Brexit and Edinburgh property

[adhibs]

I know its all speculative, but does anyone involved in the property business have any inclinations of whether the various outcomes will affect prices? I bought my previous place just before prices bombed last time, so wouldn't like to be caught out again.

[Colr]

I know its all speculative, but does anyone involved in the property business have any inclinations of whether the various outcomes will affect prices? I bought my previous place just before prices bombed last time, so wouldn't like to be caught out again.

Housing or commercial?

[adhibs]

Housing or commercial?

housing

[lapsedhibee]

Houses will plunge in value the day after Brexit as millions emigrate to avoid the £65 settlement fee, but gardens'll rocket in price as people will need somewhere to grow their own food.

[adhibs]

Houses will plunge in value the day after Brexit as millions emigrate to avoid the £65 settlement fee, but gardens'll rocket in price as people will need somewhere to grow their own food.

Could be a lean few months untill they crops are ready for harvest.

[Just Alf]

housingI work for a national property management company (not directly involved with the stuff you're asking tho)... The updates we get are that prices are going to slump initially then slowly climb as things settle (maybe that should be, if)... They won't recover by much though, more like flatten out so you'll roughly be near where it started. If Brexit is canned then look out for market quickly "normalising" and then continuing to drive forward and improve, rental market is expected to grow if Brexit goes ahead.

Interestingly the analysis seems to show that Scotland going independent would be smilar, the biggie there though is that if iScotland is in the EU the jump up is quite sharp.

All. Ifs and buts though....

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[adhibs]

I work for a national property management company (not directly involved with the stuff you're asking tho)... The updates we get are that prices are going to slump initially then slowly climb as things settle (maybe that should be, if)... They won't recover by much though, more like flatten out so you'll roughly be near where it started. If Brexit is canned then look out for market quickly "normalising" and then continuing to drive forward and improve, rental market is expected to grow if Brexit goes ahead.

Interestingly the analysis seems to show that Scotland going independent would be smilar, the biggie there though is that if iScotland is in the EU the jump up is quite sharp.

All. Ifs and buts though....

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Thanks. I sold at and moved out at the end of last year, and have been going by the assumption/hope that prices will flatline in the meantime.

When I was choosing a solicitors to sell through one mentioned they expected prices to crash, yet from someone else I was told that Edinburgh is that strong they didn't expect it to be impacted at all. Months down the line and it doesn't appear that anything is much clearer.

[Ozyhibby]

I work for a national property management company (not directly involved with the stuff you're asking tho)... The updates we get are that prices are going to slump initially then slowly climb as things settle (maybe that should be, if)... They won't recover by much though, more like flatten out so you'll roughly be near where it started. If Brexit is canned then look out for market quickly "normalising" and then continuing to drive forward and improve, rental market is expected to grow if Brexit goes ahead.

Interestingly the analysis seems to show that Scotland going independent would be smilar, the biggie there though is that if iScotland is in the EU the jump up is quite sharp.

All. Ifs and buts though....

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

An iScotland in the EU would get a massive boost as an English speaking part of the EU for foreign companies to set up in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHODAN]

Property prices in the UK will continue to inflate, just not at the rate they have been before. Everyone who bought 20+ years ago will be just fine and the rest of us who happened to be born at the wrong time will find it even more difficult to break out of being permanent tenants. :aok:

[RyeSloan]

An iScotland in the EU would get a massive boost as an English speaking part of the EU for foreign companies to set up in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To what end would these foreign companies be setting up in Scotland?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Property prices in the UK will continue to inflate, just not at the rate they have been before. Everyone who bought 20+ years ago will be just fine and the rest of us who happened to be born at the wrong time will find it even more difficult to break out of being permanent tenants. :aok:

You have my genuine sympathies on that one, it's incredibly hard f9r the 20 somethings to get on the property ladder. Don't blame the last generation though. Your Ire should be directed at the baby boomers.

I'm hoping that the next generation break the fascination that we have on buying our homes.

[Ozyhibby]

You have my genuine sympathies on that one, it's incredibly hard f9r the 20 somethings to get on the property ladder. Don't blame the last generation though. Your Ire should be directed at the baby boomers.

I'm hoping that the next generation break the fascination that we have on buying our homes.

