Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
HPCheese

Do You Want The Government To Help First Time Buyers Get On The Ladder?

Recommended Posts

Hi.

There seems to be a push by the media, interested parties, and certain politicians at the moment to help first-time buyers enter the housing market. Are they sincere in their concern for first-time-buyers, or are they cynically trying to keep the party going for a while longer?

Is there anything you would like the government to do to help first-time-buyers 'get on the ladder'?

*** Note - you can select more than one option ***

I personally think extending the cash ISA allowance for first home purchases is a good idea as it rewards savers, and I'd like to see buy-to-let investment discouraged through the tax system.

[Edited for spelling]

Edited by HPCheese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a FTB i personally dont want the government to help, owning a house is not a right its a privilidge of doing well at work and being sucessful, like owning a boat, or a fast car. its a status symbol. but saying that house prices do need to reduce.

BTL should be illegal IMO its too easy to get into and it offer no stability to the peole who live in that property, rented accomodation should not be done by a private individual, it should be done through a professional company that is regulated, or from the government. rent should be like any other goods, a fixed price for a type of property and location. based on a certain scale a bit similar ot council tax but better.

ie: (all prices are per calender month.

1 bed flat £300

+ location grade, slum +£20 posh area + £200

parking space +£20

Furnished +£75

so a posh 1 bed flat with 2 parking spaces furnished would be £615 but a 1 bed unfurnsided slum with no parking would be £300, and this grade and scale applied accross the country.

they should also help get people on benifits to work, to help illeviate the stress needed for cheap social housing for these type of people. these are the 16-65 fit and able work but choose no to im talking about.

more like a reform on the benifit system

benifits not to be given untill after your 22nd birthday, this is for every benifit, job seakers, child benifit, housing etc every benifit. this will insure that people dont leave school and sign on the next day, more people will go to college and hopefull less girls turn into a bunny boiler.

you are not allowed benifits unless you have worked for at least 1 year and payed tax to prove, your skills will be assesed when applying (a test) like a mensa test/all round and a medical. this will judge to see if further education is needed to help assist, if further education is needed you will then go to college to improve on the basics requied for some jobs IE GCSE Maths, Engilish etc. this will be free and you will receive some benifits, if you fail the course you will have to pay the tuition fee with in 3 years of sucessfully completing the course.. whilst at college you will receive 85% of the benifits your entitled to, this will reduce by 7.5% for every year you fail.

every 4 months you will be re-assesed to find out why you havnt got a job. every employer who that a person on benifits has to go to for an interview, will have to fill in a form explaining why that person isnt employable by them for the position applied for. after 12 months if employment has not been found they will be given a job by the job centre, a non skilled job (litter picker, road sweeper, etc). they will still get benifits but no wage (if that makes sence) they have to work a minimum 12 months, normal employment rules apply like every other job, if they do not benifits will be revoked for 6 months, this will extend by 1 monnth for every year they re-apply for the benifits. after 12 months if they like the job they can take the option to take it on the going rate for the job.

still thinking on the housing thing thought, went slightly off track.

personally i think its do-able and not to draconian, it would free up billions of cash for the Govt' and get more people in work,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Action is unnecessary. The operation of the market is all that is required. There is nothing they can do to prevent it from doing its work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as a FTB i personally dont want the government to help, owning a house is not a right its a privilidge of doing well at work and being sucessful, like owning a boat, or a fast car. its a status symbol. but saying that house prices do need to reduce.

BTL should be illegal IMO its too easy to get into and it offer no stability to the peole who live in that property, rented accomodation should not be done by a private individual, it should be done through a professional company that is regulated, or from the government. rent should be like any other goods, a fixed price for a type of property and location. based on a certain scale a bit similar ot council tax but better.

ie: (all prices are per calender month.

1 bed flat £300

+ location grade, slum +£20 posh area + £200

parking space +£20

Furnished +£75

so a posh 1 bed flat with 2 parking spaces furnished would be £615 but a 1 bed unfurnsided slum with no parking would be £300, and this grade and scale applied accross the country.

they should also help get people on benifits to work, to help illeviate the stress needed for cheap social housing for these type of people. these are the 16-65 fit and able work but choose no to im talking about.

more like a reform on the benifit system

benifits not to be given untill after your 22nd birthday, this is for every benifit, job seakers, child benifit, housing etc every benifit. this will insure that people dont leave school and sign on the next day, more people will go to college and hopefull less girls turn into a bunny boiler.

