Emily Matliss should try being a private landlord in Wales, as I have for the past 7 years. Capital values have gone backwards, and show no sign of turning the corner. Rental income, gross, is around 5% on current values. After running costs... maintenance, insurance, etc, ... about 2.5% is about what we pick up. If Prime Minister Milliband intends to reduce that further, I for one will be leaving my 4 cottages empty.
My mother inherited a flat in south Wales. The rent she got for it wouldn't of paid for a bedsit room in SE England.
There is a " snowline " I've heard builders refer to above which in the northern half of the S Wales valleys it's not worth building houses, as the sale price will be less than the cost of land, materials, and labour.
Living in, Cardiff as I do, it seems a different world only 15 miles away!
Emily Matliss should try being a private landlord in Wales, as I have for the past 7 years. Capital values have gone backwards, and show no sign of turning the corner. Rental income, gross, is around 5% on current values. After running costs... maintenance, insurance, etc, ... about 2.5% is about what we pick up. If Prime Minister Milliband intends to reduce that further, I for one will be leaving my 4 cottages empty.
Sell up? Cash in? Invest your capital else where?
Invest where? Shares - risky. Involves trusting the City. Peer to peer lending: maybe but risky and no protection if it goes wrong. Savings accounts: pointless - virtually zero returns. Bonds - some commentators feel that the next market to crash is the bond market.
So where? A policy which may well look attractive to renters will look to others as Labour closing off yet another option for those who have saved something (their reward for their hard work) to do something with their money which will provide them with an income when they're no longer working.
Labour really need to stop playing Whack-a-Mole with people's savings.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
A rare agreement with EdM from me. Not sure about his prescription, but private landlords are absolutely out of control and need to be reigned in. Buying property to just sit on it and earn rental income is all to easy for people in this country and it is turning us into a nation of renters which is surely bad for the economy as more money is funnelled from the poor to the rich. Trickle up is not an economic model that has any merit.
Why do you think people are investing in property? Because savings in cash bring negligible returns. investments in shares are too hairy for many and the City is not trusted by many and pensions have been repeatedly attacked (not least by Labour).
People are trying to find a way to make their money earn something, not least to deal with their own cost of living "crisis" when they retire. Labour give the impression that, far from being on the side of people who are trying to put something by for their old age and their family, they actively despise them and/or see them as purely a wallet to be picked.
The cost of living crisis is worse for pensioners, who have fixed incomes, no easy way of getting work , are not in a position to take risks, face increased bills (not least in relation to care/health) and have been royally shafted by governments of all stripes. If Labour really were concerned for such people and those coming up to retirement or making plans for it, they would not go round attacking pensions and attacking those who have tried to do the right thing.
Labour complain that wealth is concentrated in too few hands and that more should be given the opportunity to acquire wealth but I always feel that the only reason they say that is so that they have more people to fleece when they're in power.
You make a series of good points. Having a BTL as part of your old age planning does not make one a rapacious evil so and so (neither I nor my wife have one for clarity ) and folk are seeking stable indexed linked (ish) returns to see them through their old age, especially since G Brown left the private sector final salary system resembling a financial Stalingrad after he'd finished with it, and interest rates are lower than anytime since 1694.
There is a problem with lack of stability for families but Ed's reflexive instinct when faced with an issue like this seems to go for a supply limiting regulation of the symptoms and blame " vested interests " - see energy a few months ago, now rented housing. What's next?
What's next? Got to be food. Bring back the Ministry of Prices and Consumer Protection I say.
"Hope Not Hate" have been funded by government grants:
"These protests are mainly led by Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate, the latter an organisation whose leader is diametrically opposed to the libertarian-leaning Ukip. Nick Lowles is associated with the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and like the unions who give large donations to their organisation, is mightily upset that Labour voters are coming across to Ukip.
While we don’t yet know about the funding for this cross-party group, we do know about funding for Hope Not Hate. For since 2010 it has received £150,000 in funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, ostensibly to campaign against “racism in deprived areas”. In 2012 it received no less than £63,000 of taxpayers’ money, which given that the group is so open in its hatred of Ukip seems to me an entirely unsuitable use of much-needed government money."
