[BBC News] Housing 'milestone' voted through

[homarus]

What i can never get my head around is the fact that the government owns vast amounts of land already zoned for development,yet periodicly sell it off to the developers , knowing full well that the prices that these people will charge for their"hen huts" will be extortionate???.

The government already employs every professionan needed, to plan first time buyer housing for the community

So why not oversee the whole project themselves (they are already doing so to some extent) employ local labour and set the prices????

As the price of the land is the most common reason quoted ,when people talk about house prices, if the government already own the land surley they could set the prices at a more reasonable level if they were to undertake the project themselves???.

[Albert Tatlock]

Read my posts - I said no such thing.

 

You said "You don't pay interest or tax on property you've bought outright" in your argument to say to how someone coming over to retire would pay less tax. You do pay tax on a property you've bought outright, you pay a stamp duty. You don't pay tax on interest you're borrowing. So how do you explain your assertion that someone buying a house without a mortgage pays less tax. Explain it to me.

 

...and how much is spent on pensioners in health/care costs compared to your average family?

 

If we're talking specifically about wealthy people retiring here, their healthcare will be well and truly paid for, either by their existing contributions which transfer in, or by private healthcare.

Stamp duty is a one off tax paid by everyone buying a house, income tax (from income including savings) is annual, and the income tax rate here is far less than the UK (with no inheritance tax) - so little wonder we attract retiring pensioners. You will actually find that younger people move house far more often than retired pensioners (younger workers move from 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom - then retire in a bungalow or smaller house if they need to move to do so) and hence younger workers tend to pay a great deal more stamp duty over the same twenty years a pensioner might spend here retired.

 

It's not rocket science to realise that if you borrow money you pay it back with interest, though you can claim some tax back based on some (not all) of the interest you have already paid out - but overall you will be paying out. If house prices are rising at 11% a year you are better putting the money into property (which isn't taxed annually) than borrowing the money at say, 10%, and sticking your savings into a bank at 6%.

 

More telling is your comparison of disposable income young families v retirees. This is the crux of the housing debate, in that young people now have to pay 40-50% of their outgoings compared to 20% of outgoings years ago (when many of these retirees bought their houses) in order to simply house themselves. This is disposable income being taken out of our control and placed in the control of banks. In short this implies that working people are fast becoming as bad off as the average pensioner in terms of disposable income. It amounts to nothing more than stealth taxation, especially when inheritance tax in the UK is taken into account.

 

We are not talking about just wealthy people retiring here. There are many who are not that wealthy (if they were that wealthy would they really be that bothered about arguing for the Manx supplement). Many have sold up and exist mortgage free with relatively small pensions.

 

This debate was about housing numbers. My point was that many of these pensioners (and other factors) are skewing the figures, and that they have increased by 100% in number in 5 short years. What's going to happen in 10 (2016), 15 or 20 years?

 

You really need to look at all of the factors involved here. To imply that if the island consisted of a disproportionately high number of pensioners it would survive economically is naive at best and at worst dangerous. The real answer is a residency act, which balances house prices, the economy, the workers we will need and our ability to attract them - and our young people's right to have a home - whilst not having to pay through taxation for the health care costs of someone that has added little value in the past to this economy. Again, this debate is about the supply and demand of houses, which allows people who are from the island to return, allows us to house and build a young workforce and makes life tolerable for those paying a mortgage. If we don't get the balance right, there will be few willing or able to live here just to pay the bills for the elderly.

 

Taking this and some of the other factors I have mentioned, divorce rates, reduced number of marriages etc. into account means that we will need many more houses than are currently planned, and an economy that can support realistic house prices - without simply offering inheritance tax breaks for pensioners fed up of the UK.

[hope]

Homarus- Then that would necessarily force the council to be involved in the resale should the initial purchaser decide to move on; but on the other hand the council at point of resale could then be reimbursed for the initial discount and put the profits into the next housing scheme

[ai_Droid]

Stamp duty is a one off tax paid by everyone buying a house, income tax (from income including savings) is annual, and the income tax rate here is far less than the UK (with no inheritance tax) - so little wonder we attract retiring pensioners. You will actually find that younger people move house far more often than retired pensioners (younger workers move from 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom - then retire in a bungalow or smaller house if they need to move to do so) and hence younger workers tend to pay a great deal more stamp duty over the same twenty years a pensioner might spend here retired.

