Housing ' Time Bomb' Clicking

[thebees]

Sebrof - claims..

so Treasury get nothing.

 

They do as a matter of fact. Every company has to pay £250 each year.

[pongo]

Every company has to pay £250 each year.

 

The £250 corporate charge seems to have been scrapped now - but the annual Registry filing fee has increased from £70 to £320 (ie increased by £250).

 

Am I right about that ?

[ai_Droid]

Yep.

[thebees]

Humph, they changed the AR form too. We still had to pay £250 this year, when did that get scrapped?

[Celt]

I'm not sure how you think the finance sector differs from construction companies in this regard?

 

In the Finance sector, the people who are employed are directly under the wing off the said Company. They get all the benifits by working for that said Company.

 

In the Building Trade, and we'll us Heritage Homes again as an example, but it coulnd be Parkies, Ensingn, whatever.

 

If you Sub Contract to the Main Contractor, you, as a employer, have to have in place you own Public Liability and other Insurance in place. The Main Contractor has this but it also needs to be in place with the Subbies. You also need to have Health and Safety Courses before you even are allowed on Site. You're also held accountable for the payment of all Taxes, NI and such for each and everyone off the people you employ.

 

So instead off the Main Contractor having mega bucks tied up in transit, that task and investment is passed on to the Sub Contractors.

 

The only comparison to the Finance or Office sector to that is, is a Temp.

 

Hope that explain it a bit more.

 

Making a profit is not greed, and the estate agent and developer may well set the price, but they don't set the value. The market sets the value.

 

Do your homework

 

Whilst i agree that making a profit is not greed, what i don't like is how it seems the Estate Agents and the Developers just look at what the market can afford and then set a price. They totally disrergard, imo, the pure bricks and morter price with profit and then inflate the market. That's why i think they're greedy.

 

Ps, i did my Homework and got an A+ in knitting

 

So I was wrong on that. Apologies.

 

No need to. I think we were coming at it from differnet ways.

 

 

The sad thing about this is that some 8/10 yrs ago, myself and some other of the smaller conractors, approuched some MHK's and gave them so many ideas to get people on the property ladder, yet none have been brought forward.

 

One off the best was a proposal to the Government to allow people to rent the Government owned land their house was built on, therefore allowing them to build a house at much lower cost.

 

The Government said that the Mortage lenders would not allow that, we said, change the Law. Result, Nothing.

 

There are many steps forward in this but the people in Government have to listen to The People intread off the budget.

 

Imo, they;ve wasted so much money in the last few years you could have built an estate for free.

 

 

My goal in life?

 

To win the Lottery and build houses at cost or minimal profit. Why? Just to show how much it really costs to build but most of all, give the people at the lower end of the scale a chance.

[Sebrof]

Sebrof - claims..

so Treasury get nothing.

 

They do as a matter of fact. Every company has to pay £250 each year.

 

They don't, as a matter of fact. We were discussing VAT on new-build residential property. The £250.00 annual charge is not VAT.

 

There are of course lots of other taxes that companies pay, such as rates, employers' NI, etc.. But these aren't VAT either.

[bluemonday]

One off the best was a proposal to the Government to allow people to rent the Government owned land their house was built on, therefore allowing them to build a house at much lower cost.

The Government said that the Mortage lenders would not allow that, we said, change the Law. Result, Nothing.

 

What a good idea. Perhaps it's time to raise this suggestion again?

[pongo]

government revenue relies for a large part on the spending of disposable income, therefore cheaper housing would result in more money going to government and less money to banks, mortgage lenders and developers

 

My impression is that most people tend towards buying the most expensive (or almost the most expensive) property which they can afford. Cheaper property might very well result in them buying posher houses - and still having the same amount of money available to spend on living.

 

You know how it is; you look at the properties you can afford - but the one you like more is just that fraction more.

[Sebrof]

government revenue relies for a large part on the spending of disposable income, therefore cheaper housing would result in more money going to government and less money to banks, mortgage lenders and developers

 

My impression is that most people tend towards buying the most expensive (or almost the most expensive) property which they can afford. Cheaper property might very well result in them buying posher houses - and still having the same amount of money available to spend on living.

 

You know how it is; you look at the properties you can afford - but the one you like more is just that fraction more.

 

You are right, and this is a big problem at the top of the property price cycle - people borrow too much, then either get into negative equity, or can't afford their mortgage payments, or both.

 

However, the bigger problem in Britain and the IOM is that even the cheapest properties are beyond the reach of many young people. The solution is not to subsidise the prices of property - which would merely make matters worse - but to encourage developers to put up genuinely cheap housing. And that means blocks of flats. Most households are comprised of one or two people, and one-bedroom flats would be quite adequate as a first-time buy.

 

But a better long-term solution would be to prevent banks and buildiong societies from lending stupid amounts of money. If Nothern Rock had not been lending 100% of value, plus a free unsecured overdraft on top, they wouldn't be in the position they are now. Furthermore, prices would not have reached inflated levels if banks had lent sensibly.

