Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
I dont think the prices were inflated. A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
A second homeowner is still often only paying half the Council Tax on a 2nd home that someone who only owns the 1, identical home pays. It is very rare they pay more than 100%-although Wales may be about to change this. So, in a lot of Suffolk, the Locals subsidise the multimillionaire Londoners.
To put this into perspective, 57% of all homes in Southwold are second homes or holiday lets.
Second homeowners are allowed to choose whether to pay reduced Council Tax, or Business Rates. The latter can be £0, and is always tax-deductible. Unlike Council Tax. Small Business Rate Relief is given to second home owners. People get tax advice as to how to minimise any tax bill. Noteworthy how much of a lower priority this sort of tax avoidance gets, compared to any benefit a poor person may get.
I have no objection to people using second homes as a business. I object to them paying less tax, and being able both to be a business and a private homeowner whenever it suits them.
I dont resent people owning whatever they want, but they should have to pay their way, and not be given concessions.
Coastal Suffolk is a lot like parts of Wales. The poor are subsidising the rich.
Which is mad. I, like you, have nothing against the mega-wealthy. I just don't want to pay their bills for them.
As an aside, ever wondered why the rich have their Main Residence in Central London, and their 2nd home in Suffolk, etc?
Because the lowest Council Tax rates in the UK are in the City of Westminster. You know, where Mayfair etc are situated. Where Band D and below are still under £1,000 p.a. And a Band H is only £1,728.26 p.a.
I live in a deprived area. Where a Band A pays over £1,300 p.a. And an H (which will be worth a fraction of 1 in Mayfair) is £4,000 p.a.
Ever felt conned?
I have some clients who live in Westminster, their Council Tax is less than £1,000 per annum. Their property is worth £3.5 million. Our council tax is 3x theirs and our property worth less than 1/4, I agree, it doesn't seem fair.
They are, however, really nice people so I let them off when they told me!
Buy to let investing has made some people very rich in the past, it has also made quite a few bankrupt. It always irks me that the regulators will quite happily let people borrow 75% of the value (eg £150K on a property worth £200K) to invest in one asset class and one asset in that asset class, that's a pretty big investment risk to be leveraging. Ironically, if I was to put together an investment portfolio for a client and advise them to put in £50K of their own money and borrow the other £150K from a bank to make up a £200K investment, I would probably be struck off. This despite the fact that the investment portfolio would be more diversified, less risky, more accessible, more flexible, more tax efficient and probably provide a better return.
There are definitely down sides to buy to let investing. Some friends have just had to defend themselves in court against accusations and a claim for damages from a vindictive ex tenant. Luckily they were able to provide evidence that when he was apparently 'standing at her door and threatening her with violence' he was, in fact, in hospital having suffered a heart attack! They won the case and costs (£6,000), they have had to send the bailiffs in and have so far got about 1/2 of that back, with little hope of the rest. They had already written off the 3 months rent that they lost when she stopped paying it. By the way their buy to let was a flat that one of them owned when they got married, as they both owned property they decided to let the flat out, they sort of unwittingly became landlords.
I also had a client where their 'tenant from ****', left and gutted the flat, took literally everything, including radiators off the walls. They didn't turn the water off, just removed the radiators and left the water running. The repair bill was in excess of £25,000 and that was over 20 years ago!
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
I dont think the prices were inflated. A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
I think you may be pulling my leg ( or trying to wind me up 😊) I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, the fact that the ex council tenants bought their house for a fraction of the “market value”, then after a certain period could sell it at full market value, thus pricing out the potential hopeful council tenants out of buying it 😊
A second homeowner is still often only paying half the Council Tax on a 2nd home that someone who only owns the 1, identical home pays. It is very rare they pay more than 100%-although Wales may be about to change this. So, in a lot of Suffolk, the Locals subsidise the multimillionaire Londoners.
To put this into perspective, 57% of all homes in Southwold are second homes or holiday lets.
Second homeowners are allowed to choose whether to pay reduced Council Tax, or Business Rates. The latter can be £0, and is always tax-deductible. Unlike Council Tax. Small Business Rate Relief is given to second home owners. People get tax advice as to how to minimise any tax bill. Noteworthy how much of a lower priority this sort of tax avoidance gets, compared to any benefit a poor person may get.
I have no objection to people using second homes as a business. I object to them paying less tax, and being able both to be a business and a private homeowner whenever it suits them.
