You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Seeing as it's right at the top of the todo list for the new goverment and all..
Not a big hitter but who cares;
Rent Caps
Help to buy (i.e. giving money) to first time buyers to buy but they cannot then sell at a profit a few years later
Build loads more houses by setting up government building company used in areas when developers are not interested due to not as much in it for them
Override town planners and nimby crap
I think its a lot to do not just with numbers, but with the type of houseing being built. Round near us there have been three recent housing developments. Every one of them is 3 and 4 bedroom detatched 'Executive' houses with starting prices that are absolutely out of the reach of all but a tiny minority of very comfortably off people. 'Affordable' doesn't even enter into it.
So houses are being built that will do absolutely nothing to alieviate the housing crisis. This needs to stop.
1) stop selling council houses.
2) put proper tenant protection and fair rentals in place for the private secotor
3) give councils the money to build more property
4) Ban second home ownership that is NOT for long term rental ie holiday cottages - guts villages
5) make building on brownfield sites easier, make it harder on greenfield sites
6) The never ending escalation of house prices needs a serious correction. Dunno how to do this tho - perhaps a combination of property taxation and transaction taxation?
Buying houses is now unaffordable for most folk. If I was now where I was in my career 30 odd years ago I couldn't afford to buy or even rent my own flat in Edinburgh.
There are nearly 700,000 homes in England that are unfurnished and standing empty. Over 261,000 of these are classed as 'long-term empty'. When we add in holiday short-lets and second homes, total vacancy sits at over 1 million homes, meaning that across England, 1 in every 25 homes is empty.
that came from a google search so not sure if it is accurate , but give councils power to force owners to do something with them
Also not a big hitter
Massively increase the costs of having second homes and buy-to-let properties.
The buy to let market is insane - those who got in at the right time leveraging one property to buy the next and now people with several or more properties just sucking the financial life blood out of those who can’t afford to buy.
Also DONT try and fix the situation by making low deposit mortgages etc available - this type of “help” only succeeds in pushing up the price of houses.
Stop people acquiring wealth from property.
Cap gains tax on EVERY SINGLE HOUSE SOLD. Houses will stop going up in price and will rise only with inflation, as they should.
Yes, it will cripple the market temporarily, but it would almost stop 2nd homes, buy to let and many others.
Whatgoesup - proper rent controls and protection for tenants will go a long way down that road. Ie making it less profitable. Straight taxation on rental income would be perfectly fair as well.
MY tenant pays 2/3 of what a mortgage on the property would cost
owning more than one property should be heavily taxed.
being a landlord should not be so profitable or easy. i have several friends who became accidental landlords because their first house they bought went up so much in value all they had to do to buy the second was release some equity. most of these guys are looking at retiring in their mid to late 50s off a bit of luck....
families need help with paying off existing mortgages so some sort of relief or help for those who find themselves not able to pay and are looking at a forced sell or repossession.
oh and reform the buying and selling process in england so it doesnt take months and months and is a massive pain in the arse. really restricts peoples mobility and desire to move. this hurts the economy maybe less now more work remote.
Yes, it will cripple the market temporarily, but it would almost stop 2nd homes, buy to let and many others.
What effect would it have on 2nd homes, BTL etc.? They already have CGT on them. If anything it would cause more people to hold onto more property as they don't want to pay CGT on something they might have given up otherwise.
It would however cause an overnight jump in the price of houses. Not sure how good that would be TBH. Those that can afford a second house / BTL etc. would still be able to afford something, just maybe not so plush. It would however mean pricing out the bottom end of the market as they'd not be able to afford the now 20% more expensive starter home.
Much that's been said above really. Treat houses as homes and not allow them to be an investment opportunity. Build in the hollowed out town centres. Improve infrastructure.
Not a hitter.
Remove primary residence exemption for CGT.
.
Stamp duty increase, but move the payment to sellers not buyers. All first time buyers are therefore exempt.
.
Council tax rises proportionally with number of homes owned -ie own two, it's doubled for both, own three, it's trebled for all three.
.