Not only are Hope Not Hate funded by Government grants, they were founded and are run by a man who wrote strategy documents for the European Movement on how to counter the rise of UKIP. Unbiased they are most certainly not.
I don't know that much about them and I'm not a knee-jerk kipper-hater, but I'm sceptical that Lowles can be close to both the CP and the SWP - two organisations who cordially detest each other. Googling produces a Wikipedia entry which looks fairly diverse - e.g. he's also been involved in a campaign against child grooming by gangs, which e.g. Mr Jones frequently suggests is something the left don't enough care about.
One of those leaflets suggests that UKIP want to build 7 aircraft carriers. Is that correct?
I was given one of those leaflets in Bath on Tuesday. Though I was spared from the chant of UKIP Scum, they may have mistaken me for a journalist or worse. Why a 31% flat tax? 30% flat tax makes some sense. It really is odd that money from taxpayers ends up in the hands of such odd balls.
Mr. Llama, just signed up. I hope I'm not Russia again (not that the Winter Palace isn't lovely, but it'd be nice to be another country). Made some schoolboy errors in the other game, and Germany's departure was a bit unhelpful but I am quite enjoying it.
The Tories need to have the balls to call a spade a spade and allow young people onto the property ladder by forcing middle class, middle aged coupled off the buy-to-let gravy train.
Alternatively the tories could slash direct and indirect taxes for low and middle income people further, get rid of stamp duty below half a million quid and do everything they can to speed up the 250 mainly residential private towers that are in some stage of planning in London.
Why do you think people are investing in property? Because savings in cash bring negligible returns. investments in shares are too hairy for many and the City is not trusted by many and pensions have been repeatedly attacked (not least by Labour).
People are trying to find a way to make their money earn something, not least to deal with their own cost of living "crisis" when they retire. Labour give the impression that, far from being on the side of people who are trying to put something by for their old age and their family, they actively despise them and/or see them as purely a wallet to be picked.
The cost of living crisis is worse for pensioners, who have fixed incomes, no easy way of getting work , are not in a position to take risks, face increased bills (not least in relation to care/health) and have been royally shafted by governments of all stripes. If Labour really were concerned for such people and those coming up to retirement or making plans for it, they would not go round attacking pensions and attacking those who have tried to do the right thing.
Labour complain that wealth is concentrated in too few hands and that more should be given the opportunity to acquire wealth but I always feel that the only reason they say that is so that they have more people to fleece when they're in power.
You make a series of good points. Having a BTL as part of your old age planning does not make one a rapacious evil so and so (neither I nor my wife have one for clarity ) and folk are seeking stable indexed linked (ish) returns to see them through their old age, especially since G Brown left the private sector final salary system resembling a financial Stalingrad after he'd finished with it, and interest rates are lower than anytime since 1694.
There is a problem with lack of stability for families but Ed's reflexive instinct when faced with an issue like this seems to go for a supply limiting regulation of the symptoms and blame " vested interests " - see energy a few months ago, now rented housing. What's next?
What's next? Got to be food. Bring back the Ministry of Prices and Consumer Protection I say.
He'll remove the tax free lump sum from your pension, either by taxing it or by saying that you can't get any sort of lump sum at all. Labour have form on pensions.
Or he could try and put a cap on bank charges. Which would be hugely popular.
Why do you think people are investing in property? Because savings in cash bring negligible returns. investments in shares are too hairy for many and the City is not trusted by many and pensions have been repeatedly attacked (not least by Labour).
People are trying to find a way to make their money earn something, not least to deal with their own cost of living "crisis" when they retire. Labour give the impression that, far from being on the side of people who are trying to put something by for their old age and their family, they actively despise them and/or see them as purely a wallet to be picked.
The cost of living crisis is worse for pensioners, who have fixed incomes, no easy way of getting work , are not in a position to take risks, face increased bills (not least in relation to care/health) and have been royally shafted by governments of all stripes. If Labour really were concerned for such people and those coming up to retirement or making plans for it, they would not go round attacking pensions and attacking those who have tried to do the right thing.
Labour complain that wealth is concentrated in too few hands and that more should be given the opportunity to acquire wealth but I always feel that the only reason they say that is so that they have more people to fleece when they're in power.
