Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
65243

Its Started In London!

Recommended Posts

http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid...articlekey=2641

ignore the spin, bottom line is prices are now falling and london always leads the way

Don't get too excited; still 5.8 per cent up YoY <_<

Anyone who took the decision not to buy an average home in the capital in August last year is - to date - around 14k down.

Also, if you look at other figures (from Haart, I seem to remember) there was a very sharp fall in North London (more than four or five per cent month on month) which was offset by a steep rise in South East London (around the same up). Depends which part of the city you are in.

Edited by Europa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mate just rented a flat in whitechapel - he told me his landlady has over 300 properties. Until the gov start taxing these f***ing parasites we will not see the empty inventory on the market necessary to bring prices down significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mate just rented a flat in whitechapel - he told me his landlady has over 300 properties. Until the gov start taxing these f***ing parasites we will not see the empty inventory on the market necessary to bring prices down significantly.

A bit harsh. If the tables were turned, would you want to have the government indirectly force you to dump your stock on the market. 300 properties, admittedly, is a helluva lot but she might have inherited them or built up her portfolio over 20 years. You're effectively saying that she should crash and burn to help you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wrongmove

http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid...articlekey=2641

ignore the spin, bottom line is prices are now falling and london always leads the way

Apparently, London prices are up by 0.2% - Firstrung have got it wrong.

Here is the data: DCLG STATISTICAL RELEASE House Price Index June 2006

London, May, £190,065

London, June, £190,883

Ignore the spin ! Yes indeed, except the spin is Firstrung ! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit harsh. If the tables were turned, would you want to have the government indirectly force you to dump your stock on the market. 300 properties, admittedly, is a helluva lot but she might have inherited them or built up her portfolio over 20 years. You're effectively saying that she should crash and burn to help you out.

No she should crash and burn to help 300 families out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Don't get too excited; still 5.8 per cent up YoY <_<

Anyone who took the decision not to buy an average home in the capital in August last year is - to date - around 14k down.

Hmmm....5.8% isn't that much higher than sticking the cash in a Building Society. Don't forget that the £14k figure you mention isn't cash in the hand unless you STR, in which case you'd need to deduct stamp duty, solicitor fees, EA commission and survey costs (assuming the property was bought last August and sold this August)...let's say about £8k conservatively, leaving you with £6k profit.

£240k stuck in the boring old BS has earned around £9.6k after tax.

Looks like your investment advice needs a rethink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm....5.8% isn't that much higher than sticking the cash in a Building Society.

Looks like your investment advice needs a rethink.

Fine... if you have GBP280k to stick in the building society. Most people don't.

Even if you have a substantial deposit (say, 50pc) you will need to get something like a 10pc return on your money to stay level with the housing market. And what if you only have a 25pc deposit? You see the point I'm making.

Incidentally, 5.8pc is still ahead of wage inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mate just rented a flat in whitechapel - he told me his landlady has over 300 properties. Until the gov start taxing these f***ing parasites we will not see the empty inventory on the market necessary to bring prices down significantly.

Any profit on BTL income is taxed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Fine... if you have GBP280k to stick in the building society. Most people don't.

Even if you have a substantial deposit (say, 50pc) you will need to get something like a 10pc return on your money to stay level with the housing market. And what if you only have a 25pc deposit? You see the point I'm making.

Incidentally, 5.8pc is still ahead of wage inflation.

I was just trying to compare apples with apples as you seemed to be implying that a large sum of money invested in property over the last 12 months would've given a really super rate of return. My point is that a better rate of return can be had by investing the same sum in a standard savings account over the same 12 month period.

To pluck £14k out of the air without including the associated costs is disingenuous.

Edited by X-QUORK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is quite the opposite I'm afraid, the housing market in London is very strong and actually outperforming the rest of the country by quite a margin. Looking at the latest RICS survey 57% of London surveyors reported an increases in prices, with 35% reporting static prices. Meanwhile asking prices in the capital are soaring with Rightmove reporting a 13.8% year on year increase. There is no evidence whatsoever of any decline in the value of London property, if anything growth is accelerating.

If you want to get onto the housing ladder, moving away from London and the South East is going to dramatically improve your chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just trying to compare apples with apples as you seemed to be implying that a large sum of money invested in property over the last 12 months would've given a really super rate of return. My point is that a better rate of return can be had by investing the same sum in a standard savings account over the same 12 month period.

Well, yes... Fair point.

In the real world, however, an average person with a reasonable deposit tucked away will find themselves further behind in 2006 than in 2005. It is unlikely that a deposit will have appreciated sufficiently to outpace (or even keep up with) HPI. But that only applies today, of course; I honestly have no idea what is going to happen next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's another issue. You seemed to be implying that it wasn't taxable, not that it wasn't taxed

You are, of course, correct.

However, I think it should be taxable at income tax a rate, plus an amount proportional to the number of properties already owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are, of course, correct.

However, I think it should be taxable at income tax a rate, plus an amount proportional to the number of properties already owned.

The amount is already proportional to the number of profitable properties, surely.

If you had 100 properties and made 10k rental profit on each, you would pay 100 times more tax than idf you only had 1, wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount is already proportional to the number of profitable properties, surely.

If you had 100 properties and made 10k rental profit on each, you would pay 100 times more tax than idf you only had 1, wouldn't you?

What you describe is proportional but not in the way I meant.

For example, rental profit on 10 properties, pay N% tax on income.

Rental profit on 100 properties, pay N + some extra amount% tax on income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you describe is proportional but not in the way I meant.

For example, rental profit on 10 properties, pay N% tax on income.

Rental profit on 100 properties, pay N + some extra amount% tax on income.

:lol:

To be fair to Casual Observer, he was only using proportional in its commonly accepted English meaning.

The proportional tax you define is generally referred to as progressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

To be fair to Casual Observer, he was only using proportional in its commonly accepted English meaning.

The proportional tax you define is generally referred to as progressive.

Now, progressive I understand!

But in all seriousness, what would be the logic or fairness in such a system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in all seriousness, what would be the logic or fairness in such a system?

Wikipedia's arguments for progressive taxation:

* If the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to fall. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

* It is also argued that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). A person making exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone making twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes. A tax that actually took all income above some specified subsistence level would imply a marginal tax rate of 100%, a case to which the arguments against progressive taxation apply most strongly (see below).

* Societies (such as Norway, and the United Kingdom) have occasionally set the top rate of earned income tax above the revenue-maximizing rate. This was a political choice, presumably based on the principle that equality was more socially important than tax income or GDP.

* Some supporters of progressive taxation favour increasing taxes on middle class tax-payers, who have inelastic household budgets.

* If leisure is a superior good for very high earners, then the income effect may act as a disincentive to work. In this case, high marginal tax rates are critical to keep the most productive members of society working.

* A progressive tax is an automatic stabilizer in the sense that if a person were to suffer a decrease in wages due to a recession then the money regained by being in a lower tax bracket lessens this blow.

Objections to progressive taxes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.