Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Why do it?
Downsizing implies older and long-term occupancy. During which time (mostly) Boomers have accrued huge asset inflation benefits.
You've just bought a 450k property, likely largely mortgage free; you can afford 12.5k tax.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Do first time buyers pay it?
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Which in the SE/South of England means that anyone wanting to buy a house to live in will have to hand over 5% of the purchase price to HMG. To put that in context: in this area anyone who buys a two-up two down terraced in need of renovation will have to find a minimum of £12,500 up front for the government, on top of the minimum deposit of £25,000. How the hell are young people supposed to accumulate nearly forty grand out of taxed income?
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
A couple of years saving for two people - when I was living in London and working in consulting there would be no problem saving 1-1.5k a month out of taxed income.
That said; there might be an argument for varying stamp duty in different regions. Could be an extension of the enterprise zone approach to business taxation. Or exempt first time buyers.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
South Somerset has reasonable prices
In the scruffier parts like Crewkerne and Chard, yes.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Why do it?
Downsizing implies older and long-term occupancy. During which time (mostly) Boomers have accrued huge asset inflation benefits.
You've just bought a 450k property, likely largely mortgage free; you can afford 12.5k tax.
But what for? I can afford to run the place I own quite comfortably. I'll save next to nothing on council tax (e.g if I bought a house worth half my current one, I'd pay £600 p.a. less). Ditto utilities, which currently cost me £85p.m.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
South Somerset has reasonable prices
In the scruffier parts like Crewkerne and Chard, yes.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
A long term trend of people moving to the suburbs, the new boundary changes are already out of date, Tories should have even more seats. Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
Harrow was another majority/minority borough with a big Leave vote.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Might you be interested in investing in modern classic cars, returns around 25% pa? I'll PM you more details if you wish, but let's just say that a 5 year old Ferrari is half the price in the Middle East than it is in the UK.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
South Somerset has reasonable prices
Ooh - that sounds nice along with Devon. Anywhere in particular? I'm hoping to be a good negotiator as all cash buyer.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
There are 500 houses for sale listed with RightMove for Wiltshire under £210,000.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Well, here's Hereford on Rightmove. Probably do much better oop North.
What's the weather like? I'm spoilt rotten in Eastbourne - it's sunny and blue sky most of the time, and hardly too cold to put the heating on rather than a jumper. Friends moved to Cornwall and that's a bit wet/cloudy.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Why do it?
Downsizing implies older and long-term occupancy. During which time (mostly) Boomers have accrued huge asset inflation benefits.
You've just bought a 450k property, likely largely mortgage free; you can afford 12.5k tax.
But what for? I can afford to run the place I own quite comfortably. I'll save next to nothing on council tax (e.g if I bought a house worth half my current one, I'd pay £600 p.a. less). Ditto utilities, which currently cost me £85p.m.
Freeing up capital? More manageable property? Less upkeep? Derisking?
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
South Somerset has reasonable prices
In the scruffier parts like Crewkerne and Chard, yes.
Oi. - I have family in Chard
Crewkerne is an oddity. Surrounded by beautiful places, like Illminster and Hinton St. George (and the fabulous Lord Poulett Arms), host to a waitrose, yet seemingly getting worse all the time....
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
Surely members of the BBC (and civil servants) are entitled to have their own political views, and even to express them in articles written for The Times, Breitbart or The Guardian.
The issue is whether these views prevent them from carrying out their job at the BBC.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
South Somerset has reasonable prices
Ooh - that sounds nice along with Devon. Anywhere in particular? I'm hoping to be a good negotiator as all cash buyer.
The villages around Chard, Crewkerne and Ilminster are nice as is Ilminster. Chard and Crewkerne towns are ok but are more like northern small manufacturing towns transplanted to the west than southwest market towns. But beautiful scenery and less than an hour to the coast.
If you do a rightmove search on places for sale for less than 250k within 5 miles of Ilminster you will get an idea.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Do first time buyers pay it?
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Which in the SE/South of England means that anyone wanting to buy a house to live in will have to hand over 5% of the purchase price to HMG. To put that in context: in this area anyone who buys a two-up two down terraced in need of renovation will have to find a minimum of £12,500 up front for the government, on top of the minimum deposit of £25,000. How the hell are young people supposed to accumulate nearly forty grand out of taxed income?