There is nothing wrong with buying your own house. It should be encouraged.
The reason prices are rising so fast is that we are not building them fast enough to keep up with demand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

House prices are particularly sensitive to the supply and demand principle. The more people that have access to a market of limited supply, the higher the demand and therefore the higher the price that can be asked.

[Pete]

There is nothing wrong with buying your own house. It should be encouraged.
The reason prices are rising so fast is that we are not building them fast enough to keep up with demand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s nothing wrong with buying your own home but buying homes as an investment shouldn’t be encouraged.

It might be a little easier to keep up with demand if the demand was curtailed.

The way a basic human need, shelter, has been commodified over the generations has been nothing short of disgusting and the ticking timebomb will go off sooner rather than later.

[Smartie]

There is nothing wrong with buying your own house. It should be encouraged.
The reason prices are rising so fast is that we are not building them fast enough to keep up with demand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reason we are not building them fast enough is the fascination with prices.

There is a generation out there who couldn't care less about the health and happiness of most of the human race, just as long as their house is appreciating in value.

It could be solved at a stroke if there was any desire to do so, but this is the generation that tends to vote so there is very little appetite to build adequate housing in anything like adequate numbers.

Home ownership per se is not a problem, but the state of play in the UK right now, and in hot spots like London and Edinburgh in particular is shameful.

[oldbutdim]

There’s nothing wrong with buying your own home but buying homes as an investment shouldn’t be encouraged.

It might be a little easier to keep up with demand if the demand was curtailed.

The way a basic human need, shelter, has been commodified over the generations has been nothing short of disgusting and the ticking timebomb will go off sooner rather than later.


Correct.

Housing is a basic need, not an investment.
The suggestion that home ownership is a natural desire is misplaced.

It's greed when used as an investment. Basically profiting at someone else's expense.

[Ozyhibby]

The reason we are not building them fast enough is the fascination with prices.

There is a generation out there who couldn't care less about the health and happiness of most of the human race, just as long as their house is appreciating in value.

It could be solved at a stroke if there was any desire to do so, but this is the generation that tends to vote so there is very little appetite to build adequate housing in anything like adequate numbers.

Home ownership per se is not a problem, but the state of play in the UK right now, and in hot spots like London and Edinburgh in particular is shameful.

The planning system is the problem. A quarter acre plot of farmland (big enough for a good size family home with gardens) is about £15k. If you get planning permission for that same plot so that you can actually build the house the value of that land goes up to about £150k. That is the reason we don’t build enough. The planning system deliberately constricts supply. And it adds about £135k to a family home. If you want cheaper houses reform the planning system and build more. We have plenty of space.
Complaining about people buying their own homes is misplaced. The reason people treat it like an investment is because the demand for houses is rising. It’s time to increase supply and let prices stagnate for a while, then people will start to think of them as homes again.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

The planning system is the problem. A quarter acre plot of farmland (big enough for a good size family home with gardens) is about £15k. If you get planning permission for that same plot so that you can actually build the house the value of that land goes up to about £150k. That is the reason we don’t build enough. The planning system deliberately constricts supply. And it adds about £135k to a family home. If you want cheaper houses reform the planning system and build more. We have plenty of space.
Complaining about people buying their own homes is misplaced. The reason people treat it like an investment is because the demand for houses is rising. It’s time to increase supply and let prices stagnate for a while, then people will start to think of them as homes again.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think that supply of housing is the only problem and that free market principles will solve everything then you are the one who is living in an alternate universe mate.

Time for the tail to stop wagging the dog. There's a full on crisis right now where young people are losing hope and their lives will be built on foundations of sand. Radical action is needed now.

[Hibrandenburg]

Correct.

Housing is a basic need, not an investment.
The suggestion that home ownership is a natural desire is misplaced.

It's greed when used as an investment. Basically profiting at someone else's expense.

I wonder if it was the same with caves back in the day?

[Ozyhibby]

If you think that supply of housing is the only problem and that free market principles will solve everything then you are the one who is living in an alternate universe mate.

Time for the tail to stop wagging the dog. There's a full on crisis right now where young people are losing hope and their lives will be built on foundations of sand. Radical action is needed now.