 

Unfortunately, the banks are no longer run by prudent old buffers with a reputation to maintain. These days they are "managed" by thrusting young barrow-boys whose only interest is to maximise their bonuses no matter what the cost to customers or shareholders.

[Slim]

In the Finance sector, the people who are employed are directly under the wing off the said Company. They get all the benifits by working for that said Company.

In the Building Trade, and we'll us Heritage Homes again as an example, but it coulnd be Parkies, Ensingn, whatever.

If you Sub Contract to the Main Contractor, you, as a employer, have to have in place you own Public Liability and other Insurance in place. The Main Contractor has this but it also needs to be in place with the Subbies. You also need to have Health and Safety Courses before you even are allowed on Site. You're also held accountable for the payment of all Taxes, NI and such for each and everyone off the people you employ.

So instead off the Main Contractor having mega bucks tied up in transit, that task and investment is passed on to the Sub Contractors.

The only comparison to the Finance or Office sector to that is, is a Temp.

Hope that explain it a bit more.

 

That's all very interesting, but I don't see what any of it has to do with company tax.

 

Whilst i agree that making a profit is not greed, what i don't like is how it seems the Estate Agents and the Developers just look at what the market can afford and then set a price. They totally disrergard, imo, the pure bricks and morter price with profit and then inflate the market. That's why i think they're greedy.

 

But any market does the same. You charge the maximum you can, and if the price is right, people will buy it, if it's too low, they wont. The person selling can set the price, only the buyer can set the value.

[Sebrof]

But any market does the same. You charge the maximum you can, and if the price is right, people will buy it, if it's too low, they wont. The person selling can set the price, only the buyer can set the value.

 

Try me. I'm very willing to buy a property that has been priced too low.

 

But you are quite right about who ultimately sets prices. It's always the buyer.

[Celt]

That's all very interesting, but I don't see what any of it has to do with company tax.

 

 

Errr read the topic, we're not talking about Corperate Tax but how to get Affordable Housing ?

 

But any market does the same. You charge the maximum you can, and if the price is right, people will buy it, if it's too low, they wont. The person selling can set the price, only the buyer can set the value.

 

I think you've got it arse about face and also, as most people go to an Estate Agent, therefore the seller doesn't set the price but the Estaste Agent?

 

They will set the price for what the market can hold, not forgetting their cut to inflate prices. Remember, the more they sell for, the more they get.

[Slim]

Errr read the topic, we're not talking about Corperate Tax but how to get Affordable Housing ?

 

Read back yourself, you'll see what the response was to.

 

I think you've got it arse about face and also, as most people go to an Estate Agent, therefore the seller doesn't set the price but the Estaste Agent?

They will set the price for what the market can hold, not forgetting their cut to inflate prices. Remember, the more they sell for, the more they get.

 

Exactly, the agent should be incentivised to get the best price for the vendor. But they can't simply invent a higher market price, that's not how a free market works. They'll get the most they can, but no more, if they price too high, it wont sell.

[Celt]

Exactly, the agent should be incentivised to get the best price for the vendor

 

What, you really believe that?

 

For a start the Agent tells the seller what it's worth, not the other way around. The only other way is for the seller not to accept the price the agent sets, true?

 

incentivised

 

I think you made that word up to make your statement look Posh and informed. You failed on both counts

 

But yet you stated the obvious,

 

You charge the maximum you can,

 

That in it's self is not pushing forward any program towards cheaper housing or more first time buyers.

 

So in that statement alone ,you have explained your thoughts and opinions and also, it seems, the Governments as well.

.

Cheers m8, you're awesome

[Slim]

What, you really believe that?

For a start the Agent tells the seller what it's worth, not the other way around. The only other way is for the seller not to accept the price the agent sets, true?

 

What actually happens is that the agents do inflate the asking price, but this is often because multiple agents are pitching for the same business and the agent who says the highest asking price usually gets the listing.

 

In reality, the agents quite like houses priced low, because they sell and dont sit on the books. The house doesn't sell, the agent doesn't get paid, and every day a house goes unsold, it costs the agents more of their fee.

 

 

That in it's self is not pushing forward any program towards cheaper housing or more first time buyers.

So in that statement alone ,you have explained your thoughts and opinions and also, it seems, the Governments as well.

Cheers m8, you're awesome

 

I didn't explain my thoughts, I explained how the market works. How all markets work. You can set the price at whatever the hell you like, it's only worth that much when someone comes up with the cash. So, who's to blame for high prices? Agents? No. Vendors? No. People buying houses, yes. They set the price. If they didn't take large mortgages and overstretch, the housing market wouldn't inflate. There's also supply issues, many people wanting the same house, so the price goes up. Again, has nothing to do with the person selling the house or the agent.

 

If I put my 250 grand house on the market for 100 grand in some sort of humanitarian excersise to first time buyers, how many people do you think would want to buy it? Thousands. How do I select a buyer?

 

Now, currently the market is slowing, the systems working. Less people can borrow, fewer buyers around, less consumer confidence around, so the price inflation is slowing or even going down. Is that because of Estate Agents? No, that's just as it should be in an open market.