you are not allowed benifits unless you have worked for at least 1 year and payed tax to prove, your skills will be assesed when applying (a test) like a mensa test/all round and a medical. this will judge to see if further education is needed to help assist, if further education is needed you will then go to college to improve on the basics requied for some jobs IE GCSE Maths, Engilish etc. this will be free and you will receive some benifits, if you fail the course you will have to pay the tuition fee with in 3 years of sucessfully completing the course.. whilst at college you will receive 85% of the benifits your entitled to, this will reduce by 7.5% for every year you fail.

every 4 months you will be re-assesed to find out why you havnt got a job. every employer who that a person on benifits has to go to for an interview, will have to fill in a form explaining why that person isnt employable by them for the position applied for. after 12 months if employment has not been found they will be given a job by the job centre, a non skilled job (litter picker, road sweeper, etc). they will still get benifits but no wage (if that makes sence) they have to work a minimum 12 months, normal employment rules apply like every other job, if they do not benifits will be revoked for 6 months, this will extend by 1 monnth for every year they re-apply for the benifits. after 12 months if they like the job they can take the option to take it on the going rate for the job.

still thinking on the housing thing thought, went slightly off track.

personally i think its do-able and not to draconian, it would free up billions of cash for the Govt' and get more people in work,

Totally agree. Under this Labour government people who are lazy and/or profligate are rewarded/bailed out. People who work hard and save are punished. The tables need to turn. Dealing with benefit theft, work shy, etc is the first of many steps needed to return this country to a productive state rather than a hand-out state.

Edit: typos

Edited by francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Action is unnecessary. The operation of the market is all that is required. There is nothing they can do to prevent it from doing its work.

Agreed but we might as well use the opportunity to rationalise the bizarre stamp duty rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not in favour of the Government helping FTBs get on the property ladder when I think the market has a long way to fall and interest rates and unemployment are likely to rise.

IMO it is better to buy up properties for use by councils and H.A.s to rent out. The new tenants would have secure tenancy and if they are caught up in the unemployment holocaust that's coming they would have some protection - unlike mortgage payers, who receive no help for the first 39 weeks of unemployment, and very little thereafter. The houses don't have to be located on large estates as they were in the past, when they were built by councils. Empty properties exist as single units all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I advocate both letting the market play itself out, and higher ISA allowances for FTB's?

By the time such allowances (instituted now) had any effect, the market will have played itself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Special home buyers savings account.

All interest tax free.

All contributions treated as pre-tax earnings. (ie all employment taxes refunded).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTL should be illegal IMO its too easy to get into and it offer no stability to the peole who live in that property, rented accomodation should not be done by a private individual, it should be done through a professional company that is regulated, or from the government. rent should be like any other goods, a fixed price for a type of property and location. based on a certain scale a bit similar ot council tax but better.

ie: (all prices are per calender month.

1 bed flat £300

+ location grade, slum +£20 posh area + £200

parking space +£20

Furnished +£75

so a posh 1 bed flat with 2 parking spaces furnished would be £615 but a 1 bed unfurnsided slum with no parking would be £300, and this grade and scale applied accross the country.

So it would be illegal

(1) for someone going abroad on a job secondment for a year to let their house out while they're away?

(2) anyone letting out their spare room would be forced to take whoever was allocated to them by the powers-that-be?

(3) for a company to undercut the market to get a quick, long-term tenants if they are LLs in an unpopular area, or one where say, a major employer has just closed down throwing lots of people on the dole? (It always takes authorities ages to catch up with rates)

(4) to let out a holiday cottage?

Many of your suggestions would certainly be good news for tenants who already had homes; but it's a bit like the job security in France; wonderful for those who have a permanent job; a nightmare for young people trying to get their first job (one of the reasons so many young French people come to the UK - I think Sarkozy (?) grumbled "We send you our young, healthy educated people, you send us your unhealthy retirees!")

Edited by cartimandua51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a few examples of the recent suggestions on how to help the first time buyers onto the 'ladder'. The biggest problem I have with all this is that noone seems to have asked the first-time-buyers if they actually want to be 'helped'. Most of these suggestions seem designed solely to prop-up the housing market, which is obviously NOT for the benefit of first-time-buyers.

Alistair Darling (The Labour Party)

One of the things I'm looking at is to have a special Isa where people can save with perhaps better concessions, providing they put that money into a deposit for a house
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...mortgage204.xml

George Osbourne (The Conservative Party)

I would implement my fully costed plan to abolish stamp duty for any first-time buyer who wants to buy a house for less than £250,000.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=n...p;obj_id=143664

National Association of Estate Agents

We have called for measures such as a stamp duty holiday for first time buyers
http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid...&cat=44-0-0

Bryan Johnston, The Scotsman

Mortgage Interest Relief at Source (Miras).

...