I dont resent people owning whatever they want, but they should have to pay their way, and not be given concessions.
Coastal Suffolk is a lot like parts of Wales. The poor are subsidising the rich.
Which is mad. I, like you, have nothing against the mega-wealthy. I just don't want to pay their bills for them.
As an aside, ever wondered why the rich have their Main Residence in Central London, and their 2nd home in Suffolk, etc?
Because the lowest Council Tax rates in the UK are in the City of Westminster. You know, where Mayfair etc are situated. Where Band D and below are still under £1,000 p.a. And a Band H is only £1,728.26 p.a.
I live in a deprived area. Where a Band A pays over £1,300 p.a. And an H (which will be worth a fraction of 1 in Mayfair) is £4,000 p.a.
Ever felt conned?
I have some clients who live in Westminster, their Council Tax is less than £1,000 per annum. Their property is worth £3.5 million. Our council tax is 3x theirs and our property worth less than 1/4, I agree, it doesn't seem fair.
They are, however, really nice people so I let them off when they told me!
Buy to let investing has made some people very rich in the past, it has also made quite a few bankrupt. It always irks me that the regulators will quite happily let people borrow 75% of the value (eg £150K on a property worth £200K) to invest in one asset class and one asset in that asset class, that's a pretty big investment risk to be leveraging. Ironically, if I was to put together an investment portfolio for a client and advise them to put in £50K of their own money and borrow the other £150K from a bank to make up a £200K investment, I would probably be struck off. This despite the fact that the investment portfolio would be more diversified, less risky, more accessible, more flexible, more tax efficient and probably provide a better return.
There are definitely down sides to buy to let investing. Some friends have just had to defend themselves in court against accusations and a claim for damages from a vindictive ex tenant. Luckily they were able to provide evidence that when he was apparently 'standing at her door and threatening her with violence' he was, in fact, in hospital having suffered a heart attack! They won the case and costs (£6,000), they have had to send the bailiffs in and have so far got about 1/2 of that back, with little hope of the rest. They had already written off the 3 months rent that they lost when she stopped paying it. By the way their buy to let was a flat that one of them owned when they got married, as they both owned property they decided to let the flat out, they sort of unwittingly became landlords.
I also had a client where their 'tenant from ****', left and gutted the flat, took literally everything, including radiators off the walls. They didn't turn the water off, just removed the radiators and left the water running. The repair bill was in excess of £25,000 and that was over 20 years ago!
Completely agree re perils of buy-to-let investments. Always amazes me how many people put all their eggs in that 1 basket. Which is always mad. And look at yield, while ignoring running costs, unoccupancy etc.
On the Westminster bit, I don't blame people for taking advantage of the system. I blame the system.
Name another tax based on 1991 values. That ignores the effects of house inflation. For 31 years. Then realise why.
Central London has seen phenomenal price growth since 1991. As an example, I have just looked online at a Mayfair Property that sold for £250,000 in 1997. Today's price? £6.25 million. Owner will probably pay about £1,000 p.a Council Tax.
There are perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes on 2nd homes and Holiday Let homes that would have been closed years ago if ordinary people stood to benefit from them.
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
I dont think the prices were inflated. A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
I think you may be pulling my leg ( or trying to wind me up 😊) I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, the fact that the ex council tenants bought their house for a fraction of the “market value”, then after a certain period could sell it at full market value, thus pricing out the potential hopeful council tenants out of buying it 😊
No I was being serious. When the Right To But scheme first took off, the bloke I was working for saw it as an opportunity. I was working as a sales manager for a double glazing company. The paperwork involved in the scheme was quite lengthy, and fairly complicated, for your average person. It was probably more complex than a visa application that we expect Ukrainians to complete. Another factor was the first thing that everybody did after buying their house was at least change the front door so it looked different from the rest, and many also changed the windows. So he saw it as a source of new customers. He got all his sales managers licenced to sell mortgages. It was all endowments at the time so this was another source of income. So we dealt with the application, through to the mortgage application, and any home improvements they wished to make. So I dealt with loads of them.
When I first got involved, I think you had to be a tenant for 2 years to qualify for the right to buy. You could then buy at a discount. I think that the discount increased by 1% per year of tenancy, up to a maximum of 50% on houses. This meant those that got the most discount were oldies. You had to give the discount back if you sold within 3 years, and a proportion if you sold within 5 years. The discount covered the deposit, and meant they had equity from day one.