This one may need some working out, but links into what Stevie was on about. Some sort of compulsory purchase mechanism for private individuals to buy empty homes. For instance, if a home has been empty for (eg.) a year anyone can then apply to compulsory purchase it for a 'fair value' (how is that determined?) If the owner declines they have to sell it/move in a tenant within X months or it goes to auction. The buyer has to not own another property, restore it within X time period and live in it as their only house for x time period before being allowed to sell it.
In Canada* they've introduced an empty homes tax, which is 3% of the property value, per annum. To avoid paying it, you have to have long term renters (short term is banned).
* might be BC only not all of Canada
In Canada* they’ve introduced an empty homes tax, which is 3% of the property value, per annum. To avoid paying it, you have to have long term renters (short term is banned).
If you then invest this into new social housing, that seems like a winner to me.
Medium term - Allow local authorities to purchase land (after consultation with local communities) for development. Costs for the initial purcahse to be subsidised, with a higher subsidy for brownfield sites. Allow local authorities to put in infrastructure for that land (roads, drains, etc) and then sell at a profit to developers and individuals who want to build their own houses. Local authorities then pay back (at least some of) the subsidies from profits. Ensure that local authorities and/or developers also include schools and medical facilities in developments here necessary.
Longer term - Have a clear policiy of investment in cities as well as London - we are fairly unusual as a country in only having one really big major city, and we should actively be seeking to develop larger and more economically succesful second/third tier cities
One other idea is to look at how coastal and other isolated communities specifically can be improved as a location for people to relocate to, rather than forgotten (Skegness/CLacton/Great Yarmouth) or turned into AirBnB communities (most of Cornwall). This might include incentives for dentists, investment in schools, better broadband, some recogision that trains dont go to many of these places and there is no other decent public transport etc etc.
1) stop selling council houses.
2) put proper tenant protection and fair rentals in place for the private secotor
3) give councils the money to build more property
4) Ban second home ownership that is NOT for long term rental ie holiday cottages – guts villages
5) make building on brownfield sites easier, make it harder on greenfield sites
6) The never ending escalation of house prices needs a serious correction. Dunno how to do this tho – perhaps a combination of property taxation and transaction taxation?
I like all these, but would also add proper leasehold reform/abolition in England and Wales.
(EDIT: not that I'm a big hitter either...)
Also DONT try and fix the situation by making low deposit mortgages etc available – this type of “help” only succeeds in pushing up the price of houses.
This.
I’d bring back the inability to borrow more than 3.5x an income on mortgage applications. No ability to join salaries either, you can only use the highest single income of a couple.
That’d certainly bring house prices down when sellers find there no one who can borrow enough to buy.
And yes, it would harm the value of my house.
Build more council properties. I'm a fan of the theory of social housing. The current implementation of it, is shockingly bad, based mainly on the lack of housing stock available to them. Anyone in receipt of benefits really should be able to get a council property if they wanted to. Otherwise its just the government paying landlords with extra steps.
Make buying and selling houses easier. It takes how long to sell a house and move (in England). People get shafted, chains fall apart etc. Thats not only making the actual living in the house needlessly difficult and costly, its also detrimental to people downsizing to better suit their needs.
Most measure will harm the value of houses as that is sort of the point. While I can live with that as my house would need to drop by 85% to get me into negative equity there are a lot of people who have purchased in the last few years who would then be screwed. The tough answer is they just have to stay in the house for a long time then.
Ban banks from lending money they haven't got.
I only made the Big Hitter shortlist and not the magazine stage (it's OK, I'm over it now) but:
50% stamp duty on homes that aren't your main residence.
End right to buy
Ban on building of private dwellings, all new builds to be affordable social rental
Ban on any development of greenfield sites until all brownfield sites in the council area are redeveloped.
Ban on any development of greenfield sites until all brownfield sites in the council area are redeveloped.
I get that people are concerned about developments on greenfield sites, but there are variations in these, and I think we need to be careful taht restrictions like the above will just stop all developments.
Near me there was a proposal to redevelop a listed building into flats, and add a second block of new build flats, matching the style of the listed building on the spare land behind it. The listed building has been empty for 20+ years, and been set alight at least twice and is in danger of collapse. Planners agreed, but put a clause in that said developers had to redevelop the old site first, before building the new block. Developers said this was not economic, so despite planning being agreed for 70 ish dwellings, the place has been allowed to deteriorate even further over the past 4 years, and planning is about to lapse...