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
In reality people just increase the amount they are borrowing on their mortgage to cover Stamp Duty as well.
Agreed it's a silly tax - much better to charge CGT on profits on all home sales (with perhaps the first £100k tax free) which would help keep a lid on house prices.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Well, here's Hereford on Rightmove. Probably do much better oop North.
What's the weather like? I'm spoilt rotten in Eastbourne - it's sunny and blue sky most of the time, and hardly too cold to put the heating on rather than a jumper. Friends moved to Cornwall and that's a bit wet/cloudy.
It's practically Wales dear Ms Plato. A lot of the bad weather gets dumped onto the Black Mountains, so it's not as bad as Cornwall. I'd say it has slightly cooler summers, milder winters than Eastbourne. Beautiful city though, one of my favourites.
There are even worse property taxes in other countries though. E.g. In some parts of California, property taxes are frozen at 1% of the price you paid for the house, regardless of how long ago. So property tax rates for two identical houses may differ by a couple of orders of magnitude if one has just been sold and the other was last sold 30 years ago.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
snip
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Might you be interested in investing in modern classic cars, returns around 25% pa? I'll PM you more details if you wish, but let's just say that a 5 year old Ferrari is half the price in the Middle East than it is in the UK.
Really? Wow. I invested in 70s classics a long while ago and made quite a bit - bottom dropped out of that market.
I've a 1979 Spitfire that requires £4k of restoration - it'll be worth £2k when done. Had an E-type drophead that earned me £10k before the price exploded. Parts are impossible for amateurs.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
;;;;; There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
South Somerset has reasonable prices
In the scruffier parts like Crewkerne and Chard, yes.
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
Surely members of the BBC (and civil servants) are entitled to have their own political views, and even to express them in articles written for The Times, Breitbart or The Guardian.
The issue is whether these views prevent them from carrying out their job at the BBC.
Yes, to me there's a difference between being impartial (impossible) and being able to deal with things impartially - the triumph of reason over our innate biases. I don't mind Marr at all.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Do first time buyers pay it?
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Which in the SE/South of England means that anyone wanting to buy a house to live in will have to hand over 5% of the purchase price to HMG. To put that in context: in this area anyone who buys a two-up two down terraced in need of renovation will have to find a minimum of £12,500 up front for the government, on top of the minimum deposit of £25,000. How the hell are young people supposed to accumulate nearly forty grand out of taxed income?
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
A couple of years saving for two people - when I was living in London and working in consulting there would be no problem saving 1-1.5k a month out of taxed income.
That said; there might be an argument for varying stamp duty in different regions. Could be an extension of the enterprise zone approach to business taxation. Or exempt first time buyers.
Mr. Mortimer, this may come as surprise to you but most couples even living at home with Mum and Dad just don't earn enough to save £1k a month. The median income is I think currently about £27k. Take out of that taxes and NI plus living costs and the idea that ordinary young people, not consultants in the City, could save £1- !.5k a month is laughable.
I note the comments below about the comparison of the polls and odds at this stage for Clinton/Trump as compared to Remain/Leave at the same stage. With that in mind I have compiled the following for the leads
So at the same stage (T-72): * the bookies give a much greater lead to HRC than they did to REMAIN at the same stage * the pollsters give a greater lead to HRC than they did to REMAIN at the same stage
The possibility of a Trump upset due to a differential surge in previously-nonvoters is not contradicted by these figures.
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
South Somerset has reasonable prices
In the scruffier parts like Crewkerne and Chard, yes.
Oi. - I have family in Chard
Crewkerne is an oddity. Surrounded by beautiful places, like Illminster and Hinton St. George (and the fabulous Lord Poulett Arms), host to a waitrose, yet seemingly getting worse all the time....
A lot of middle class blow-ins I know around here got terribly excited when the Waitrose opened as they thought Crewkerne would be transformed into some super-trendy town as a result. Of course...