The result was that people that probably never expected to own a house were able to. Kids helped their old Mums, and or Dads to buy them. Some bought with their parents jointly. Many kids will have inherited them. Not only that, the scheme has also put a new range of houses on the market, that werent there in any number before. If you look at property prices I think that you would usually find that if you compared prices of say a two bedroomed house. You would obviously find that they would vary in price depending on location. The highest prices being asked for on private estates in sought after locations, with prices falling in private estates in less sought after locations, and falling again in what are considered good council estates, and the lowest prices in what may be considered rougher council estates. This has enabled many people to get on the housing ladder, by buying an ex-council house, that may not have been able to otherwise. Although it may not be in their first choice location. So the Right To Buy scheme has resulted in homes being sold at cheaper prices than they otherwise would have, kids inheriting properties from their parents that they otherwise wouldnt have, and many people getting on the property ladder that otherwise wouldnt have.
So I dont think that you can look at the Right To Buy scheme merely as a plan to sell off all the council houses. Although I dont understand why they didnt use the sales receipts to fund the building of new council houses.
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
I dont think the prices were inflated. A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
I think you may be pulling my leg ( or trying to wind me up 😊) I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, the fact that the ex council tenants bought their house for a fraction of the “market value”, then after a certain period could sell it at full market value, thus pricing out the potential hopeful council tenants out of buying it 😊
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
I dont think the prices were inflated. A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
I think you may be pulling my leg ( or trying to wind me up 😊) I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, the fact that the ex council tenants bought their house for a fraction of the “market value”, then after a certain period could sell it at full market value, thus pricing out the potential hopeful council tenants out of buying it 😊
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
I dont think the prices were inflated. A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
I think you may be pulling my leg ( or trying to wind me up 😊) I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, the fact that the ex council tenants bought their house for a fraction of the “market value”, then after a certain period could sell it at full market value, thus pricing out the potential hopeful council tenants out of buying it 😊
Would you change your mind if,
I am plucking these figures out of thin air, but they could be adjusted. Lets say a 5 year qualifying period to qualify for the right to buy. A Housing Association builds a house at a cost of £100,000. Day one its worth £150,000. 5years later is worth £200,000. The discount is 25%, after renting for 5 years. So the renter can buy for £150,000. No deposit required, the equity covers it. The Housing Association is forced to construct another house to replace the one that was sold. Say the rental was £500 per month. The rental contract could compel the renter to be responsible for minor maintenance to minimise the HA costs. The HA would benefit from £30k in rent, plus 50k profit from the sale. The government could also put limited funding into HAs to ensure their housing stock was increased on an annual basis.
This would mean that many more people would be able to access home ownership. The lack of the need for a deposit overcomes a huge stumbling block. No downsides? Would you change your mind?
Of course there is a downside. Because-unsurprisingly-there cannot be a Credit without a corresponding Debit. There is no "upside" without a "downside"
In your example, the Housing Association takes 2 massive hits-
1. It loses 50% of its potential profit, while running 100% of its risks (house prices fall as well as rise); and 2. It is being forced to build new properties, regardless of whether it wants to, and force it to perpetually remain in business, leading to 3. No sane investor is going to continue to invest in this business model
This is plain stupid.
I can see its appeal to unsuspecting voters. But the only outcome will be to drive out the better Landlords, and replace them with cowboys.
This Government will not tax the oil companies' massive windfalls. But it will seek to manipulate a different market, purely for its own ends.
1. BP makes a massive profit 2. It says there should not be a Windfall Tax, because it is investing those profits for the good of the nation-really. They actually said that; 3. It hopes nobody notices that it shut down its Gas Supplier subsidiary, Pure Planet. Because when it was briefly taking with one hand and giving back with the other, it swiftly stopped the "giving back" bit.
Of course there is a downside. Because-unsurprisingly-there cannot be a Credit without a corresponding Debit. There is no "upside" without a "downside"
In your example, the Housing Association takes 2 massive hits-
1. It loses 50% of its potential profit, while running 100% of its risks (house prices fall as well as rise); and 2. It is being forced to build new properties, regardless of whether it wants to, and force it to perpetually remain in business, leading to 3. No sane investor is going to continue to invest in this business model
This is plain stupid.
I can see its appeal to unsuspecting voters. But the only outcome will be to drive out the better Landlords, and replace them with cowboys.
This Government will not tax the oil companies' massive windfalls. But it will seek to manipulate a different market, purely for its own ends.