Aren't 95% of the things on this thread simply never going to be done as they would be unpopular with a large number of voters....?
Treat houses as homes and not allow them to be an investment opportunity.
This ^
Private landlords defend themselves by trying to make out that renting out their second properties to those that cant afford to buy is some kind of altruistic act, but by far the key beneficiary of that arrangement is the landlord who without much effort continues to make a huge profit on their investment whilst continuing to contribute to why folks can't afford a place of their own in the first place
Obviously there needs to be properties available to rent as well as private ownership, but this should be through councils, not private landlords who get rich at the expense and on the back of toil of others
I'd personally tax the hell out of anyone with a second home, regardless of whether it's for short or long term let
the market is complicated. things like rent control haven't worked in the past, it just leads towards houses being mis-managed (doing a place up to attract more rent isn't possible, you won't do it up), likewise a lot of these things are fiddling round the edges - for sure second homes in a few villages can cause issues, but they also pull in income that keeps the pubs/restaurants alive. Likewise, I'm all for penalising landlords a bit more (the screw has been tightened significantly over the last decade) - and converting the odd existing brownfield site, but it won't make much difference.
The bottom line is supply and demand. Whats required is building a shed load more houses, in fields, in the south east (were all the jobs are), where people like walking their dogs and looking at birds, and riding bikes.
The other approach would be to significantly tax extra, un-needed space that the older generation tend to horde by not downsizing when the kids leave the nest - this would significantly reduce the number of unused bedrooms in existance, improving the availability of housing for most.
Stamp duty should be completely abolished to encourage movement.
Capital gains on primary residences.
Tax on empty dwellings.
Land tax should be implemented to target mega rich. All land based inheritance tax dodges should be removed.
Council tax bands fully updated. Council tax should double on second homes, treble on third homes etc.
Leasehold and ground rents banned.
Building upwards should be encouraged wherever possible (more flats).
Aren’t 95% of the things on this thread simply never going to be done as they would be unpopular with a large number of voters….?
I suspect the sensible suggestions would be welcomed by 95% of the population.
Its the loud/vocal/influential rich 5% who would be against it
MrBadger - sounds good but just have a wee think about the situation I am in with a rental property. MY tenant pays £500 a month LESS than it would cost her if she bought it from me - because I am lucky and in a very privileged position to be able to do this. Force me to sell she loses her home. Tax me highly on it I would need to put the rent up. ( as much as I am allowed here) Both options make life worse for her.
Rent controls for fair rents would have the effect of doing most of what you want ie leveraging properties and making huge profits would be no more - and force selloffs of those properties
Rent controls and decent protection for renters would be my priority along with state building of decent rentals to force prices down
Its the loud/vocal/influential rich 5% who would be against it
For housing though you have the fundamental issue a lot more than 5% have money tied up in houses including some big mortgages.
Deflating the market would hit those people hard.
The only change will be if the government gets heavily involved into housing again. Changing planning laws is going to be of limited help since the big building companies will just say thanks and start building some "executive" homes where they couldnt earlier but not increase the building supply significantly. After all why should they since if they build enough to meet demand then the prices will collapse and they will make less profit.
Deflating the market would hit those people hard.
Only if they want to move again. It wouldn't push them out of the house they are in. Its only imaginary money until you move and even then buying again in a devalued property market means they can still do so as the house they want to buy would be equally devalued.
this is well worth a read (is long tho!) https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-britain-doesnt-build/
Turns out we've not been building enough houses for about a century now.
Remove the problem by killing 1/3rd of the population*
*Just put me somewhere near the back of the queue for execution please
The problem is that the housing crisis is connected to all other crises as well. Plonking 300 new builds on a field somewhere then ties in 300 families to the cost and inconvenience of car ownership / dependence; traffic and pollution gets worse, facilities like schools, shops, doctors (and even the basics like water, sewage etc) get progressively overwhelmed and you've solved nothing.