"Despite consumers increasingly moving to other payment methods, the value of Bank of England notes in circulation continues to grow, and has trebled over the past two decades .... This growth, which has been concentrated in the two highest denominations — £20 and £50 notes — has outpaced growth in aggregate spending ... "
There has been an astonishing rise (over 400% in 12 years) in notes in circulation in Europe, but a decline in Sweden. Hoarding, the shadow economy, i.e. "non-transactional growth in demand for cash", seem to be important.
There are a couple of reasons:
1. Governments across Europe are cracking down on tax evasion and the black economy. Cash leaves no trail.
2. Historically, failure to put your money in the banking system meant losing interest. Not any more.
3. People are more sceptical of the banks. If, next time around, we decide not to bail out RBS or Northern Rock or Lloyds, those who lent money to deposited money at those institutions stand to lose some or even all of it.
4. The Italy '78, or Cyprus '13 scenario where the government 'shaves' deposits. (Of course, in the old days, governments shaved deposits through inflation, but that's another story.)
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
There are 500 houses for sale listed with RightMove for Wiltshire under £210,000.
or 4 or 5 in the North of England for £210,000 the lot.
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
Surely members of the BBC (and civil servants) are entitled to have their own political views, and even to express them in articles written for The Times, Breitbart or The Guardian.
The issue is whether these views prevent them from carrying out their job at the BBC.
Yes, to me there's a difference between being impartial (impossible) and being able to deal with things impartially - the triumph of reason over our innate biases. I don't mind Marr at all.
Indeed - and often the accusations of "bias" are that they have reported on an inconvenient truths. The fact that the BBC gets criticised by both left and right for "bias" suggests to me that t does a pretty good job of being impartial.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Why do it?
Downsizing implies older and long-term occupancy. During which time (mostly) Boomers have accrued huge asset inflation benefits.
You've just bought a 450k property, likely largely mortgage free; you can afford 12.5k tax.
But what for? I can afford to run the place I own quite comfortably. I'll save next to nothing on council tax (e.g if I bought a house worth half my current one, I'd pay £600 p.a. less). Ditto utilities, which currently cost me £85p.m.
Freeing up capital? More manageable property? Less upkeep? Derisking?
Well, I'm already a HNWI, so I'm not short of capital. It's a relatively modern house, so upkeep is minor. Not sure about derisking - UK property is literally as safe as houses. In my lifetime, bar a blip in the early 90s, it's marched from bottom left to top right.
I'd rather use the money I save from not moving to pay my daughter's deposit when she finally decides to get on the property ladder.
Crewkerne is an oddity. Surrounded by beautiful places, like Illminster and Hinton St. George (and the fabulous Lord Poulett Arms), host to a waitrose, yet seemingly getting worse all the time....
I know what you mean. Its not rough but it has a rundown air to it. The only one of those towns with a rail station with trains to London too, although 2.5 hour journey (although at less than an hour to Exeter Central that is very commutable)
Ilminster is commutable to Taunton, and Bristol if you fancy the M5. Chard has a lot of manufacturing jobs and a good number of eastern europeans and africans living there doing them. Chard is also commutable to exeter and taunton.
Maybe Crewkerne is too isolated. An upgrade of the railway line restoring double track and knocking half an hour off the journey time would change things rapidly. There are already commuters even with the 150 minute journey time.
....who succeeded his father....Henry VIII...as King...
HENRY VII
HAHAHA!
It's so cruelly funny - Marie Antoinette? Versailles? I can totally understand brain freeze - but it's hilarious. He's not someone unused to public TV appearances.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
On reflection, I think you're absolutely right. The government's job is - among other things - to encourage the efficient allocation of capital. Transaction taxes like stamp duty do exactly the opposite: they discourage people from downsizing, or from moving to a part of the country where jobs are more plentiful (thus indirectly encouraging more immigration). They are economically distorting in the worst way.
I understand they were introduced to prevent rampant speculation, but surely there are better ways of achieving that?
"Despite consumers increasingly moving to other payment methods, the value of Bank of England notes in circulation continues to grow, and has trebled over the past two decades .... This growth, which has been concentrated in the two highest denominations — £20 and £50 notes — has outpaced growth in aggregate spending ... "
There has been an astonishing rise (over 400% in 12 years) in notes in circulation in Europe, but a decline in Sweden. Hoarding, the shadow economy, i.e. "non-transactional growth in demand for cash", seem to be important.