What is a housing association?
Housing associations are social landlords, providing a home for more than six million people in England. They are social landlords because they are independent, non-profit organisations driven by social purpose – reinvesting all their profit back into people, by building new homes and investing in communities.
Of course there is a downside. Because-unsurprisingly-there cannot be a Credit without a corresponding Debit. There is no "upside" without a "downside"
In your example, the Housing Association takes 2 massive hits-
1. It loses 50% of its potential profit, while running 100% of its risks (house prices fall as well as rise); and 2. It is being forced to build new properties, regardless of whether it wants to, and force it to perpetually remain in business, leading to 3. No sane investor is going to continue to invest in this business model
This is plain stupid.
I can see its appeal to unsuspecting voters. But the only outcome will be to drive out the better Landlords, and replace them with cowboys.
This Government will not tax the oil companies' massive windfalls. But it will seek to manipulate a different market, purely for its own ends.
What is a housing association?
Housing associations are social landlords, providing a home for more than six million people in England. They are social landlords because they are independent, non-profit organisations driven by social purpose – reinvesting all their profit back into people, by building new homes and investing in communities.
Are housing association rentals the best way to buy a home?
However, as housing becomes more expensive, especially in larger cities, housing association rentals may increasingly provide the best opportunity for younger people to find a home in a desirable area. They may also offer financial assistance for people buying their own property who, for a variety of reasons,...
1. BP makes a massive profit 2. It says there should not be a Windfall Tax, because it is investing those profits for the good of the nation-really. They actually said that; 3. It hopes nobody notices that it shut down its Gas Supplier subsidiary, Pure Planet. Because when it was briefly taking with one hand and giving back with the other, it swiftly stopped the "giving back" bit.
I wasnt suggesting anything other than this scheme may be a good thing in helping people, particularly young people get on the housing ladder, and also address in a limited way the shortage of social housing. I wasnt trying to provide non profits, with profits.
I think the government will come unstuck by ignoring the cost of living crisis. Boris giving flippant answers to serious questions will just alienate more people. He has become quite adept at this. Rishi Sunak saying it would be 'silly' to give people more support with bills now, is equally stupid. I have posted this on the Big Squeeze thread.
Of course there is a downside. Because-unsurprisingly-there cannot be a Credit without a corresponding Debit. There is no "upside" without a "downside"
In your example, the Housing Association takes 2 massive hits-
1. It loses 50% of its potential profit, while running 100% of its risks (house prices fall as well as rise); and 2. It is being forced to build new properties, regardless of whether it wants to, and force it to perpetually remain in business, leading to 3. No sane investor is going to continue to invest in this business model
This is plain stupid.
I can see its appeal to unsuspecting voters. But the only outcome will be to drive out the better Landlords, and replace them with cowboys.
This Government will not tax the oil companies' massive windfalls. But it will seek to manipulate a different market, purely for its own ends.
What is a housing association?
Housing associations are social landlords, providing a home for more than six million people in England. They are social landlords because they are independent, non-profit organisations driven by social purpose – reinvesting all their profit back into people, by building new homes and investing in communities.
Are housing association rentals the best way to buy a home?
However, as housing becomes more expensive, especially in larger cities, housing association rentals may increasingly provide the best opportunity for younger people to find a home in a desirable area. They may also offer financial assistance for people buying their own property who, for a variety of reasons,...
Yes. They choose to do various of those things.
As and when they are financially viable. Because they need to ensure they do not sustain a loss. And-while their aim is often not to make a profit for shareholders-they still need to be able to meet their overheads, such as purchasing property, renovations, and paying staff.
Not whenever a Government thinks is best.
I thought the Conservative Party stood for letting the businesses decide this sort of stuff. Not take over, and think politicians can run businesses better than the businesses themselves.
So-Govt intends to tell the socially responsible what to do. While continuing to allow the Banks, Oil Companies etc do whatever they like.
Here’s an idea People who rent their second homes could be forced to produce their mortgage statements for that home, then can only charge rent at the addiction of the current banks saving interest rates.
That would prove how thoughtful they are 😏
That would never work either.
I think you have a simplistic view of renting out property. This makes me wonder why you wouldnt have done it yourself.
I have known a couple of people that rent out property, and its not all plain sailing.
I haven’t done it myself because I’m not keen on the whole “ Landlord” idea, plus I could never have afforded it 😊
It is very easy to dismiss something that you cant afford anyway. It doesnt really matter whether or not you like the whole landlord idea if you couldnt afford to do it. I am not that keen on super yachts.