The UK has this absolute obsession with the 3-bed semi detached property but it also doesn't have anything like the land or infrastructure to support those sort of developments. That is combined with a uniquely shit house-building practice where the lowest-possible cost identikit boxes are chucked up and then the buyers have to spend the next 15 years fixing them.
As a starter (while not entirely connected to the lack of housing), I'd be prescribing heat pumps and solar panels for all new-builds and renovations. That alone would massively cut the actual living costs.
Just want add don't do any of this until I've sold my UK home.
Deflating the market would hit those people hard
You wouldnt want to deflate the market, as that will open up various issues. It just needs to stagnate so as wages grow, the housing wage/housing multiple recover to a reasonable ratio.
This will be happening naturally as increased interest rates will be limiting lending multiples due to affordability, which will dampen demand/prices.
You keep the rules on "Primary" residences the same as that affects a big percentage of the population, but keep increasing the costs of secondary home ownership, which only impact the richest.
In no particular order my un-achievable and partisan ideas:
1- End Right to buy
2- LAs to have a (centrally funded) scheme to allow buy back of former social housing in their area if/when it goes on the market.
3- Private rents to be capped proportionate to Value of the property and/or Mortgage repayments/insurance/maintenance costs, say all costs x 1.2(?). Tenants to have the right to challenge rent on this basis (Landlords will need to be able to demonstrate compliance to an ombudsman on demand).
4a- Tax the arse off any profits landlords make from rent to coax them towards #2 and #3 above.
4b- Include second homes put on short-term rental/hire (Air BnB or similar) under new Landlord profits tax regime.
5- For the mid-term Working visas for construction skilled foreign hires, number of visas issued to be based on #7 below.
6a- Apprenticeships and funding to create indigenous construction skills pool in the longer term.
6b- Bursaries and/or grants to be created specifically for shortage Construction skills training.
7- Housing Department to agree (and then track) annual local social housing goals (buy-backs/new-builds/renovations/etc) with each local authority based on local need. These figures are then to be published and become a metric to measure LA performance against; should help highlight councillors that enable NIMBYing, and those that take housing seriously.
8a- Central Government to provide funding for Social housing construction schemes,
8b- Local Authorities to be allowed to remortgage/borrow against the value of existing assets to generate funding.
9- Planning reforms to take account of Local housing need (see #7 above) as well as environmental and local infrastructure impacts. Process to be revised so that Approvals can come with fixed conditions for developers to meet before proceeding i.e:
"Developer to fund upgrade to local roads used for access, in order to prevent congestion" or
"XXXX area of proposed housing estate to be turned over for the construction of a primary school to accommodate the additional number of children this would bring to an area". or
"10% of homes in development to be sold direct to LA for use as social housing"
Failure to comply with conditions means project cannot proceed, asking forgiveness after the fact means big fines...
they also should do something about property developers buying perfectly nice homes, then leaving them vacant so they decay and become a wreck to help ensure their planning permission for umpteen bedsits with zero parking gets through.
I know several lovely family homes that have sat empty for years in my city,
Developers should be forced to maintain and rent out, or sell on to someone who will live in it and not be able to just sit on the land.
MY tenant pays £500 a month LESS than it would cost her if she bought it from me –
If she is paying 500 quid less a month than she would her mortgage on a similar property then I imagine shes getting a good deal. I suspect that is far from the norm however. Only folks I know who let a property have their mortgage pretty much covered by the tenant
Who are these ‘big hitters’?
#Its a pejorative way of saying folk like you and me that debate far too much on here 🙂
She is Mr Badger - and so am I. A good deal is one where both sides are happy. I am in a very privileged and lucky position.
(well as good a deal as you could expect living in Edinburgh)
Round near us there have been three recent housing developments. Every one of them is 3 and 4 bedroom detatched ‘Executive’ houses
Lots of land that can be built on in the area. Church fields, land near Summerseat, old paper mill, the green bit that between Holcombe brook and Brandleshome, Elton, walshaw etc. I'm almost certain James F MP will be the first to agree with the building of thousands of homes? :scratch:
Stop the banks lending so much. Restrict it to a much more sensible multiple of income
Rebuild the government housing stock.
Limit mortgages
Capital gains tax on profit from house sales.