There are a couple of reasons:
1. Governments across Europe are cracking down on tax evasion and the black economy. Cash leaves no trail.
2. Historically, failure to put your money in the banking system meant losing interest. Not any more.
3. People are more sceptical of the banks. If, next time around, we decide not to bail out RBS or Northern Rock or Lloyds, those who lent money to deposited money at those institutions stand to lose some or even all of it.
4. The Italy '78, or Cyprus '13 scenario where the government 'shaves' deposits. (Of course, in the old days, governments shaved deposits through inflation, but that's another story.)
Robert. Hope the flight and journey were not too miserable. In case you did not see my post, thanks for the reply on the economies of Japan vs France vs Italy discussion.
Crewkerne is an oddity. Surrounded by beautiful places, like Illminster and Hinton St. George (and the fabulous Lord Poulett Arms), host to a waitrose, yet seemingly getting worse all the time....
I know what you mean. Its not rough but it has a rundown air to it. The only one of those towns with a rail station with trains to London too, although 2.5 hour journey (although at less than an hour to Exeter Central that is very commutable)
Ilminster is commutable to Taunton, and Bristol if you fancy the M5. Chard has a lot of manufacturing jobs and a good number of eastern europeans and africans living there doing them. Chard is also commutable to exeter and taunton.
Maybe Crewkerne is too isolated. An upgrade of the railway line restoring double track and knocking half an hour off the journey time would change things rapidly. There are already commuters even with the 150 minute journey time.
That is true. Actually the station has got a lot busier over recent years and there is often a real problem parking there now. Quite a lot of people work in London for 2-3 days per week and leave their cars there.
But the people using it are not living in the town, for the most part, but in the surrounding smarter villages. Note the station isn't in the centre of town either.
NOTES * Sources are oddschecker for the odds and wikipedia or UKPR for the polls * The ICM polls are for April 10th (T-74) and the TNS odds are for April 11th (T-73) because they did not publish on the 12th. The Ipsos Reuters polls are for August 25th (T-75) and UPI for August 24th (T-76) for similar reason * The poll dates refer to the sample end-dates not the published dates *Unlike GE polls, the referendum polls are presume to be UK-wide instead of just GB-wide
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Do first time buyers pay it?
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Which in the SE/South of England means that anyone wanting to buy a house to live in will have to hand over 5% of the purchase price to HMG. To put that in context: in this area anyone who buys a two-up two down terraced in need of renovation will have to find a minimum of £12,500 up front for the government, on top of the minimum deposit of £25,000. How the hell are young people supposed to accumulate nearly forty grand out of taxed income?
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
A couple of years saving for two people - when I was living in London and working in consulting there would be no problem saving 1-1.5k a month out of taxed income.
That said; there might be an argument for varying stamp duty in different regions. Could be an extension of the enterprise zone approach to business taxation. Or exempt first time buyers.
Mr. Mortimer, this may come as surprise to you but most couples even living at home with Mum and Dad just don't earn enough to save £1k a month. The median income is I think currently about £27k. Take out of that taxes and NI plus living costs and the idea that ordinary young people, not consultants in the City, could save £1- !.5k a month is laughable.
A good point Mr Llama - and my post was particularly un self aware - but I'm convinced more young uns could save more than they do. When I was working in Town I was always flabbergasted by how much my pals spent on 'living expenses' compared to mates at home in Dorset. 8 quid in Pret for lunch, two beers after work and gig tickets 4 times a year, new iphone annually and £65 quid sky subscriptions. All adds up.
Down here those who left school in my cohort and stayed around almost all have mortgages - at about the level of house prices that you quote, and on around the same median incomes.
If anything, I can understand renters in London - but property prices elsewhere are affordable with a couple of years of self sacrifice...
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Do first time buyers pay it?
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Which in the SE/South of England means that anyone wanting to buy a house to live in will have to hand over 5% of the purchase price to HMG. To put that in context: in this area anyone who buys a two-up two down terraced in need of renovation will have to find a minimum of £12,500 up front for the government, on top of the minimum deposit of £25,000. How the hell are young people supposed to accumulate nearly forty grand out of taxed income?
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
A couple of years saving for two people - when I was living in London and working in consulting there would be no problem saving 1-1.5k a month out of taxed income.