Simplistic ideas are always the best ones. They only get scuppered by red tape and greed.
I think you mean simple, rather than simplistic. Whereas I meant simplistic. I am not sure where red tape, and greed figures in renting houses? There will be a going rate in any particular area. If you tried to charge over the odds you probably wouldnt find any clients, or if you did they would probably look to move as soon as they realised. The priority of any business is to make a profit, to avoid going out of business It is very easy to criticise a business that you know little about. Particularly if you are unaware of the costs involved, and the things that might go wrong.
The simplistic view of the selling off of council houses is- they are never given to / bought by people who need them most ( After the initial purchase)
I am not sure what you mean here. They could initially only be bought by existing tenants. If they were resold anyone could buy them.
My sister was in a private rental until recently. She was paying £880 per month. It was a 4 bed detached in one of the nicest areas of Swansea. She could probably have paid less than half the price elsewhere. So she couldnt really moan about it. I dont think that whether the owners had a mortgage or not, or how much profit they made, was relevant. She needed a house to rent, and that was the one she wanted.
You are incorrect in the “ Anyone could buy them “ I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits. My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
I dont think the prices were inflated. A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
I think you may be pulling my leg ( or trying to wind me up 😊) I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, the fact that the ex council tenants bought their house for a fraction of the “market value”, then after a certain period could sell it at full market value, thus pricing out the potential hopeful council tenants out of buying it 😊
Would you change your mind if,
I am plucking these figures out of thin air, but they could be adjusted. Lets say a 5 year qualifying period to qualify for the right to buy. A Housing Association builds a house at a cost of £100,000. Day one its worth £150,000. 5years later is worth £200,000. The discount is 25%, after renting for 5 years. So the renter can buy for £150,000. No deposit required, the equity covers it. The Housing Association is forced to construct another house to replace the one that was sold. Say the rental was £500 per month. The rental contract could compel the renter to be responsible for minor maintenance to minimise the HA costs. The HA would benefit from £30k in rent, plus 50k profit from the sale. The government could also put limited funding into HAs to ensure their housing stock was increased on an annual basis.
This would mean that many more people would be able to access home ownership. The lack of the need for a deposit overcomes a huge stumbling block. No downsides? Would you change your mind?
The two things I agree with are that tenants should be responsible for minor maintenance, and housing stock to rent increasing.
‘Back in the day’ Endowment Mortgages, and Double Glazing were the road to ruin for many people. I recall a programme ( Matt Alrite rogue traders or the like) where firms selling double glazing had sales pitches with the wonderful “ We have discounts available in your area” bull…… The salesmen were in the houses for (sometimes) up to 6 or 7 hours telling the customer that the deal was only available on that day.
It’s akin to someone sitting down in an office and saying “ Ok, the government have pulled the wool over these peoples eyes, how can we make more money out of the suckers”
The rise and fall of endowment mortgages has been a feature of one of the most notorious mis-selling scandals in the last few decades. The industry grew as a result of tax breaks, and hit its peak towards the end of the 1980s when it became the fashionable home loan for those getting on the property ladder. The estimated peak was more than a million policies sold in a single year. The extent of the subsequent decline is clear from the fact that only 27 sales of this product were completed in 2011-12, according to the City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Of course there is a downside. Because-unsurprisingly-there cannot be a Credit without a corresponding Debit. There is no "upside" without a "downside"
In your example, the Housing Association takes 2 massive hits-
1. It loses 50% of its potential profit, while running 100% of its risks (house prices fall as well as rise); and 2. It is being forced to build new properties, regardless of whether it wants to, and force it to perpetually remain in business, leading to 3. No sane investor is going to continue to invest in this business model
This is plain stupid.
I can see its appeal to unsuspecting voters. But the only outcome will be to drive out the better Landlords, and replace them with cowboys.
This Government will not tax the oil companies' massive windfalls. But it will seek to manipulate a different market, purely for its own ends.
What is a housing association?
Housing associations are social landlords, providing a home for more than six million people in England. They are social landlords because they are independent, non-profit organisations driven by social purpose – reinvesting all their profit back into people, by building new homes and investing in communities.
Are housing association rentals the best way to buy a home?
However, as housing becomes more expensive, especially in larger cities, housing association rentals may increasingly provide the best opportunity for younger people to find a home in a desirable area. They may also offer financial assistance for people buying their own property who, for a variety of reasons,...