MY tenant pays £500 a month LESS than it would cost her if she bought it from me – because I am lucky and in a very privileged position to be able to do this. Force me to sell she loses her home. Tax me highly on it I would need to put the rent up. ( as much as I am allowed here) Both options make life worse for her.
But presumably you would be the one banking a good chunk of the difference in her outgoings as a profit on this imaginary sale? If not why did you ever choose to own a spare home?
and surely the upside is she would finally get to own her home rather than being in the precarious position of renting from the kind of renegade Landlord that grows a ponytail later in life 😉
I'm always amazed by the number of Robin Hoods types that go into Land Lording...
In my part of the midlands at least, reasonable starter homes are available for as little as £160k, which is affordable to a couple on minimum wage. Can't see how that could be described as a crisis really. Is the crisis not just a south east thing? In which case localised rather than national solutions feels more suitable.
If not why did you ever choose to own a spare home?
It was Mrs TJs flat. Its a long complex story. I get plenty of money for the flat - really more than its worth IMO but way less than whats its market value is.
I get that people are concerned about developments on greenfield sites, but there are variations in these, and I think we need to be careful taht restrictions like the above will just stop all developments.
Near me there was a proposal to redevelop a listed building into flats, and add a second block of new build flats, matching the style of the listed building on the spare land behind it. The listed building has been empty for 20+ years, and been set alight at least twice and is in danger of collapse. Planners agreed, but put a clause in that said developers had to redevelop the old site first, before building the new block. Developers said this was not economic, so despite planning being agreed for 70 ish dwellings, the place has been allowed to deteriorate even further over the past 4 years, and planning is about to lapse…
But the reason for doing that is that far too many developers agree to deveop an exisitng building or site in exchange for permission to build on greenbelt land. They then say thay they have to build and sell the new greenbelt houses in order to finance the building / brownfield development.
Weirdly, after they have completed the greenbelt development they then dont go anywhere near the expensive brownfield one and just bigger off. Obviously the councils cant afford to go after them in the coutrs, and if they do then the company just gets wound up and the directors walk away and start another company.Not sure what the solution is other than insist on the hard part of the deal being completed first - however, this then looks like councils getting in the way of developers (which isn't always as black and white as it looks)
ETA - this quote function is shite.
There's been a few projects where people have collectively built or renovated a home, which they then can keep.
OK, while not suitable for everyone, and not everyone can do the work required, it does help with some things, namely builds more houses, instills more practical skills- plumbing, carpentry, brickwork, electrical, which is something we keep hearing that the country needs more of.
is the crisis not just a south east thing?
Not really - large areas of unaffordable housing in Scotland and I am sure in other areas - and a starter home of £160000 would have been beyond my reach as a nurse. Its just shows how skewed this has all become that a house that is not affordable to most public servants is seen as affordable.
Reclassify parts of the green belt. For example, there are plenty of towns/villages where a relief road has been built through green belt so allow some infill development between the relief road and the town/village.
In my part of the midlands at least, reasonable starter homes are available for as little as £160k, which is affordable to a couple on minimum wage
That is just over 3.5 times two peoples minimum wage which used to be the maximum mortgage allowed.
Then there is the trouble of saving up for a deposit and lower wage jobs tend to be less secure, so in the lifetime of the mortgage it is quite unlikely they would always be employed.
IMO the idea that 160k is affordable is ****ing insane.
There is also the point that the housing market is a bubble that is reaching its limit, either is needs deflating, or it will burst and that will cause far bigger problems than deflating the market.
Essentially the entire developed world needs to change its economic system so that ownership of assets is taxed, rather than gains from the sale of assets. And inflation should be linked to asset prices, rather than just to goods and services
This is the whole structural problem which is causing capitalism to slowly implode.
UK house prices and rents are out of control but most of Europe and North America is in a similar mess for the same reasons.
Stamp duty should be completely abolished to encourage movement.
Capital gains on primary residences.
I think these two would cancel each other out
Council tax should double on second homes, treble on third homes etc.
Councils in Wales already at least double council tax on second/third homes
We need more homes for people, simple as supply and demand. Fix supply by building more (incentives to help developers, tax or otherwise punish land banking/ developers not meeting targets, targets need to be the right type of home, amend processes to speed up planning), and by addressing empty property (why are they empty? Find out and make sale, change of use, renting or whatever else is needed, easier!)