That said; there might be an argument for varying stamp duty in different regions. Could be an extension of the enterprise zone approach to business taxation. Or exempt first time buyers.
Mr. Mortimer, this may come as surprise to you but most couples even living at home with Mum and Dad just don't earn enough to save £1k a month. The median income is I think currently about £27k. Take out of that taxes and NI plus living costs and the idea that ordinary young people, not consultants in the City, could save £1- !.5k a month is laughable.
A good point Mr Llama - and my post was particularly un self aware - but I'm convinced more young uns could save more than they do. When I was working in Town I was always flabbergasted by how much my pals spent on 'living expenses' compared to mates at home in Dorset. 8 quid in Pret for lunch, two beers after work and gig tickets 4 times a year, new iphone annually and £65 quid sky subscriptions. All adds up.
Down here those who left school in my cohort and stayed around almost all have mortgages - at about the level of house prices that you quote, and on around the same median incomes.
If anything, I can understand renters in London - but property prices elsewhere are far more affordable with a couple of years of self sacrifice...
Crewkerne is an oddity. Surrounded by beautiful places, like Illminster and Hinton St. George (and the fabulous Lord Poulett Arms), host to a waitrose, yet seemingly getting worse all the time....
I know what you mean. Its not rough but it has a rundown air to it. The only one of those towns with a rail station with trains to London too, although 2.5 hour journey (although at less than an hour to Exeter Central that is very commutable)
Ilminster is commutable to Taunton, and Bristol if you fancy the M5. Chard has a lot of manufacturing jobs and a good number of eastern europeans and africans living there doing them. Chard is also commutable to exeter and taunton.
Maybe Crewkerne is too isolated. An upgrade of the railway line restoring double track and knocking half an hour off the journey time would change things rapidly. There are already commuters even with the 150 minute journey time.
That is true. Actually the station has got a lot busier over recent years and there is often a real problem parking there now. Quite a lot of people work in London for 2-3 days per week and leave their cars there.
But the people using it are not living in the town, for the most part, but in the surrounding smarter villages. Note the station isn't in the centre of town either.
Parking is becoming a pain there to be honest. Didnt realise commuters were leaving cars there overnight. Think they need to restructure the car park fees to make that a lot more expensive than getting a cab and deter them.
£75 for anything longer than 24 hours ought to do it.
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
Surely members of the BBC (and civil servants) are entitled to have their own political views, and even to express them in articles written for The Times, Breitbart or The Guardian.
The issue is whether these views prevent them from carrying out their job at the BBC.
Yes, to me there's a difference between being impartial (impossible) and being able to deal with things impartially - the triumph of reason over our innate biases. I don't mind Marr at all.
Indeed - and often the accusations of "bias" are that they have reported on an inconvenient truths. The fact that the BBC gets criticised by both left and right for "bias" suggests to me that t does a pretty good job of being impartial.
Could you point me to the website detailing BBC bias to the right?
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Why do it?
Downsizing implies older and long-term occupancy. During which time (mostly) Boomers have accrued huge asset inflation benefits.
You've just bought a 450k property, likely largely mortgage free; you can afford 12.5k tax.
But what for? I can afford to run the place I own quite comfortably. I'll save next to nothing on council tax (e.g if I bought a house worth half my current one, I'd pay £600 p.a. less). Ditto utilities, which currently cost me £85p.m.
Freeing up capital? More manageable property? Less upkeep? Derisking?
Well, I'm already a HNWI, so I'm not short of capital. It's a relatively modern house, so upkeep is minor. Not sure about derisking - UK property is literally as safe as houses. In my lifetime, bar a blip in the early 90s, it's marched from bottom left to top right.
I'd rather use the money I save from not moving to pay my daughter's deposit when she finally decides to get on the property ladder.
You sound like a thoroughly good egg Mr. M.
But I wonder if stamp duty really is the only thing keeping you in a larger house? Sounds like you have an ideal position.....
AP BREAKING: Germany's economy minister says free trade talks between the European Union and the United States have failed.
Back of the queue....as somebody once said.
All that 'clout' the EU has to get us great trade deals, eh?