Yes. They choose to do various of those things.
As and when they are financially viable. Because they need to ensure they do not sustain a loss. And-while their aim is often not to make a profit for shareholders-they still need to be able to meet their overheads, such as purchasing property, renovations, and paying staff.
Not whenever a Government thinks is best.
I thought the Conservative Party stood for letting the businesses decide this sort of stuff. Not take over, and think politicians can run businesses better than the businesses themselves.
So-Govt intends to tell the socially responsible what to do. While continuing to allow the Banks, Oil Companies etc do whatever they like.
I was merely putting forward the fact that a non profit may be used to at least partially address two problems. All the reasons that you put forward for not doing it will be more applicable to a private business. There is a shortage of social housing. This will not be addressed by the private sector. They seem to be reluctant to build much affordable housing. There is also a problem with people being unable to get on the housing ladder. Deposits seem to be a massive problem for those in private rentals, as it is obviously a problem for those paying higher rentals to be also able to save for a deposit at the same time.
I would agree that a windfall tax may be a good idea, but the proceeds would not be used to address either of the two problems above. I would support the idea that any windfall taxes would be used to help with the cost of living crisis.
The private sector will never sell homes at a genuine discount. Nor will they voluntarily solve the social housing problem. Building Societies will probably never again offer 100% mortgages. A windfall tax is unlikely to be used to fund a solution to these problems.
Non profits can survive on much lower margins than private sector builders.
Housing associations are not-for-profit organisations set up to provide affordable homes and support local communities. They don’t make profits for shareholders. Instead, they invest all the income they make into delivering on their social purpose. www.housing.org.uk/about-housing-associations/what-housing-associations-do/
The rise and fall of endowment mortgages has been a feature of one of the most notorious mis-selling scandals in the last few decades. The industry grew as a result of tax breaks, and hit its peak towards the end of the 1980s when it became the fashionable home loan for those getting on the property ladder. The estimated peak was more than a million policies sold in a single year. The extent of the subsequent decline is clear from the fact that only 27 sales of this product were completed in 2011-12, according to the City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Endowments started out ok. But rapidly changed. Originally, the endowment was not a bad product. But it cost a lot of money, and so it quickly got "tweaked".
"Low cost" endowments took over. They cost a fraction of their predecessors. They had charges that were massively higher (it was the monthly policy fee that was the killer). Further misleading labels like "with profits" or "unit linked"-all ignoring the fact that gains were consistently way lower than the Stock Market itself.
They were never likely to achieve their goals-and the reduction in inflation made it impossible. Because if the charges are 5-6% of your money before it even goes in, even before the ongoing charges, when inflation is less than 5%, it is impossible.
This took £billions from homeowners. And gave it to Insurance Companies and their Salesmen. Which is, of course, why Insurers would give the best part of the entire first year's premiums to the salesman.
Comments
I think you meant anyone who could afford the inflated price could buy them.
I was probably incorrect in my “Couldn’t afford to” also., of course I could sell my ( vastly overpriced) house down south
Purchase a 5 bed house up North, split it into 5 “ self contained flats” charge the ( vastly overpriced) “going rate” and live off the profits.
My not keen on the Landlord bit still stands though..
A house on a council estate would usually be cheaper than a similar house on a private estate.
They are, however, really nice people so I let them off when they told me!
Buy to let investing has made some people very rich in the past, it has also made quite a few bankrupt. It always irks me that the regulators will quite happily let people borrow 75% of the value (eg £150K on a property worth £200K) to invest in one asset class and one asset in that asset class, that's a pretty big investment risk to be leveraging. Ironically, if I was to put together an investment portfolio for a client and advise them to put in £50K of their own money and borrow the other £150K from a bank to make up a £200K investment, I would probably be struck off. This despite the fact that the investment portfolio would be more diversified, less risky, more accessible, more flexible, more tax efficient and probably provide a better return.
There are definitely down sides to buy to let investing. Some friends have just had to defend themselves in court against accusations and a claim for damages from a vindictive ex tenant. Luckily they were able to provide evidence that when he was apparently 'standing at her door and threatening her with violence' he was, in fact, in hospital having suffered a heart attack! They won the case and costs (£6,000), they have had to send the bailiffs in and have so far got about 1/2 of that back, with little hope of the rest. They had already written off the 3 months rent that they lost when she stopped paying it. By the way their buy to let was a flat that one of them owned when they got married, as they both owned property they decided to let the flat out, they sort of unwittingly became landlords.