Who are these ‘big hitters’?
First rule of Big Hitters club...
Process to be revised so that Approvals can come with fixed conditions for developers to meet before proceeding i.e:
“Developer to fund upgrade to local roads used for access, in order to prevent congestion”
This already happens - its a section 106 agreement
. The council can also charge a Community Infrastructure Levy.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy
Bumping up council tax won't work. The cost will just be pushed on to the Tennant. As tj readily admits, taxing them won't work either as the cost will likewise just drive up renting costs
Capital gains on primary residences.
At what point in the process though ?
For example, the house I paid £100k for is now selling at £150K.
The house I want to purchase is £200k.
You want to tax me on the £50k rise in the property value on current house ??
Mmm, I don't want to pay that , so i'll stay put, thus keeping a £150K property out of the market B-)
In my part of the midlands at least, reasonable starter homes are available for as little as £160k, which is affordable to a couple on minimum wage. Can’t see how that could be described as a crisis really. Is the crisis not just a south east thing? In which case localised rather than national solutions feels more suitable.
Definitely more of a south east thing. You can get a house not far from me for £30k-40k https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E611&sortType=1&propertyTypes=&mustHave=&dontShow=&furnishTypes=&keywords=
£6/7k deposit, cheap mortgage.
How about we nothing to the housing market but instead regenerate the areas which need it? If there were more jobs there then people would actually want to live there and housing demand would be more spread out? The example I've given is cheap because it's too far to commute to Edinburgh, extending the railway from Galashiels to Hawick would probably be cheaper and more effective than building a load more homes in the commuter belt. Maybe more WF will help over time
Mmm, I don’t want to pay that , so i’ll stay put, thus keeping a £150K property out of the market
And this reducing the demand for, and price of, the £200k one...
Sorry double post
Only folks I know who let a property have their mortgage pretty much covered by the tenant
I’m in the same situation as an earlier poster: tennant pays only 2/3rds what they would have to pay on a mortgage to buy the flat, in London. Perhaps some of the people you know had a substantial deposit on their properties, or the market is different elsewhere.
Bumping up council tax won’t work. The cost will just be pushed on to the Tennant.
If the property is let out, the Tennant will pay the council tax directly at the standard rate.
Its only if the property is vacant or used as a holiday let/2nd home that the landlord will be charged extra
I don’t want to pay that , so I'll stay put, thus keeping a £150K property out of the market
Great. It means there is one more property available.
Plus if you are a first time buyer you have nothing to sell so its 'cheaper' for 1st time buyers.
Seize TJ Van Hoogstratens property empire and redistribute it to the proletariat
We need to make new homes a lot cheaper to build, e.g. modular construction, admit defeat in dying town centres (t'internet shopping is here for good) and free them up for residential and allow (or even compel) councils to direct revenue from sales in to new homes, oh and incentivise brown field development somehow
I think these two would cancel each other out
Not at all, because one is a tax on profit and one is a transaction fee. You're assuming house prices continue to rise stratospherically but that doesn't have to be the case if supply is corrected. If you bought a house 2 years ago, but you now want to move to the midlands for a job, you ain't gonna be paying any capital gains tax on that purchase! The idea is to target boomers etc. who have massive gains just from being born in the right decade and owning a property for the last 30 years...
Process to be revised so that Approvals can come with fixed conditions for developers to meet before proceeding i.e
In Edinburgh we have the granton waterfront development - huge brownfield site that been developed over decades. IIRC housing for 160 000 folk some new some replacing old stuff. again IIRC one secondary school and some primary schools, a GP surgery and parkland and playgrounds - all built by the developers as "planning gain" ie the price of getting the planning permission. this can be done. Viable for private developers because high Edinburgh prices means plenty of profits even after building infrastructure
Seize TJ Van Hoogstratens property empire and redistribute it to the proletariat
Love the reference 🙂
- We need to build more of the right type of houses. Everyone talks about starter homes, but what about family homes occupied by a couple (or just one) for years after the family leaves because there is no where suitable to move to. Needs to be done on a local basis
- More houses, should reduce price inflation, should make more affordable. Very long term, but fixing is a very long term.