You make a series of good points. Having a BTL as part of your old age planning does not make one a rapacious evil so and so (neither I nor my wife have one for clarity ) and folk are seeking stable indexed linked (ish) returns to see them through their old age, especially since G Brown left the private sector final salary system resembling a financial Stalingrad after he'd finished with it, and interest rates are lower than anytime since 1694.
There is a problem with lack of stability for families but Ed's reflexive instinct when faced with an issue like this seems to go for a supply limiting regulation of the symptoms and blame " vested interests " - see energy a few months ago, now rented housing. What's next?
What's next? Got to be food. Bring back the Ministry of Prices and Consumer Protection I say.
He'll remove the tax free lump sum from your pension, either by taxing it or by saying that you can't get any sort of lump sum at all. Labour have form on pensions.
Or he could try and put a cap on bank charges. Which would be hugely popular.
People would just have to pay for bank accounts then. Why should people who are careful money management subsidise those who are not?
What's next? Got to be food. Bring back the Ministry of Prices and Consumer Protection I say.
No, son of British Rail - that'll be the mega-announcement at the conference speech.
I guess those if us old enough to remember just how awful BR were are a diminishing band. Each and every time I use a train I am thankful that BR is no more.
Why do you think people are investing in property? Because savings in cash bring negligible returns. investments in shares are too hairy for many and the City is not trusted by many and pensions have been repeatedly attacked (not least by Labour).
People are trying to find a way to make their money earn something, not least to deal with their own cost of living "crisis" when they retire. Labour give the impression that, far from being on the side of people who are trying to put something by for their old age and their family, they actively despise them and/or see them as purely a wallet to be picked.
The cost of living crisis is worse for pensioners, who have fixed incomes, no easy way of getting work , are not in a position to take risks, face increased bills (not least in relation to care/health) and have been royally shafted by governments of all stripes. If Labour really were concerned for such people and those coming up to retirement or making plans for it, they would not go round attacking pensions and attacking those who have tried to do the right thing.
Labour complain that wealth is concentrated in too few hands and that more should be given the opportunity to acquire wealth but I always feel that the only reason they say that is so that they have more people to fleece when they're in power.
You make a series of good points. Having a BTL as part of your old age planning does not make one a rapacious evil so and so (neither I nor my wife have one for clarity ) and folk are seeking stable indexed linked (ish) returns to see them through their old age, especially since G Brown left the private sector final salary system resembling a financial Stalingrad after he'd finished with it, and interest rates are lower than anytime since 1694.
There is a problem with lack of stability for families but Ed's reflexive instinct when faced with an issue like this seems to go for a supply limiting regulation of the symptoms and blame " vested interests " - see energy a few months ago, now rented housing. What's next?
What's next? Got to be food. Bring back the Ministry of Prices and Consumer Protection I say.
He'll remove the tax free lump sum from your pension, either by taxing it or by saying that you can't get any sort of lump sum at all. Labour have form on pensions.
Or he could try and put a cap on bank charges. Which would be hugely popular.
People would just have to pay for bank accounts then. Why should people who are careful money management subsidise those who are not?
Lib Dems are going to lose control of Kingston no doubt about that..They will hold on in Sutton but the council will look a lot different I think...Labour to get some seats back there... Does ark Senior agree?
Comments
Living in, Cardiff as I do, it seems a different world only 15 miles away!
So where? A policy which may well look attractive to renters will look to others as Labour closing off yet another option for those who have saved something (their reward for their hard work) to do something with their money which will provide them with an income when they're no longer working.
Labour really need to stop playing Whack-a-Mole with people's savings.
Mr. Llama, just signed up. I hope I'm not Russia again (not that the Winter Palace isn't lovely, but it'd be nice to be another country). Made some schoolboy errors in the other game, and Germany's departure was a bit unhelpful but I am quite enjoying it.
Alternatively the tories could slash direct and indirect taxes for low and middle income people further, get rid of stamp duty below half a million quid and do everything they can to speed up the 250 mainly residential private towers that are in some stage of planning in London.
Or he could try and put a cap on bank charges. Which would be hugely popular.
and tuition fees
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/30/labour-cut-student-tuition-fees-6000-a-year
Does ark Senior agree?