I also had a client where their 'tenant from ****', left and gutted the flat, took literally everything, including radiators off the walls. They didn't turn the water off, just removed the radiators and left the water running. The repair bill was in excess of £25,000 and that was over 20 years ago!
I’m pretty sure you know what I mean, the fact that the ex council tenants bought their house for a fraction of the “market value”, then after a certain period could sell it at full market value, thus pricing out the potential hopeful council tenants out of buying it 😊
On the Westminster bit, I don't blame people for taking advantage of the system. I blame the system.
Name another tax based on 1991 values. That ignores the effects of house inflation. For 31 years. Then realise why.
Central London has seen phenomenal price growth since 1991. As an example, I have just looked online at a Mayfair Property that sold for £250,000 in 1997. Today's price? £6.25 million. Owner will probably pay about £1,000 p.a Council Tax.
There are perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes on 2nd homes and Holiday Let homes that would have been closed years ago if ordinary people stood to benefit from them.
When the Right To But scheme first took off, the bloke I was working for saw it as an opportunity.
I was working as a sales manager for a double glazing company.
The paperwork involved in the scheme was quite lengthy, and fairly complicated, for your average person.
It was probably more complex than a visa application that we expect Ukrainians to complete.
Another factor was the first thing that everybody did after buying their house was at least change the front door so it looked different from the rest, and many also changed the windows.
So he saw it as a source of new customers.
He got all his sales managers licenced to sell mortgages.
It was all endowments at the time so this was another source of income.
So we dealt with the application, through to the mortgage application, and any home improvements they wished to make.
So I dealt with loads of them.
When I first got involved, I think you had to be a tenant for 2 years to qualify for the right to buy.
You could then buy at a discount.
I think that the discount increased by 1% per year of tenancy, up to a maximum of 50% on houses.
This meant those that got the most discount were oldies.
You had to give the discount back if you sold within 3 years, and a proportion if you sold within 5 years.
The discount covered the deposit, and meant they had equity from day one.
The result was that people that probably never expected to own a house were able to.
Kids helped their old Mums, and or Dads to buy them.
Some bought with their parents jointly.
Many kids will have inherited them.
Not only that, the scheme has also put a new range of houses on the market, that werent there in any number before.
If you look at property prices I think that you would usually find that if you compared prices of say a two bedroomed house.
You would obviously find that they would vary in price depending on location.
The highest prices being asked for on private estates in sought after locations, with prices falling in private estates in less sought after locations, and falling again in what are considered good council estates, and the lowest prices in what may be considered rougher council estates.
This has enabled many people to get on the housing ladder, by buying an ex-council house, that may not have been able to otherwise.
Although it may not be in their first choice location.
So the Right To Buy scheme has resulted in homes being sold at cheaper prices than they otherwise would have, kids inheriting properties from their parents that they otherwise wouldnt have, and many people getting on the property ladder that otherwise wouldnt have.
So I dont think that you can look at the Right To Buy scheme merely as a plan to sell off all the council houses.
Although I dont understand why they didnt use the sales receipts to fund the building of new council houses.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-planning-bring-back-191901116.html
I am plucking these figures out of thin air, but they could be adjusted.
Lets say a 5 year qualifying period to qualify for the right to buy.
A Housing Association builds a house at a cost of £100,000.
Day one its worth £150,000.
5years later is worth £200,000.
The discount is 25%, after renting for 5 years.
So the renter can buy for £150,000.
No deposit required, the equity covers it.
The Housing Association is forced to construct another house to replace the one that was sold.
Say the rental was £500 per month.
The rental contract could compel the renter to be responsible for minor maintenance to minimise the HA costs.
The HA would benefit from £30k in rent, plus 50k profit from the sale.
The government could also put limited funding into HAs to ensure their housing stock was increased on an annual basis.
This would mean that many more people would be able to access home ownership.
The lack of the need for a deposit overcomes a huge stumbling block.
No downsides?
Would you change your mind?
In your example, the Housing Association takes 2 massive hits-
1. It loses 50% of its potential profit, while running 100% of its risks (house prices fall as well as rise); and
2. It is being forced to build new properties, regardless of whether it wants to, and force it to perpetually remain in business, leading to
3. No sane investor is going to continue to invest in this business model
This is plain stupid.