That’s why property remains a good investment. People somehow manage to convince themselves that the laws of supply and demand do not apply.
Why are houses more expensive in Edinburgh than Newcastle? Because the the population of Edinburgh is rising faster than we can build new houses. In Newcastle they have a large supply of empty homes and a population that is not rising very fast at all. That along with the fact that people in Edinburgh earn more mean that there is more money chasing each house. In that scenario prices will rise.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[easty]

That’s why property remains a good investment. People somehow manage to convince themselves that the laws of supply and demand do not apply.
Why are houses more expensive in Edinburgh than Newcastle? Because the the population of Edinburgh is rising faster than we can build new houses. In Newcastle they have a large supply of empty homes and a population that is not rising very fast at all. That along with the fact that people in Edinburgh earn more mean that there is more money chasing each house. In that scenario prices will rise.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plus, the very obvious answer, that it’s more desirable to live in Edinburgh than Newcastle.

[hibsbollah]

That’s why property remains a good investment. People somehow manage to convince themselves that the laws of supply and demand do not apply.
Why are houses more expensive in Edinburgh than Newcastle? Because the the population of Edinburgh is rising faster than we can build new houses. In Newcastle they have a large supply of empty homes and a population that is not rising very fast at all. That along with the fact that people in Edinburgh earn more mean that there is more money chasing each house. In that scenario prices will rise.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I worked in Newcastle until quite recently; Newcastle is one of the fastest growing cities in the UK and there's a massive building programme to cope with the demand, both in the city itself and across North and South Tyneside, Gateshead and Durham, so you're way off with that point.

[Ozyhibby]

I worked in Newcastle until quite recently; Newcastle is one of the fastest growing cities in the UK and there's a massive building programme to cope with the demand, both in the city itself and across North and South Tyneside, Gateshead and Durham, so you're way off with that point.

‘Massive building programme to cope with demand’ ? I think that makes my point?
It’s maybe time we had a massive building programme here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

If you think that supply of housing is the only problem and that free market principles will solve everything then you are the one who is living in an alternate universe mate.

Time for the tail to stop wagging the dog. There's a full on crisis right now where young people are losing hope and their lives will be built on foundations of sand. Radical action is needed now.

But he’s just pointed out to you that there is anything but ‘free market principles’ in the housing market.

The cost of housing is vastly inflated by planning restrictions, restrictions imposed upon the market.

The most obvious of which are the green belts. They have throttled cities, including Edinburgh, forcing the price of land that is available for housing through the roof and therefore forcing prices of anything built on that land through the roof.

The answer to the ‘crisis’ is much more complex than just ‘build more’. One example is the simple fact that the cost of buying a new builds currently tends to be at a premium to existing stock so does little or nothing to reduce prices without substantial change in other areas.

[danhibees1875]

I tend to agree with the point on housing shouldn't be treated as an investment, it's a fundamental requirement and everyone should have a home and people shouldn't be profiteering of others need so readily... but, there is arguably also a need for rental properties. :dunno:

[Smartie]

‘Massive building programme to cope with demand’ ? I think that makes my point?
It’s maybe time we had a massive building programme here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It certainly is.

But it wouldn't be popular amongst those whose lives revolve around seeing their house value continue to rocket i.e practically the entire home owning population of Edinburgh.

[Ozyhibby]

It certainly is.

But it wouldn't be popular amongst those whose lives revolve around seeing their house value continue to rocket i.e practically the entire home owning population of Edinburgh.

It’s also not popular seeing young people struggle to get on the housing ladder as well. It is time for the people who run Edinburgh council to be brave and say that the city needs a lot more housing.

There are other factors at play here. The banks requiring young people to have large deposits is holding young people back as well. Most young people could actually save money by buying over renting but the requirement to have a large deposit is ridiculous. The govt need to start letting the banks lend to first time buyers without a deposit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

It’s also not popular seeing young people struggle to get on the housing ladder as well. It is time for the people who run Edinburgh council to be brave and say that the city needs a lot more housing.

There are other factors at play here. The banks requiring young people to have large deposits is holding young people back as well. Most young people could actually save money by buying over renting but the requirement to have a large deposit is ridiculous. The govt need to start letting the banks lend to first time buyers without a deposit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are incentives for first time buyers, shared ownership for example.

[Ozyhibby]

There are incentives for first time buyers, shared ownership for example.

Shared ownership limits you to particular houses and are harder to sell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Future17]

It’s also not popular seeing young people struggle to get on the housing ladder as well. It is time for the people who run Edinburgh council to be brave and say that the city needs a lot more housing.