 

You're changing your tack here Albert, a few posts ago young people couldn't afford houses, only older people. Now young people are buying houses all over the shop.

 

I'll say it again, what we're talking about here is wealthy retired people. These people don't buy cheap houses, they buy very expensive properties. Talk to any estate agent and get his take on people moving over here to retire and buying a house. Ask him what properties they're looking at. Stamp duties are a percentage of value remember.

 

It's not rocket science to realise that if you borrow money you pay it back with interest, though you can claim some tax back based on some (not all) of the interest you have already paid out - but overall you will be paying out. If house prices are rising at 11% a year you are better putting the money into property (which isn't taxed annually) than borrowing the money at say, 10%, and sticking your savings into a bank at 6%.

 

We're not talking about being personally better off Albert, you were talking about tax revenues. I'm not sure how to get this into your skull, but someone paying interest doesn't equate to more tax revenues for the goverment, it means less. It's quite simple, I'm not sure why you're finding it so hard to grasp.

 

More telling is your comparison of disposable income young families v retirees. This is the crux of the housing debate, in that young people now have to pay 40-50% of their outgoings compared to 20% of outgoings years ago (when many of these retirees bought their houses) in order to simply house themselves. This is disposable income being taken out of our control and placed in the control of banks. In short this implies that working people are fast becoming as bad off as the average pensioner in terms of disposable income. It amounts to nothing more than stealth taxation, especially when inheritance tax in the UK is taken into account.

 

Right, you've changed your mind here again then and now working people suddenly don't have a disposable income?

 

How is paying more for housing a stealth tax? Where's the tax in mortgage payments?

 

Taking this and some of the other factors I have mentioned, divorce rates, reduced number of marriages etc. into account means that we will need many more houses than are currently planned, and an economy that can support realistic house prices - without simply offering inheritance tax breaks for pensioners fed up of the UK.

 

Don't disagree with your 'we need more houses' argument at all.

[Albert Tatlock]

...I'm not sure how to get this into your skull...

Oy vey! Can someone please send on the reserve debator or someone that can read.

 

Good grief man, take a break and read the posts properly.

[ai_Droid]

Good grief man, take a break and read the posts properly.

 

I've read it plenty, and your claim that someone pays more tax if they have a mortgage is simply incorrect. That's what you said, and it's wrong.

[BigDave]

You do pay tax on a property you've bought outright, you pay a stamp duty

Since when did we start paying stamp duty on the Isle of Man?

[ai_Droid]

Since when did we start paying stamp duty on the Isle of Man?

 

The recordal fee.

[BigDave]

There is no stamp duty equivalent on the Isle of Man. The fees paid to the registry are miniscule.

[ai_Droid]

There is no stamp duty equivalent on the Isle of Man. The fees paid to the registry are miniscule.

 

It's the same thing, it's a tax from property sales. It's less than the uk yes, but it's hardly miniscule. For a £200 grand house the registry recordal fee is about half the UK stamp duty.

 

(Edit: also, funny how you rarely see this saving, and the mortgage interest saving when people are complaining about manx property prices)

[mojomonkey]

The private sector have valid planning approval but have market control by choosing not to build them.

Actually in most cases they have other projects running and don't want to overcommit their resources, or buy the land to ensure the long term profitability of their business. They also understand that there's only so many houses you can sell in a certain time - if they build them and can't sell them it costs them money. It's got nothing to do with market control.

 

That is market control is in action.

[ai_Droid]

That is market control is in action.

 

Bollocks. If you're talking about HH alone, have you seen what they're developing currently? Shitloads of houses behind the crosby, apartments in Ramsey, the old Cresent site on the prom, all the shit they're doing in peel. Plus there going for planning on a number of new sites as far as I know, like the old sawmill etc.

 

How's that market control? These things cost, they're taking a gamble on property prices like anyone else. How they going to win with you exactly?

[mojomonkey]

All the major developers have valid planning approvals in place and are choosing not to implement them, which is market control. Yes, they are building but not building everything they have approval for. As a business decision its a perfectly understandable one.

[copycat]

what about the idea of tteh land speculation tax on an increasing scale that means the longer you hold onto land with planning permission the more tax you have to pay whether or not you have built on it - that way the developers are 'encouraged' to build sooner rather than later.

[mojomonkey]

No matter what people think of them developers are necessary for the economy. Any form of speculation tax would be bad for developers and therefore ultimately bad for the economy.