I can see its appeal to unsuspecting voters. But the only outcome will be to drive out the better Landlords, and replace them with cowboys.
This Government will not tax the oil companies' massive windfalls. But it will seek to manipulate a different market, purely for its own ends.
1. BP makes a massive profit
2. It says there should not be a Windfall Tax, because it is investing those profits for the good of the nation-really. They actually said that;
3. It hopes nobody notices that it shut down its Gas Supplier subsidiary, Pure Planet. Because when it was briefly taking with one hand and giving back with the other, it swiftly stopped the "giving back" bit.
Housing associations are social landlords, providing a home for more than six million people in England. They are social landlords because they are independent, non-profit organisations driven by social purpose – reinvesting all their profit back into people, by building new homes and investing in communities.
However, as housing becomes more expensive, especially in larger cities, housing association rentals may increasingly provide the best opportunity for younger people to find a home in a desirable area. They may also offer financial assistance for people buying their own property who, for a variety of reasons,...
I wasnt trying to provide non profits, with profits.
I think the government will come unstuck by ignoring the cost of living crisis.
Boris giving flippant answers to serious questions will just alienate more people.
He has become quite adept at this.
Rishi Sunak saying it would be 'silly' to give people more support with bills now, is equally stupid.
I have posted this on the Big Squeeze thread.
As and when they are financially viable. Because they need to ensure they do not sustain a loss. And-while their aim is often not to make a profit for shareholders-they still need to be able to meet their overheads, such as purchasing property, renovations, and paying staff.
Not whenever a Government thinks is best.
I thought the Conservative Party stood for letting the businesses decide this sort of stuff. Not take over, and think politicians can run businesses better than the businesses themselves.
So-Govt intends to tell the socially responsible what to do. While continuing to allow the Banks, Oil Companies etc do whatever they like.
‘Back in the day’ Endowment Mortgages, and Double Glazing were the road to ruin for many people. I recall a programme ( Matt Alrite rogue traders or the like) where firms selling double glazing had sales pitches with the wonderful “ We have discounts available in your area” bull……
The salesmen were in the houses for (sometimes) up to 6 or 7 hours telling the customer that the deal was only available on that day.
It’s akin to someone sitting down in an office and saying “ Ok, the government have pulled the wool over these peoples eyes, how can we make more money out of the suckers”
The industry grew as a result of tax breaks, and hit its peak towards the end of the 1980s when it became the fashionable home loan for those getting on the property ladder. The estimated peak was more than a million policies sold in a single year.
The extent of the subsequent decline is clear from the fact that only 27 sales of this product were completed in 2011-12, according to the City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA)
All the reasons that you put forward for not doing it will be more applicable to a private business.
There is a shortage of social housing.
This will not be addressed by the private sector.
They seem to be reluctant to build much affordable housing.
There is also a problem with people being unable to get on the housing ladder.
Deposits seem to be a massive problem for those in private rentals, as it is obviously a problem for those paying higher rentals to be also able to save for a deposit at the same time.
I would agree that a windfall tax may be a good idea, but the proceeds would not be used to address either of the two problems above.
I would support the idea that any windfall taxes would be used to help with the cost of living crisis.
The private sector will never sell homes at a genuine discount.
Nor will they voluntarily solve the social housing problem.
Building Societies will probably never again offer 100% mortgages.
A windfall tax is unlikely to be used to fund a solution to these problems.
Non profits can survive on much lower margins than private sector builders.
Housing associations are not-for-profit organisations set up to provide affordable homes and support local communities. They don’t make profits for shareholders. Instead, they invest all the income they make into delivering on their social purpose.
www.housing.org.uk/about-housing-associations/what-housing-associations-do/
Originally, the endowment was not a bad product. But it cost a lot of money, and so it quickly got "tweaked".
"Low cost" endowments took over. They cost a fraction of their predecessors. They had charges that were massively higher (it was the monthly policy fee that was the killer). Further misleading labels like "with profits" or "unit linked"-all ignoring the fact that gains were consistently way lower than the Stock Market itself.
They were never likely to achieve their goals-and the reduction in inflation made it impossible. Because if the charges are 5-6% of your money before it even goes in, even before the ongoing charges, when inflation is less than 5%, it is impossible.
This took £billions from homeowners. And gave it to Insurance Companies and their Salesmen. Which is, of course, why Insurers would give the best part of the entire first year's premiums to the salesman.