There are other factors at play here. The banks requiring young people to have large deposits is holding young people back as well. Most young people could actually save money by buying over renting but the requirement to have a large deposit is ridiculous. The govt need to start letting the banks lend to first time buyers without a deposit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't realise 100% lending had been stopped by the Government. Was this post lending crisis?

[Moulin Yarns]

Shared ownership limits you to particular houses and are harder to sell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you can save and buy the rest of the property when you can afford it. It allows young people to get onto the property ladder.

[Geo_1875]

I wonder if it was the same with caves back in the day?

Probably was. You just needed a bigger club to move up the ladder.

[Moulin Yarns]

Probably was. You just needed a bigger club to move up the ladder.

Had the ladder been invented by then?

Asking for a friend. 😉

[Ozyhibby]

Or you can save and buy the rest of the property when you can afford it. It allows young people to get onto the property ladder.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, it just has limited appeal. Young people want to be able to choose the area they live in and most can afford to fund a mortgage, what they don’t have is a deposit saved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldbutdim]

I tend to agree with the point on housing shouldn't be treated as an investment, it's a fundamental requirement and everyone should have a home and people shouldn't be profiteering of others need so readily... but, there is arguably also a need for rental properties. :dunno:


Social landlords. Non-profit- distributing organisations that will provide quality housing at affordable rents.
:aok:
There really is no need to make home ownership the holy grail for everyone.
Folk buying up Council properties then renting them out at higher rents than the Council charged........................ nice little earner for the landlords but does nothing to help folk actually needing affordable housing.

[RyeSloan]

It’s also not popular seeing young people struggle to get on the housing ladder as well. It is time for the people who run Edinburgh council to be brave and say that the city needs a lot more housing.

There are other factors at play here. The banks requiring young people to have large deposits is holding young people back as well. Most young people could actually save money by buying over renting but the requirement to have a large deposit is ridiculous. The govt need to start letting the banks lend to first time buyers without a deposit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mortgage affordability rules are set by the BoE not the government.

You also can’t force banks to lend at 100% value, in fact put yourself in the lenders shoes and you can see why many may be reluctant to do so.

Any drop in house values puts them at risk (the loan is not covered by the assets) so a deposit makes a lot of sense from their perspective.

Also 100% mortgages are just as risky from the buyers perspective as the same scenario puts them into negative equity and effectively prevents them from moving. Such a scenario not only impacts them but wider society as people can therefore not move and restricts the mobility of the workforce.

As ever with the property market there is many pros and cons to any ‘solutions’

[Ozyhibby]

Mortgage affordability rules are set by the BoE not the government.

You also can’t force banks to lend at 100% value, in fact put yourself in the lenders shoes and you can see why many may be reluctant to do so.

Any drop in house values puts them at risk (the loan is not covered by the assets) so a deposit makes a lot of sense from their perspective.

Also 100% mortgages are just as risky from the buyers perspective as the same scenario puts them into negative equity and effectively prevents them from moving. Such a scenario not only impacts them but wider society as people can therefore not move and restricts the mobility of the workforce.

As ever with the property market there is many pros and cons to any ‘solutions’

The mortgage part of what I was saying won’t actually bring prices down and could actually force them up by creating new buyers.
The only thing that brings down prices is more supply or lower demand. Better to build more homes than to force people to move elsewhere. There are lenders out there who would love to lend 100%. You can charge more for such mortgages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

The mortgage part of what I was saying won’t actually bring prices down and could actually force them up by creating new buyers.
The only thing that brings down prices is more supply or lower demand. Better to build more homes than to force people to move elsewhere. There are lenders out there who would love to lend 100%. You can charge more for such mortgages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn’t talking about forcing people to move elsewhere, plenty of people want or need to move elsewhere.

There is tons of stuff online as to why the ‘build more’ solution is simplistic at best and just plain wrong at worst.

A good example of that is in terms of supply there is also the fact that supply of existing stock has been absolutely crushed by the huge ramp up in stamp duty. The effect of that is there is much lower amounts of property on the market which in turn pushes up prices for what is available.

