Give young land to build their own homes

Latest Articles

Give young land to build their own homes
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property

Author

Message

Nick

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 11:33 am Post subject:

oldish chris wrote:

: one is the bias of money lenders towards buy-to-let landlords and the favourable tax regime of unearned income versus wages, the other is the under-occupation of many houses occupied by wrinklies (such as me).

What's the bias? You pay a higher interest rate for a btl mortgage, and don't you pay the same tax on unearned income as wages?

onemanband

Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1473
Location: NCA90

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 3:35 pm Post subject:

I can't find anymore details other than what's in the news stories so .....
Are they really going to give land away ? Land that is easy worth �50k a plot. It's not like there's a shortage of people willing to buy it and build on it. How are they going to assess who can have free land ? And giving away land won't actually mean theres more houses than if the land was sold and raised revenue.
Maybe it could be a scheme where land is 'loaned' and then paid back when/if the house is sold. That would give people a foot on the ladder.

I think the elephant in the room is a projected net population growth of 10mill over next 25 years (that's 400 000 per year) and a house building rate of about 100 000 per year.

Nick

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 4:55 pm Post subject:
The actual house need not cost much. Apologies for linking to a pro nazi bit of toilet roll.

oldish chris

Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 4148
Location: Comfortably Wet Southport

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 5:20 pm Post subject:

Nick wrote:

oldish chris wrote:

What's the bias? You pay a higher interest rate for a btl mortgage, and don't you pay the same tax on unearned income as wages?

I thought that dividends were taxed lower than income. (10% versus 20% for paupers like me, 37.5% versus 45% for ex-members of the Bullingdon Club)

The bias in mortgages is that paupers like me need to find a 90 or 95% mortgage, ex-members of the Bullingdon Club get a 50% loan against their home and use that to fund the BTL.

Nick

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 5:26 pm Post subject:
Ah. Not all btl properties are owned by ex bullingdon club members. That's where the confusion comes from. Rental income attracts regular income tax. To be fair, you can deduct the cost of a mortgage from your tax bill, tho.

RichardW

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 8443
Location: Llyn Peninsular North Wales

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 6:37 pm Post subject:

Nick wrote:

To be fair, you can deduct the cost of a mortgage from your tax bill, tho.

I think its just the interest bit you can do that for not the repayment part.

Pilsbury

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 5645
Location: East london/Essex

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 6:45 pm Post subject:

RichardW wrote:

Nick wrote:

To be fair, you can deduct the cost of a mortgage from your tax bill, tho.

I think its just the interest bit you can do that for not the repayment part.

well yes, thags why you get an interest only morgage and use the extra income to fund another BTL morgage....

Nick

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 6:46 pm Post subject:
Yes. The COST of the mortgage...

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 7:15 pm Post subject:

onemanband wrote:

And giving away land won't actually mean theres more houses than if the land was sold and raised revenue.

No, but they will be lived in.

onemanband wrote:

I think the elephant in the room is a projected net population growth of 10mill over next 25 years (that's 400 000 per year) and a house building rate of about 100 000 per year.

I think the elephant in the room is the 1,000,000 empty homes in the UK, a third of which have been empty for 6 months +.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46211
Location: yes

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 7:36 pm Post subject:
maybe the million empty homes at a time when the young cannot afford mortgages or rent is why the 1000 yrs of squatting rights was removed rather quietly plenty of commercial premises are still available to the adaptable

chickenann

Joined: 28 Aug 2013
Posts: 59

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 8:18 pm Post subject:
Planners should stop giving permission to vanity projects. Size of new houses should be restricted via the planning process, making them more affordable and ensuring a lower carbon footprint of both the build and of running them. we're not short of 6+ bed houses, we're short of modest family homes and first-time-buyer properties.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 8:22 pm Post subject:
Planners should stop people building extensions - all the small houses round here seem to be extended to make them unaffordable.

oldish chris

Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 4148
Location: Comfortably Wet Southport

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 8:43 pm Post subject:
there's more Heffing Heffalumps in our self-built living room than in Africa! So, one more won't make much difference: hows about the Government has allowed free market forces to set house prices, but is assiduously making sure that there isn't a free market of supply. So, either dump all planning restrictions or introduce price controls.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 9:37 pm Post subject:

oldish chris wrote:

introduce price controls.

Isn't that part of the reasoning behind the benefits cap?
The bottom line for rent is substantially dependant on the amount that someone can claim housing benefit for...

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 13 9:46 pm Post subject:
Watch out, one of the elephants is escaping!

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

View Latest Posts