest sense in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

The guidance says that but the statutory regulations - the law - seems to use a different definition. It talks about purchasing - not having an interest in. Hence my confusion.

It also differs from the help to buy and lifetime ISA bonuses - you can claim under those schemes as an FTB if you buy jointly with a person who isn't an FTB. But you wouldn't be eligible for the stamp duty relief if you buy jointly with a non FTB - even just getting half the relief if you buy equal shares. 

Why do they have to make these scams - sorry schemes - so impenetrable and inconsistent?

I lost my job and house in part thanks to this ****'s defense spending review. Since then, while trying to save and get back on my feet, he's handed advantage after advantage to rival buyers that are first timers. Owning a home in the period I did lost me money; it gave me no advantage. This almost feels personal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, oracle said:

disagree.

permanent low growth is down to bad management/over regulation.

over regulation causes capital flight- which then increases taxes on everybody else-which causes even more capital flight..the ones left get the police state and death squads to keep order...happens all the time in "managed" economies.

 

and when I'm talking about over regulation,I'm talking local government level as well....just look at the average town centre now.no variety of shops,because the only ones who are able to pay the insane business rates(let alone parking charges), are mega chain stores(volume),betting shops(the house always wins does it not?) and pizza places/starbucks etc(because of the mark-up on the products..a poncey soup kitchen can serve you a cup of organic lentil and tofu delicacy at a fiver a time)

Of course turning the UK into a tax haven after Brexit would reverse the capital flight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, macca13 said:

44 billion, house building ceo’s must be rubbing their hands together.. straight in their pockets.. in exchange for some million pound shoe boxes.. 

They can build them, but are there any buyers left? Million pound flats in Battersea aren't exactly flying off the shelves. I think we've reached the point where most of those that can afford to buy have done so, nobody left who can pay the prices being asked. The only way to fix that is to reduce prices to a level that more people can afford.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Mann nails it. As with Help to Buy, the people this will really help are wealthy youngsters who would buy anyway. They just get a nice little discount. And that nice little discount is fed back into the housing market.

https://news.sky.com/story/hammond-facing-budget-backlash-from-mps-over-stamp-duty-gimmick-and-eu-payments-11139538

"Former shadow cabinet member Rachel Reeves, who chairs the all-party Business Select Committee, told MPs the housing measures in the Budget were "the exact opposite from what we need if we want to ensure that more young people and more families can get on the housing ladder".

John Mann, who chairs the Treasury sub-committee, said the average house price in his Bassetlaw constituency in Nottinghamshire was about £135,000 - just above the £125,000 threshold for stamp duty payments.

He added: "Few first-time buyers have the means to afford properties costing up to £300,000.

"Very few first-time buyers at all are buying properties costing that much in the North.

"I'm sure this little boost will help young professionals in London, but for those working hard in ordinary jobs in my area it doesn't address the root cause of problems for first-time buyers.

"More affordable homes and decent, stable jobs to allow people to save for them are the way to tackle the housing crisis.

"Today's announcement on stamp duty is little more than a gimmick.""

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ash4781 said:

Oops. Including a revised huge downward growth forecast and doing little about it doesn’t appear to be going down well. It’s unraveling faster than last years budget. 

Downward growth plus excess govt spending = inflation

 

Higher interest rates

 

Maybe that's the plan

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, london_thirtythree said:

Politics wise, it is a good sounding policy that Tory MPs will trumpet in TV spots and interviews - much like help to buy was endlessly parroted as doing something for the young un's.

So imagine that will keep them happy to cover their talking points.

However HTB has generally been found out in the media now, so maybe this one will be as well.. but is mostly about talking big, rather than doing big.

Tis a shame, you feel that May's government are in a position where they could genuinely be quite radical; but is safety first tinkering as ever..

I was quite surprised yesterday afternoon to hear the news on BBC 6music describe the Stamp Duty cut as ‘a boost for the housing market’, not first time buyers... the housing market. We know what the BBC generally considered a boost to be so I guess it took about two hours for the truth of the policy to start coming out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is truly heinous is the fact that there is never any mention from Tory politicians that property prices are too high and this is the reason why first time buyers can't buy.

How on the one hand can Carnage talk about the public being too much in debt and then on the other hand we have Hammond encouraging the public to take out ridiculously high mortgage multiples?

 

Disgusting.

 

(and the answer to why productivity is going to hell in a handcart can be found quite easily too.  Many people are now giving up "working hard", as the don't have anywhere secure to live.  Basic  needs are being throw out the window by the current system, so why would anyone with half a brain want to work hard and pay tax to a system like that)

Edited by Social Justice League
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Tempus said:

John Mann nails it. As with Help to Buy, the people this will really help are wealthy youngsters who would buy anyway. They just get a nice little discount. And that nice little discount is fed back into the housing market.

https://news.sky.com/story/hammond-facing-budget-backlash-from-mps-over-stamp-duty-gimmick-and-eu-payments-11139538

"Former shadow cabinet member Rachel Reeves, who chairs the all-party Business Select Committee, told MPs the housing measures in the Budget were "the exact opposite from what we need if we want to ensure that more young people and more families can get on the housing ladder".

John Mann, who chairs the Treasury sub-committee, said the average house price in his Bassetlaw constituency in Nottinghamshire was about £135,000 - just above the £125,000 threshold for stamp duty payments.

He added: "Few first-time buyers have the means to afford properties costing up to £300,000.

"Very few first-time buyers at all are buying properties costing that much in the North.

"I'm sure this little boost will help young professionals in London, but for those working hard in ordinary jobs in my area it doesn't address the root cause of problems for first-time buyers.

"More affordable homes and decent, stable jobs to allow people to save for them are the way to tackle the housing crisis.

"Today's announcement on stamp duty is little more than a gimmick.""

Not surprising really that, as usual, the country is being ran for the benefit of the New metro elite  left ''Anywheres'' and not the settled communities of Shire counties. Systematically destroying the economy with their cuckoo housing  and migration policies since 1997.

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.



×
×
  • 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.