Don't quote me, as this is from memory, but I think the EU has formal trade deals with 2 of its top 10 trading partners.
It's a little misleading to say that the EU doesn't have a formal trade deal with the US. There are a number of EU-US treaties, both bilateral ones, and multilateral which contain specific provisions relating to EU/US trade. The various treaties allow - for example - EU companies to bid on, or own, government or defence contracts, and have preferential, or even zero rated tariffs for certain classes of product.
What there is not is a comprehensive 'free trade agreement' between the US and the EU.
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
Surely members of the BBC (and civil servants) are entitled to have their own political views, and even to express them in articles written for The Times, Breitbart or The Guardian.
The issue is whether these views prevent them from carrying out their job at the BBC.
Yes, to me there's a difference between being impartial (impossible) and being able to deal with things impartially - the triumph of reason over our innate biases. I don't mind Marr at all.
Indeed - and often the accusations of "bias" are that they have reported on an inconvenient truths. The fact that the BBC gets criticised by both left and right for "bias" suggests to me that t does a pretty good job of being impartial.
Could you point me to the website detailing BBC bias to the right?
Pdobably the same sort of websites think most of the PLP are Tory lickspittles
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Might you be interested in investing in modern classic cars, returns around 25% pa? I'll PM you more details if you wish, but let's just say that a 5 year old Ferrari is half the price in the Middle East than it is in the UK.
The whole business of moving is now fraught with bureacracy and cost of which stamp duty is the tip of the iceberg.
Removal fees, solicitors fees, storage costs, payments to the estate agents... Figure about 5-6 grand before stamp duty. There are online calculators for this.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Why do it?
Downsizing implies older and long-term occupancy. During which time (mostly) Boomers have accrued huge asset inflation benefits.
You've just bought a 450k property, likely largely mortgage free; you can afford 12.5k tax.
Freeing up capital? More manageable property? Less upkeep? Derisking?
Well, I'm already a HNWI, so I'm not short of capital. It's a relatively modern house, so upkeep is minor. Not sure about derisking - UK property is literally as safe as houses. In my lifetime, bar a blip in the early 90s, it's marched from bottom left to top right.
I'd rather use the money I save from not moving to pay my daughter's deposit when she finally decides to get on the property ladder.
You sound like a thoroughly good egg Mr. M.
But I wonder if stamp duty really is the only thing keeping you in a larger house? Sounds like you have an ideal position.....
Thank you. It's what we'd call a local optima, rather than a societal one. I do feel guilty at rattling about in here, but as I always say, there's more to life than money. All my happy (and sad!) memories are here. This is where we raised the kids, where I nursed Jenny, where she passed away. Not easy to leave your roots, even if the economics were more compelling than they are.
"Despite consumers increasingly moving to other payment methods, the value of Bank of England notes in circulation continues to grow, and has trebled over the past two decades .... This growth, which has been concentrated in the two highest denominations — £20 and £50 notes — has outpaced growth in aggregate spending ... "
There has been an astonishing rise (over 400% in 12 years) in notes in circulation in Europe, but a decline in Sweden. Hoarding, the shadow economy, i.e. "non-transactional growth in demand for cash", seem to be important.
There are a couple of reasons:
1. Governments across Europe are cracking down on tax evasion and the black economy. Cash leaves no trail.
2. Historically, failure to put your money in the banking system meant losing interest. Not any more.
3. People are more sceptical of the banks. If, next time around, we decide not to bail out RBS or Northern Rock or Lloyds, those who lent money to deposited money at those institutions stand to lose some or even all of it.
4. The Italy '78, or Cyprus '13 scenario where the government 'shaves' deposits. (Of course, in the old days, governments shaved deposits through inflation, but that's another story.)
Robert. Hope the flight and journey were not too miserable. In case you did not see my post, thanks for the reply on the economies of Japan vs France vs Italy discussion.
Just for clarification: I'm not saying the economies of France and Italy are without (serious) problems. Just that their serious problems are different to Japan's!
(I also think we tend to miss the cyclical nature of economies. Even countries will 0.5% trend growth will string together a coupe of years of 2% from time-to-time.)
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
The first question you need to answer, and it has to be honestly, is: where are you *willing* to live?