[easty]

The mortgage part of what I was saying won’t actually bring prices down and could actually force them up by creating new buyers.
The only thing that brings down prices is more supply or lower demand. Better to build more homes than to force people to move elsewhere. There are lenders out there who would love to lend 100%. You can charge more for such mortgages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On one hand you're saying build more, it'll bring down prices, due to supply/demand - but you're also saying banks should be offering 100% mortgages to first time buyers.

Putting those two together, what happens when you want to sell your property, with a 100% mortgage on it, and the prices have all come down? Your property is worth less than when you bought it? Doesn't seem like a great way to get a foot on the housing ladder.

[Fife-Hibee]

Within days of no deal being triggered, buy up property in Scotland and watch it's value sky rocket over the coming years. :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

On one hand you're saying build more, it'll bring down prices, due to supply/demand - but you're also saying banks should be offering 100% mortgages to first time buyers.

Putting those two together, what happens when you want to sell your property, with a 100% mortgage on it, and the prices have all come down? Your property is worth less than when you bought it? Doesn't seem like a great way to get a foot on the housing ladder.

I admit it’s two different things. I know when I bought my first house it was with a 100% mortgage and it was great for me. It went up in value and allowed me to trade up eventually.

On building more houses, prices will still rise, just more slowly. I don’t think we are anywhere near building enough houses or close to the politicians going down this route anyway. They prefer daft schemes like right to buy etc. Edinburgh prices will be rising for a while yet. The population is expected to grow by about 20% over the next 20 years. There is zero chance we will increase the housing stock by that much over that time so prices are only going one way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pollution]

I admit it’s two different things. I know when I bought my first house it was with a 100% mortgage and it was great for me. It went up in value and allowed me to trade up eventually.

On building more houses, prices will still rise, just more slowly. I don’t think we are anywhere near building enough houses or close to the politicians going down this route anyway. They prefer daft schemes like right to buy etc. Edinburgh prices will be rising for a while yet. The population is expected to grow by about 20% over the next 20 years. There is zero chance we will increase the housing stock by that much over that time so prices are only going one way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This I agree with. I bought my first and only property in 1992. I sold it last year for six times what I paid for it.

I was advised to buy a small portfolio of one bed flats when they were selling for £100k approx , to have as buy to lets but I refused.

It is not fair on first time buyers for people like me ie non professionals to indulge in as although I could make some money out of them they should go to first time buyers.

[RyeSloan]

This I agree with. I bought my first and only property in 1992. I sold it last year for six times what I paid for it.

I was advised to buy a small portfolio of one bed flats when they were selling for £100k approx , to have as buy to lets but I refused.

It is not fair on first time buyers for people like me ie non professionals to indulge in as although I could make some money out of them they should go to first time buyers.

My maths is probably wonky but I think inflation has been about 100% in total since 1992 so technically you received only 3 times what you paid for it...I think [emoji23]

[bingo70]

I’ve got sympathy for people in their 20s trying to get on the housing market but it’s not the impossible task some make it out to be.

It’s obviously very difficult but there is a lot of irresponsible spending by people in that age group that previous generations didn’t do. Things like regular European city breaks, expensive fortnight holidays to exotic places or expensive summer breaks and spending a grand a day for fancy sun loungers pretending to be footballers. The average wedding in the UK costs about £20k now but I don’t hear many people saying they can’t afford to get married any more. Even small things like regular take aways. I know if I was to ask my folks how many of the above things they’ll have done I’d imagine they probably wouldn’t have done many.

I bought my first house 5 or 6 years ago and i got it on the excellent government lift scheme. It only needed a 5% deposit and I could buy pretty much anywhere I wanted within a certain budget. It wasn’t my dream house but it got me on the ladder.

[James310]

I’ve got sympathy for people in their 20s trying to get on the housing market but it’s not the impossible task some make it out to be.

It’s obviously very difficult but there is a lot of irresponsible spending by people in that age group that previous generations didn’t do. Things like regular European city breaks, expensive fortnight holidays to exotic places or expensive summer breaks and spending a grand a day for fancy sun loungers pretending to be footballers. The average wedding in the UK costs about £20k now but I don’t hear many people saying they can’t afford to get married any more. Even small things like regular take aways. I know if I was to ask my folks how many of the above things they’ll have done I’d imagine they probably wouldn’t have done many.

I bought my first house 5 or 6 years ago and i got it on the excellent government lift scheme. It only needed a 5% deposit and I could buy pretty much anywhere I wanted within a certain budget. It wasn’t my dream house but it got me on the ladder.