It might now be the time to reintroduce the concept in limited form for genuine first-time buyers

http://business.scotsman.com/business/Firs...p-to.4259096.jp

Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

Kirstie Allsopp

the stamp duty system needs a radical overhaul to help kick-start a very iffy property market. The organisation wants first-time buyers and retired people who are downsizing to be exempt from stamp duty.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/07/...irst_timer.html

Bloorhomes (This one made me laugh :lol: )

first time buyers have the advantage of receiving 5% of their deposit, making the property even more affordable.
http://www.easier.com/view/UK_Property_New...cle-188926.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for stamp duty reform. The current tiered system interferes with the market by introducing price-break points (which is why you'd never see a property sold for £251k) so my underlying vote is for the market to be left alone by removing this constraint.

If it's desirable to charge more duty on higher-value transactions, then it should be done according to a smoothly-sliding scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thinkn the goverment should help FTB buy BTL property. Its only fair FTB get a shot at it where MEWed people fail. :lol:

An interesting idea - the "Right to Buy" with a 20% discount for having rented for more than, say, a month? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could buy up all that unsold housing for 1p a go and then rent it out to people on the social housing waiting lists. Give them all right to buy and away you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it would be illegal

(1) for someone going abroad on a job secondment for a year to let their house out while they're away?

(2) anyone letting out their spare room would be forced to take whoever was allocated to them by the powers-that-be?

(3) for a company to undercut the market to get a quick, long-term tenants if they are LLs in an unpopular area, or one where say, a major employer has just closed down throwing lots of people on the dole? (It always takes authorities ages to catch up with rates)

(4) to let out a holiday cottage?

Many of your suggestions would certainly be good news for tenants who already had homes; but it's a bit like the job security in France; wonderful for those who have a permanent job; a nightmare for young people trying to get their first job (one of the reasons so many young French people come to the UK - I think Sarkozy (?) grumbled "We send you our young, healthy educated people, you send us your unhealthy retirees!")

ive taken time to think on your reply, and i think i have found a solution that would work.

a re-naming/re-structuring of the system is needed.

BTL to be illegal for private individuals - Buy to Let (not ot teach you to suck eggs) is when a person buys a property to let, that person is saying that they will not live there at any point or stay there at all.

1) for someone going abroad on a job secondment for a year to let their house out while they're away? this is not BTL. the person would be able to rent his own accomodation out though a regulated company that rents property, his property's mortgage would not change, but the regulated company would make it know to any possible letters that this is a short term whilst that person is on holiday/out of the country for a period of time, a contract would be written between the home owner and regulatory company, the let fee would only cover 75% the mortgage fees, and administration for the company. no proffit would be earned by the home owner (so no incentive other than having a home to come back to, and a mortgage "75% holiday" as such)

(2) anyone letting out their spare room would be forced to take whoever was allocated to them by the powers-that-be? this would be still done the same/similar way as it is now, the home owner would have final say

(3) for a company to undercut the market to get a quick, long-term tenants if they are LLs in an unpopular area, or one where say, a major employer has just closed down throwing lots of people on the dole? (It always takes authorities ages to catch up with rates) i do not understand, please clarify

(4) to let out a holiday cottage? same as (1) as this is for short term tennancy (holiday) the home owner would be allowed to stay there, and invite people to stay, but a holdiay company should be used for "non knows" to the owner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its very wrong as this sends out the message that people who buy houses are a higher priority than those who rent. There is an importance of having somewhere to live obviously but this seems to have been misunderstood as having to be able to own a house. If you cant afford to buy then rent its not rocket science. But of course making it easier for people to buy helps those with vested interests in property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my simple mind, the encouragement of private BTL was never going to be a positive contribution to housing policy and the tax advantage (taxed only on profit after mortgage payments and other costs) distorted local and national house prices. It also does not increase the housing stock numbers or encourage construction standards and maintenance to keep the housing stock standard up.

Also, if all goes to plan

Developer builds a property and sells it to a BTL `investor' at a profit

BTL investor rents it out to a tenant, also at a profit.

So the tenant is paying for two lots of profit.

A better situation would be if planning applications were granted for `Build to Let' schemes - that way rented accomodation would be costed at a reasonable return on the capital needed to create it - there would still be some link to hpi via land prices, but not as severe as at present. There may even be a way of local setting of rents at a level agreed at the planning stage so that everyone would know where they stood. This would also stop prospective FTB owner occupiers and BTL investors competing to buy houses as private BTL couldn't compete on rents with `build to let'

FTBs would also know that if they bought somewhere, say, in a block of flats, they wouldn't find themselves in a block of BTL flats.

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There needs to be massive council house building to reflect the fact that there are few living wage jobs. There should be no special schemes for ftbs but stamp duty could be abolished for your first home.

