How Far Will House Prices Fall? [Volume 6]

[princeperch]

I think itnwas originally up for 1.4m and he reduced it by 50. I wouldn't be feeling all that sore if i were him in the circs.

[skwdenyer]

princeperch said:

I think itnwas originally up for 1.4m and he reduced it by 50. I wouldn't be feeling all that sore if i were him in the circs.

It was dropped 7% IIRC

[Sheepshanks]

skwdenyer said:

It was dropped 7% IIRC

I think you might have looked that up.

21/02/2024 - Price changed from £1,399,950 to £1,350,000
26/01/2024 - Price changed from £1,400,000 to £1,399,950
26/01/2024 - Price changed from £1,450,000 to £1,400,000
17/10/2023 - Initial asking price: £1,450,000
Overall change: -6.9% (-£100,000)

[Baroque attacks]

princeperch said:

I think itnwas originally up for 1.4m and he reduced it by 50. I wouldn't be feeling all that sore if i were him in the circs.

All well and good if they’re dead or moving into a tent

[Shnozz]

Baroque attacks said:

All well and good if they’re dead or moving into a tent

And well and good if they’re doing what almost every London person does, and cashes in to move somewhere pleasant in retirement that just isn’t London.

[okgo]

Quite.

It’s our plan - so much so I probably won’t even bother paying down any capital on the house I’m about to buy.

[skwdenyer]

Shnozz said:

Baroque attacks said:

All well and good if they’re dead or moving into a tent

And well and good if they’re doing what almost every London person does, and cashes in to move somewhere pleasant in retirement that just isn’t London.

And that’s one of the reasons we need CGT on principal residences.

[ooid]

skwdenyer said:

And that’s one of the reasons we need CGT on principal residences.

That would do nothing but depress the market.

[OutInTheShed]

ooid said:

skwdenyer said:

And that’s one of the reasons we need CGT on principal residences.

That would do nothing but depress the market.

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

[okgo]

OutInTheShed said:

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

They already do.

SDLT needs to be addressed for downsizers. It’s a nightmare. It could be age limited to stop people just leaving London for a cheaper house gaming it. Tie it to private pension age or something.

Edited by okgo on Sunday 16th June 16:44

[Olivera]

OutInTheShed said:

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

Revaluation of council tax at say 1% of property value per annum out to encourage some to downsize.

[loafer123]

Olivera said:

OutInTheShed said:

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

Revaluation of council tax at say 1% of property value per annum out to encourage some to downsize.

I doubt the king of Kentish Town will be doing that, not least because it is fking stupid.

[Earthdweller]

skwdenyer said:

Shnozz said:

Baroque attacks said:

All well and good if they’re dead or moving into a tent

And well and good if they’re doing what almost every London person does, and cashes in to move somewhere pleasant in retirement that just isn’t London.

And that’s one of the reasons we need CGT on principal residences.

Adjusted for inflation my house in Lancashire hasn’t really gone up in value at all in the last 20 years, in fact from 2009 to about 2017 it was worth less

Would the CGT take that into account?

Or would they say it’s worth £60k more (in today's money) now than it was when you bought it so I’d end up losing money on it .. so why would I ever sell it and how would I afford its replacement?

[ooid]

OutInTheShed said:

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

Loads of reasons. It is simply a dynamic, a person who simply buys with large equity (or debt) somewhere probably will appreciate in capital, takes a risk. That risk might actually wipe down their investment too in the near or long term future, if values (simply because of supply/ demand dynamics) drops. The risk you take should come with a reward. The moment you tax that risk, disrupting the natural market dynamics.

Not even mentioning the possible bad effects on the multipliers on transactions such as solicitors, surveyors, builders and etc..

It is really getting quite unpleasant to make many home-owners in whatever the area that highly appreciated in the last 20 years, turning into some sort of monster. They just bought a house, paid £££ mortgage, live in it, fixed it, invested in the area and etc... if it has appreciated a lot, they will sell move on gift whatever they want to do, should we leave people alone ?

[Type R Tom]

ooid said:

OutInTheShed said:

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

Loads of reasons. It is simply a dynamic, a person who simply buys with large equity (or debt) somewhere probably will appreciate in capital, takes a risk. That risk might actually wipe down their investment too in the near or long term future, if values (simply because of supply/ demand dynamics) drops. The risk you take should come with a reward. The moment you tax that risk, disrupting the natural market dynamics.

Not even mentioning the possible bad effects on the multipliers on transactions such as solicitors, surveyors, builders and etc..

It is really getting quite unpleasant to make many home-owners in whatever the area that highly appreciated in the last 20 years, turning into some sort of monster. They just bought a house, paid £££ mortgage, live in it, fixed it, invested in the area and etc... if it has appreciated a lot, they will sell move on gift whatever they want to do, should we leave people alone ?

I'm all for leaving people alone, but don't object to new houses being built. In my area has 30-55% of properties have 2 or more spare rooms, and most houses are owned outright. Yet it's people of a certain age who are the most adamant that new properties should not be built.

You can't have it both ways.

[ooid]

Type R Tom said:

I'm all for leaving people alone, but don't object to new houses being built. In my area has 30-55% of properties have 2 or more spare rooms, and most houses are owned outright. Yet it's people of a certain age who are the most adamant that new properties should not be built.

You can't have it both ways.

That's a again a different dynamic (new developments). Of course developers should not be stopped investing and building new homes, wherever they can without again disrupting the existing local life or communities. The issue is some of new developments did not arrive with new local infrastructure investments (roads, schools, hospitals) so locals can be naturally upset or sceptical about them, but if there is improvement coming to the area and still against, than a neck*slap is in order!

[Randy Winkman]

OutInTheShed said:

ooid said:

skwdenyer said:

And that’s one of the reasons we need CGT on principal residences.

That would do nothing but depress the market.

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

I've lived in SE London for my whole 59 years and the old folk near me in my current home when I moved in are still here. That's 17 years later. And the posh street where my Mum lives is much the same as far as I can see. Point is, I think it's a narrow view to think that most people move away to "somewhere pleasant". Many think they already live somewhere pleasant.

[skwdenyer]

loafer123 said:

Olivera said:

OutInTheShed said:

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

Revaluation of council tax at say 1% of property value per annum out to encourage some to downsize.

I doubt the king of Kentish Town will be doing that, not least because it is fking stupid.

It would be a standard approach in, say, the US: a property tax on the annual assessed value of the property.

[loafer123]

skwdenyer said:

loafer123 said:

Olivera said:

OutInTheShed said:

I think many older people would stay put instead of downsizing?

Revaluation of council tax at say 1% of property value per annum out to encourage some to downsize.

I doubt the king of Kentish Town will be doing that, not least because it is fking stupid.

It would be a standard approach in, say, the US: a property tax on the annual assessed value of the property.

Not quite as simple as that… fair market value x a ratio based on nature of property x tax rate.

They also pay less personal taxes instead.

Paying 1% of property value as an additional tax raising measure would be painful for those with high property values and low income, and it would be unwise for any politician to do that in the U.K., let alone grannies in Kentish Town.

[skwdenyer]

loafer123 said:

Not quite as simple as that… fair market value x a ratio based on nature of property x tax rate.

They also pay less personal taxes instead.

Paying 1% of property value as an additional tax raising measure would be painful for those with high property values and low income, and it would be unwise for any politician to do that in the U.K., let alone grannies in Kentish Town.

Unwise for anyone without either (a) a very large majority and/or (b) less reliance on the retired vote. CGT on principal residences, scrap SDLT (pay tax on actual gains, not transaction price / potential gains), annual assessed property tax and, yes, rebalance income taxes to match.