- We may need to more apartment type dwellings, a move away from houses.
- We will have to build on the Greenbelt. Most areas (especially outside cities) do not have sufficient brown field sites (or even greybelt). We won't like it, but there will be no option. Means huge changes to the planning system to power through the NIMBYs
- Get rid of right to buy, social housing should remain with the local communities. Build more social housing.
- Get rid of leasehold - and make it applicable existing properties
- Encourage long term (i.e. 5 + year) leases. Make it easier for good landlords to get rid of poor tenants, make it easier for good tenants to force poor landlords to fix problems.
- Tax house wealth, imposing CGA on main residences, changing stamp duty sellers, etc are all short term "fixes", they do not solve the problem of lack of housing.
- We do need to look at the problems caused by AirBnB. How much of it money paid is declared to the tax man? Get AirBnB (and similar sites) have to report how much it paid to whom to HMRC. All AirBnB (which are not part of the main residence) should be regarded as a business and taxed and regulated as such.
That's more that I though I would scribble!
(Another none big hitter)
Get AirBnB (and similar sites) have to report how much it paid to whom to HMRC. All AirBnB (which are not part of the main residence) should be regarded as a business and taxed and regulated as such.
This already happens, and rental income is all business income.
Also, there was an immense amount of moaning on here when HMRC got provided all eBay seller data...
https://www.thp.co.uk/airbnb-tax-crackdown/
Just to look at the affordability issue
Numbers are approximate from memory
When I bought my flat I was a band 6 nurse earning around £20 000 pa. take home around £1200 a month. I bought as flat costing £480000. 2.5 times earnings and affordable even when interest rates went up tho I didn't see the worst of it. Mortgage varied from 260 - 400 a month or 20 - 35% of my take home. Affordable.
Now the same post the salary is £35000 ish. the same flat is worth £350 000. 10 times salary Take home would be around £2000 a month. Mortgage payment £2000 a month. Completely impossible.
there are flats to buy around £150 000. Nothing like as nice. Mortgage would be around £950 a month. almost half the take home pay. Not really affordable either and asn inter5est rate rise would make it totally unnaffordable
In much of the UK to buy a house without help from parents is almost impossible if you are on an average wage
This already happens, and rental income is all business income.
How much do you think is paid PCA? I doubt much at all
just to give some context on the talk of building 1.5 million homes over next parliament ( e.g 4 years ) average new housing supply has been c. 170k a year for last 4 years so it’s a great ambition but there is simply no capacity in resources or supply chain for that amount of ramping up without some creative mobilisation of resources
We need more homes for people, simple as supply and demand.
2 pages in and no-one is talking about the demand side? Net migration to the UK in 2023 was 685,000, disproportionately in SE England. If our new neighbours lived 3.5 to a property (which is high - the average household size in the UK is 2.4 people), the UK (and disproportionately SE England) would need 200,000 new homes just to stand still. In fact, 212,000 homes were built - so 90% of new construction just went to offset the increased demand caused by immigration.
Massive human depopulation. Resolves roads being too busy to cycle on, human caused climate change, and over tourism also. Win win win win then!
The idea is to target boomers etc. who have massive gains just from being born in the right decade and owning a property for the last 30 years…
This would have the opposite effect you want it to have. Increasing transaction costs reduces the volume of supply and encourages people to stay put. This is a big problem in the US at the moment with a different cause: a huge chunk of people have non-portable 25 year fixed rate mortgages on very low interest rates. If they move, even to a smaller place, their monthly payment will be far higher - so they stay where they are. This reduces liquidity on the market and labour mobility.
The problem with "getting rid" of holiday homes is that they are in tourist locations which is not where 95% of the working population want to live as the jobs they want are not there .... Unless they want to work in a restaurant.
There needs to be new homes built located with decent access to where the majority of jobs are - i.e. not in the lakes or by the coast.
I've seen affordable homes built in one particular tourist location and they couldn't give them away because it was too far from the jobs.
Eventually to he council changed the rules on who could buy them and then they sold.