It's easy to live somewhere cheap - West coast of Wales is ludicrously cheap - but people don't really want to live there unless they're local. For example, if you live in the South-East of England (from previous comments I think perhaps you do, tho' you don't have to confirm this) you will find it emotionally difficult to move away. Once we have established where you can honestly move to without getting distressed, we can establish where you can go.
No Chard is not a dump. Has some not so good parts and some very nice parts. Nice small town high street too. Population 12,000
It is just that it is a more working class/lower middle class place with real people not home counties incomers trying to be all Chipping Norton.
If you want chocolate box,thatched roof, twee isolation with an average age of over 60 and no bus service, then Hinton St George is the place.
Sounds perfect! Maintenance is a bugger I expect.
Hinton St George aint cheap. Its the Somerset equivalent of Woburn - alas without its Earl and twee shops. Due to old Poulet selling up the estate between 1940 and 1970 (before then he owned most of the area) then snuffing it without issue.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Do first time buyers pay it?
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Which in the SE/South of England means that anyone wanting to buy a house to live in will have to hand over 5% of the purchase price to HMG. To put that in context: in this area anyone who buys a two-up two down terraced in need of renovation will have to find a minimum of £12,500 up front for the government, on top of the minimum deposit of £25,000. How the hell are young people supposed to accumulate nearly forty grand out of taxed income?
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
A couple of years saving for two people - when I was living in London and working in consulting there would be no problem saving 1-1.5k a month out of taxed income.
That said; there might be an argument for varying stamp duty in different regions. Could be an extension of the enterprise zone approach to business taxation. Or exempt first time buyers.
Mr. Mortimer, this may come as surprise to you but most couples even living at home with Mum and Dad just don't earn enough to save £1k a month. The median income is I think currently about £27k. Take out of that taxes and NI plus living costs and the idea that ordinary young people, not consultants in the City, could save £1- !.5k a month is laughable.
Just trying to make out he is a big shot, not in real world.
Comments
You've just bought a 450k property, likely largely mortgage free; you can afford 12.5k tax.
That said; there might be an argument for varying stamp duty in different regions. Could be an extension of the enterprise zone approach to business taxation. Or exempt first time buyers.
I'll PM you more details if you wish, but let's just say that a 5 year old Ferrari is half the price in the Middle East than it is in the UK.
....who succeeded his father....Henry VIII...as King...
HENRY VII
HAHAHA!
More manageable property?
Less upkeep?
Derisking?
The issue is whether these views prevent them from carrying out their job at the BBC.
If you do a rightmove search on places for sale for less than 250k within 5 miles of Ilminster you will get an idea.
Agreed it's a silly tax - much better to charge CGT on profits on all home sales (with perhaps the first £100k tax free) which would help keep a lid on house prices.
http://en.climate-data.org/location/103/
I've a 1979 Spitfire that requires £4k of restoration - it'll be worth £2k when done. Had an E-type drophead that earned me £10k before the price exploded. Parts are impossible for amateurs.
Today is 72 days before the POTUS election
So T-72 looks like this:
BookieOrPollster HRCLEAD REMAINLEAD
Ladbrokes 48.8% 34.6%
Betfair 53.3% 34.6%
BetfairExchange 54.8% 30.6%
ICMUK/IpsosUS 6.5% -3.4%
TNSUK/UPI US -1.0% 0.0%
YouGovUK/YouGovUS 3.3% 0.0%
So at the same stage (T-72):
* the bookies give a much greater lead to HRC than they did to REMAIN at the same stage
* the pollsters give a greater lead to HRC than they did to REMAIN at the same stage
The possibility of a Trump upset due to a differential surge in previously-nonvoters is not contradicted by these figures.
I'll give my workings on the next post
1. Governments across Europe are cracking down on tax evasion and the black economy. Cash leaves no trail.
2. Historically, failure to put your money in the banking system meant losing interest. Not any more.
3. People are more sceptical of the banks. If, next time around, we decide not to bail out RBS or Northern Rock or Lloyds, those who lent money to deposited money at those institutions stand to lose some or even all of it.
4. The Italy '78, or Cyprus '13 scenario where the government 'shaves' deposits. (Of course, in the old days, governments shaved deposits through inflation, but that's another story.)