Your right and people need to make difficult decisions about want they want. There was a thread the other week about people in their 20s spending £600 on a pair of trainers or some designer jacket. Sorry but if you want all the latest gear and want to spend 2 weeks in Ibiza at some VIP pool party then don't moan about not being able to afford a property.

My sister in law spends a fortune on new clothes and is out every weekend. Then moans how she is skint all the time and can't afford to save. She is not the brightest.

[pollution]

My maths is probably wonky but I think inflation has been about 100% in total since 1992 so technically you received only 3 times what you paid for it...I think [emoji23]


Interesting point. There are so many ways of looking at capital appreciation. Also, I paid 25 years' worth of a mortgage, council tax, insurance etc.

In fact, my deposit was 50% of the price of the property - do I add or subtract that to or from the figures?

My point is what others have said here: shop around for the best deal and inevitably save for a deposit of some sort.

It will mean cutting down on non essentials, but that is life in a nutshell. Some of my friends' 20 plus years old offspring see no further than their next drink or whatever.

They are the type who never will own property because they have no ambition. Fact!

[Ozyhibby]

The above two posts is why inequality will always be with us. People are and should always be able to make their own choices in life. If one person invests every penny he earns and ends up hanging out at Davos with the mega rich and another spends all his money on new trainers then it’s pointless complaining about the inequality in wealth between the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

The above two posts is why inequality will always be with us. People are and should always be able to make their own choices in life. If one person invests every penny he earns and ends up hanging out at Davos with the mega rich and another spends all his money on new trainers then it’s pointless complaining about the inequality in wealth between the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if the person purchasing all those trainers is doing so to help out poor kids in war torn Syria, while the rich invester is investing in arms that are used to drop on them?

[hibsbollah]

The above two posts is why inequality will always be with us. People are and should always be able to make their own choices in life. If one person invests every penny he earns and ends up hanging out at Davos with the mega rich and another spends all his money on new trainers then it’s pointless complaining about the inequality in wealth between the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, because that's exactly why inequality happens:rolleyes:
What a ludicrous post.

[Ozyhibby]

What if the person purchasing all those trainers is doing so to help out poor kids in war torn Syria, while the rich invester is investing in arms that are used to drop on them?

I didn’t comment on why people made their choices, just that they should be free to do so (although I would halt arms sales to Syria and loads other places as well but that a separate issue) and a result of this would be inequality. Some people will always be able to accumulate wealth more than others. Why would that be a bad thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

Try buying in Auckland [emoji33][emoji33][emoji33]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

I didn’t comment on why people made their choices, just that they should be free to do so (although I would halt arms sales to Syria and loads other places as well but that a separate issue) and a result of this would be inequality. Some people will always be able to accumulate wealth more than others. Why would that be a bad thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As for your last question, research has shown that the more relative inequality there is within a society, the more problems there are. It didn’t matter if the country had a high GDP or low absolute poverty, an increase in relative inequality was matched by poorer outcomes when it came to areas such as crime rates, health and happiness amongst others.

Advocates of trickledown economics will no doubt disagree but the theory is that it’s down to the over-commodification of every aspect of our lives and the resulting pressure.

[Colr]

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, it just has limited appeal. Young people want to be able to choose the area they live in and most can afford to fund a mortgage, what they don’t have is a deposit saved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Find a plot, build your own. That’s a good way to make money. Planning’s a mare, though.

[Ozyhibby]

Find a plot, build your own. That’s a good way to make money. Planning’s a mare, though.

Yip, and because the planning is so hard, we have very few small builders doing that now. The number of builders who build less then 10 houses a year has fallen of a cliff in this country. The planning system has made it impossible. The largest 8 builders control 75% of the market for new homes which is why they all look the same on large estates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beensaidbefore]

I work with the elderly and what upsets me is whe you see families who have knocked their block off throughout their life to provide for their families, they have bought and paid for a house etc and all of th at money gets spend on carers or a care home. Meanwhile Mr & Mrs handout for years get the very same care but for nowt. They have no savings, private pension, etc etc but they know what they are 'entitled' too, including making sure any money they did have is put in family names etc to avoid having to pay rent etc.