Totally agree. If NewLab had kept their promise to restore capital receipts to Councils and enable them to build economically, none of this would have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few things I would like to see.

1. Stamp duty, should be worked like income tax, so you pay 1% of £125,000 and then 3% of £125,001 - £250,000 etc.

2. 100%+ Mortgages should be BANNED. This would encourage saving for a deposit. I have heard people on TV/Money Saving Expert saying 'We can't save a deposit', but expect to be able to pay the mortage every month, and all the bills on top.

3. ISA allowance increased for anyone who has never bought a house. Not just FTB's but renters too (sorry but not STRS's). My friend is renting for the future, this may be up to 8 years, but would like to buy one day, so he needs to be able to set something by. He is not an active FTB, but one day will be. This will again encourage saving and give people a better idea of what they can afford. The allowance should be good as well, not another £600, but probably another £5k or 6k, a maximum of maybe £8000 tax free savings for furture house purchase.

I also agree with Monkey about overhauling the benefits system. I like your ideas about no benefits until 22 and you must have worked 1 year at least before you are entitled to some. Some benfit cheat stole form our shop the other day. She's only 22 and never worked a day. She takes out taxes and is now stealing from people too. It makes me mad.

Also, isn't it about time we started up a HPC political party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one here that thinks Stamp duty as it stands is a fundamentally sound and allround good tax?

For property under 5xmedian salary there is no tax.

For property between 5xmedian salary and 10x median salary you pay 1% - property at this level is reasonably considered a bit of a luxury and taxed as such.

Property between 10xmedian salary and 20x median salary you pay 3%, only a very few people will be able to afford such a property and to help prevent build up of excessive property wealth within the 1% that fall into this category a slightly higher tax rate of 3% is due.

For the wealthiest 0.2% or so of the housebuyers who are in a position to spend more than 20x median salary on property, well clearly they can afford to pay the premium towards the state.

I would have thought that all of you budding commies/friend of the working man out there would be great fans of this - only the rich suffer.

Now of course some of you would say "but you cant buy much for under 125k! let alone 250K!!"

Well, while we can blame the government for allowing it to happen, its not really their fault that people are so stupid as to pay over the odds for an asset, and the only real problem with stamp duty bands is that house prices have been subject to the worlds biggest ever bubble - and that is why we are all on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until this has played out, absolutely no action should be taken at all, even slighty. Not one finger should be lifted. Why? Well, any attempt at forcing people into the market simply lead to yet more "wierdness" that the market will still want to rid itself of.

However, once something like "the bottom" has been reached, two things are needed...

- Remove the tax breaks available on BTL mortgages for private individuals.

Sorry, but allowing private individuals a tax break for borrowing a shedload to invest in property is just barmy, doubly so because this perk doesn't extend to those who just want to live one house. If you want tax breaks for what is, to all intents and purposes, a business (NOT an investment), then form your own company and do it that way.

- Ban I/O mortgages without realistic repayment methods

Easy one this. No more I/O mortgages, for any purpose, without full, proper, documented repayment methods in place. I/O mortgages tilt the playing field heavily in favour of risk-takers and away from people who just want to buy something to live in.

I think I'd also chuck in...

- Tiered Local Taxation (Council Tax, whatever) for second and subsequent homes.

No more of this tax relief on second and subsequent homes. Full rate to be paid on second and subsequent homes (with no relief available for ANY reason), with local councils given the option to levy additional charges on top of Council tax on second and subsequent properties, up to a level equal to the amount paid on that property. In other words, a second home would attract between 100% and 200% of local council tax, depending on whether the local council wanted to hoof out the grockles or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- Tiered Local Taxation (Council Tax, whatever) for second and subsequent homes.

No more of this tax relief on second and subsequent homes. Full rate to be paid on second and subsequent homes (with no relief available for ANY reason), with local councils given the option to levy additional charges on top of Council tax on second and subsequent properties, up to a level equal to the amount paid on that property. In other words, a second home would attract between 100% and 200% of local council tax, depending on whether the local council wanted to hoof out the grockles or not.

Aye damn straight, we don't want any of those leechers coming up to Town from the country, stealing our well paid city jobs, staying in their poncy frenchified Paedo Terrs. Stay in the country. Or up north. If you want to have a proper job at least come and live in Town properly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a tier-ed stamp duty system should be available for primary residences, its just stupid how it jumps from 1% to 3% at 250k.

Also, to discourage the BTLer's picking up the 1 and 2 bedders which should be left for the FTB's, there should be a commercial real estate stamp duty rate at 5% on top of the tiered stamp duty for all investment/BTL properties...no matter how much.

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.

  • 396 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.