I'd rather use the money I save from not moving to pay my daughter's deposit when she finally decides to get on the property ladder.
Ilminster is commutable to Taunton, and Bristol if you fancy the M5. Chard has a lot of manufacturing jobs and a good number of eastern europeans and africans living there doing them. Chard is also commutable to exeter and taunton.
Maybe Crewkerne is too isolated. An upgrade of the railway line restoring double track and knocking half an hour off the journey time would change things rapidly. There are already commuters even with the 150 minute journey time.
This is painful as a specialist subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xez1sLHb3ic
I understand they were introduced to prevent rampant speculation, but surely there are better ways of achieving that?
But the people using it are not living in the town, for the most part, but in the surrounding smarter villages. Note the station isn't in the centre of town either.
TMINUS72
UNCORRECTED FIGURES
These are the figures before the overround is not removed from the odds and before "others" are removed from the polls
BookieOrPollster HRC DJT REMAIN LEAVE
Ladbrokes 77.5% 26.7% 71.4% 34.7%
Betfair 82.0% 25.0% 71.4% 34.7%
BetfairExchange 77.5% 22.6% 64.9% 34.5%
ICM/Ipsos 41.0% 36.0% 42.0% 45.0%
TNS/UPI 48.0% 49.0% 35.0% 35.0%
YouGov 47.0% 44.0% 39.0% 39.0%
CORRECTED FIGURES
These are the figures after the overround is removed from the odds and after "others" are removed from the polls
BookieOrPollster HRC DJT REMAIN LEAVE
Ladbrokes 74.4% 25.6% 67.3% 32.7%
Betfair 76.6% 23.4% 67.3% 32.7%
BetfairExchange 77.4% 22.6% 65.3% 34.7%
ICM/Ipsos 53.2% 46.8% 48.3% 51.7%
TNS/UPI 49.5% 50.5% 50.0% 50.0%
YouGov 51.6% 48.4% 50.0% 50.0%
LEAD
This is the leads gotten by simply subtracting the corrected figures
BookieOrPollster HRCLEAD REMAINLEAD
Ladbrokes 48.8% 34.6%
Betfair 53.3% 34.6%
BetfairExchange 54.8% 30.6%
ICM/Ipsos 6.5% -3.4%
TNS/UPI -1.0% 0.0%
YouGov 3.3% 0.0%
NOTES
* Sources are oddschecker for the odds and wikipedia or UKPR for the polls
* The ICM polls are for April 10th (T-74) and the TNS odds are for April 11th (T-73) because they did not publish on the 12th. The Ipsos Reuters polls are for August 25th (T-75) and UPI for August 24th (T-76) for similar reason
* The poll dates refer to the sample end-dates not the published dates
*Unlike GE polls, the referendum polls are presume to be UK-wide instead of just GB-wide
It is just that it is a more working class/lower middle class place with real people not home counties incomers trying to be all Chipping Norton.
If you want chocolate box,thatched roof, twee isolation with an average age of over 60 and no bus service, then Hinton St George is the place.
Down here those who left school in my cohort and stayed around almost all have mortgages - at about the level of house prices that you quote, and on around the same median incomes.
If anything, I can understand renters in London - but property prices elsewhere are affordable with a couple of years of self sacrifice...
Down here those who left school in my cohort and stayed around almost all have mortgages - at about the level of house prices that you quote, and on around the same median incomes.
If anything, I can understand renters in London - but property prices elsewhere are far more affordable with a couple of years of self sacrifice...
£75 for anything longer than 24 hours ought to do it.
But I wonder if stamp duty really is the only thing keeping you in a larger house? Sounds like you have an ideal position.....
What there is not is a comprehensive 'free trade agreement' between the US and the EU.
NEW THREAD
(I also think we tend to miss the cyclical nature of economies. Even countries will 0.5% trend growth will string together a coupe of years of 2% from time-to-time.)
It's easy to live somewhere cheap - West coast of Wales is ludicrously cheap - but people don't really want to live there unless they're local. For example, if you live in the South-East of England (from previous comments I think perhaps you do, tho' you don't have to confirm this) you will find it emotionally difficult to move away. Once we have established where you can honestly move to without getting distressed, we can establish where you can go.