I think that sends the wrong message and its wrong. These are not mega rich people who have had a luxurious lifestyles, but butchers, welders, workies etc who have worked as hard as they could to provide for their families and now they have next to nothing to show for it.

Do others think this is a fair way of doing things?

[SHODAN]

I’ve got sympathy for people in their 20s trying to get on the housing market but it’s not the impossible task some make it out to be.

It’s obviously very difficult but there is a lot of irresponsible spending by people in that age group that previous generations didn’t do. Things like regular European city breaks, expensive fortnight holidays to exotic places or expensive summer breaks and spending a grand a day for fancy sun loungers pretending to be footballers. The average wedding in the UK costs about £20k now but I don’t hear many people saying they can’t afford to get married any more. Even small things like regular take aways. I know if I was to ask my folks how many of the above things they’ll have done I’d imagine they probably wouldn’t have done many.

I bought my first house 5 or 6 years ago and i got it on the excellent government lift scheme. It only needed a 5% deposit and I could buy pretty much anywhere I wanted within a certain budget. It wasn’t my dream house but it got me on the ladder.

Me and my partner earn far in excess of the average wage for our age range and don't go on expensive holidays, control our spending every week, put away a regular sum of money in the help to buy ISA aand generally just stay in and do inexpensive things for entertainment. We also aren't fixated on moving to "the city" and are looking for houses in the mid-central belt where prices are considerably cheaper. Our only main expenses are transport to work and for me, Hibs.

We're still having to rely on my parents to fund the majority of our deposit.

[Bangkok Hibby]

This I agree with. I bought my first and only property in 1992. I sold it last year for six times what I paid for it.

I was advised to buy a small portfolio of one bed flats when they were selling for £100k approx , to have as buy to lets but I refused.

It is not fair on first time buyers for people like me ie non professionals to indulge in as although I could make some money out of them they should go to first time buyers.

Respect to you sir :applause:

[WhileTheChief..]

^Agreed.

Last year I was speaking to a plumber who was installing a new boiler for me.

He was telling me that most of his work was looking after a lady’s portfolio of flats - she had over 250 in Edinburgh.

Morally I find that shocking.

But on the other hand I’ve kinda got to say fair play to her for growing her business to that size. Who am I to tell her what she can spend her money on?

I think where I do take issue would be if she was non resident. I’d like to see foreign ownership of houses limited if that was possible.

They’re also needs to be something done about the amount of student accommodation in Edinburgh. Why does that appear to take priority over normal housing?

[Mantis Toboggan]

^Agreed.

Last year I was speaking to a plumber who was installing a new boiler for me.

He was telling me that most of his work was looking after a lady’s portfolio of flats - she had over 250 in Edinburgh.

Morally I find that shocking.

But on the other hand I’ve kinda got to say fair play to her for growing her business to that size. Who am I to tell her what she can spend her money on?

I think where I do take issue would be if she was non resident. I’d like to see foreign ownership of houses limited if that was possible.

They’re also needs to be something done about the amount of student accommodation in Edinburgh. Why does that appear to take priority over normal housing?

Pretty easy to limit non resident ownership. But that's only addressing part of the problem.

Does student housing take priority in reality or is that just a perception?

[Ozyhibby]

Pretty easy to limit non resident ownership. But that's only addressing part of the problem.

Does student housing take priority in reality or is that just a perception?

It’s not an Edinburgh thing. The tax situation means that providing student accommodation is more tax efficient (Airbnb accommodation is the same) than it is to provide a house for long term let.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

It’s not an Edinburgh thing. The tax situation means that providing student accommodation is more tax efficient (Airbnb accommodation is the same) than it is to provide a house for long term let.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More tax efficient for who Ozy?

Most student accommodation is owned / built by REIT’s in the UK which, by legislation, pass the tax implications onto the shareholder.

Which is a very different dynamic to buy to let’s which are often much more in the hands of individuals (and now if they own 3 or more through their associated companies)

Then you have the HMO rules which have had the effect of encouraging student accommodation to be purpose built rather than the traditional way of shared flats (as it was maybe rightly seen that these should be available to families die to their size and locations rather than sub divided to suit student demand)

[judas]

Came on here to find out thoughts on Brexits impact on the housing market. So?

[Ozyhibby]

Came on here to find out thoughts on Brexits impact on the housing market. So?

If the economy suffers then the property market will suffer too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk