Loz

Most of what you wrote, EDoldie, makes reasonable sense. Some ideas may be good and some not. Though one point I would make... > The benefit to buy to let investors should be a gradual increase in property value as > well as reasonable return rather than the extortionate one they are currently enjoying > because they are not properly taxed. In most parts of London, there is no great return on rent. If you have a 500k property in ED, then you'll get about 1400-1500 a month rent (or 16,800-18,000 a year). That's a gross yield of about 3.5%. Then there is the mortgage (as most single-property buyers have a mortgage). Rates for BTL mortgages are about 3.5%-4% (you don't get the great deals you get on normal mortgages) - i.e. similar to the yield, so if you have a 70% mortgage, so you will only see about 30% of that rent, so about ?5k per year. But you then have to take out costs - insurance, maintenance, void periods. If you are lucky, you might turn a profit of a ?2-3 grand a year. If you use an agent. most of that will be wiped out. If you are a 40% tax payer or higher and have a mortgage, the new relief change will mean you will actually make a loss. The only money is in capital gain, which has been traditionally good, but who knows what will happen in the future? But 'extortionate' profit on the rental in London? Nope. Not for your single property landlord.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As BB said, there are two changes at play [...] > > So this is seen as a forced asset transfer from amateur borrow-to-let landlords to professional > buy-to-let landlords who already have 15 or more properties. Not necessarily. Some may go to other landlords, some to buyers. Given the relatively low number of large-portfolio landlords, I'd guess that would be heavily weighted to the latter, unless some really big players step into the market. And concentrating the rental stock into a much, much smaller number of players will reduce competition. > Also, the elasticity of effective demand will > march in step with increased rental asking prices. Well, maybe, but what will people priced out of the market do? That is rather the crux of the issue.

Are you are talking to Sue, BB? If so, and are referring to a poster named after a type of chilli, I have to say I think the other poster kicked it off with a couple of straight-out-of-left-field posts. Quite bizarre ones.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need some way to issue fines for homes left empty for long periods (including those with > foreign owners). I know, easier said than done... Whilst it would always help the housing crisis to fill these with people, the number of homes empty for > 6 months in the Greater London area is about 21,000 (or 0.6% of the total housing stock).

As BB said, there are two changes at play: 1) The change in mortgage tax relief which will make a significant proportion of properties unprofitable and so they will be sold off. This will happen over the next 3-4 years as the policy is phased in, so won't make a huge impact on sale prices (though they might steady for a while). 2) The new sales tax on second homes will dissuade new private landlords coming in. The two policies will almost certainly cause a drop in supply in rental properties, especially in London where yields have been low for a number of years. Note though that a couple of people say landlord will 'force increases'. They can do nothing of the sort - they can raise the asking price, but people are savvy enough nowadays to make an offer, not just accept the asking rent. The rise in websites like Rightmove mean that people know what an area is worth. But, we will quickly get to a situation where people will offer more than the advertised rent to secure a property, as happens with sales occasionally. That is the point where rents will really take off. I'm guessing that will start happening late 2017 to early 2018. People have been asking for years (especially on the left) for 'something to be done' about BTL landlords. This will probably end up showing that you should be careful what you wish for.

/Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spooning with Rosie is a cookery book? Yep. So is 'Cooking with Poo'.

I don't think Osborne has moved left - more like annexed it.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Companies aren't affected - so looks like a (pretty easy) loophole. > > Until he closes it. Figures from 2010 show that more than three-quarters (78%) of all landlords only owned a single dwelling for rent, comprising 40% of the total privately rented housing stock. Losing an decent proportion of that - which is quite feasible - would be really significant.

Given the changes made to landlords over the past two budgets/reviews, I reckon rents in London are going to rocket over the next couple of years as supply drops.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the Tory voter on Question Time is the one who did it really I thought it was the Sun wot did it?

Pickle me in alcohol. May as well finish what I started.

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With the reselection plans he could create a much more left wing Labour party and really change the face of > politics in the UK. No one should underestimate him I think. He could indeed change the face of politics in the UK - it's been many decades since the Labour party has not been either in government or the main opposition! With Labour heading left, Osborne is making a grab for the centre ground, home of the swinging voter. Labour has little to no chance of recovering the lost Scottish vote in the next election or two, UKIP are nicking a big percentage of their working class vote and the Greens have the sandal-and-socks-wearing brigade in hand. All that's left is the urban leftie and the students and even they have doubts. Reselecting MPs will be suicidal as far as the next election is concerned, as you can bet that most of those deselected MPs will still stand, probably as independents, and so fracturing the vote, which is deadly in a FPTP system. But you are correct in saying he seems very nice, though he is rather out of his depth at the moment. But his biggest problem seems to be that he surrounds himself with complete dross, as McDonnell showed today. I'd love him as my MP, but shudder to think of him as a PM.

I've not seen it before, so I'd be guessing as much as you. It looks a little gimmicky, so if you are looking for something that will actually teach your OH something you'll probably be disappointed. For your ?30, you could buy a really decent bottle of something different to expand their usual buying horizons. A few spring to mind: maybe a nice German Beerenauslese Riesling, a Canadian icewine, an Aussie sparkling red or an Italian Amarone. Perhaps introduce them to a few new grapes? Torrentes (Argentina), Gruner Veltliner (Austrian), Nebbiolo (Italian Barolo), Viognier (French Condrieu) are all interesting.

If don't mind spending more (like a few hundred) I really recommend the WSET Level 2 course (don't bother with the Level 1). It's actually an industry course, but open to all. Teaches you so much about wine, including countries/regions, grapes, techniques and a structured way to taste a wine. You also get six wines a week (of wildly differing value) to taste and discuss and the course is one night a week over nine weeks. I thought I'd come out with an awfully expensive taste in wine, but they do teach you to appreciate value in the lower end of the scale as well.

Although I disagree completely with Lewis Schaffer, I think attacking him for being an American is playing the man and not the ball. Apart from anything else, he's been here 15 years - I assume as a taxpayer - so he's as much entitled to an opinion as anyone.

Vienna - lovely, lovely city and reasonably warm in summer. Loads and loads to do. Great beer gardens and Austrian wine (well, the whites) are actually rather nice. Good for day trips as well.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Weren't Girls Aloud and The Saturdays also spawned > from this ridiculous show? Nope. Girls Aloud was created by Pop Idol (so you're not far off). The Saturdays was a manufactured band, but nothing to do with a TV program (c.f. Take That, Spice Girls, etc).

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who has gone on to success... > > One Direction > Leona Lewis > JLS (for a while) Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Little Mix? G4, Alexandra Burke, Ella Henderson and Rebecca Ferguson have had some success. And, not to forget Olly Murs himself. Plus I reckon Fleur East might make it.

Surely they should cut down all but one of the trees on One Tree Hill? Anyway, is the forum software able stop edborders from opening new threads, so he is forced to add to one big thread on the subject, rather than continually opening new threads on the same subject?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was watching, and was impressed by, Andy Burnham on QT last night. Couldn't help thinking "why > couldn't you have shown me some of this during the leadership race. I was desperate for him or one if > them to show some quality. Really? I thought both Burnham and the Tory woman were bickering twits. Max Hastings and the Le Monde lady made the most sense, and I was rather surprised to find myself agreeing a lot with Mehdi Hasan, who I normally think is a raving idiot.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is A1- I'm familiar with that term? How much > English would you need to past the test? The CEFR levels are pretty standard across all language now. A1 is beginner level then it goes A2, B1, B2, C1 through to C2 which is proficient. A1 is pretty much "My name is Fred. I come from London. What is your name? Where is the nearest railway station?" type stuff. You need to be A2 or B1 to be able to hold a meaningful conversation. Wiki has A1 as: - Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. - Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. - Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Making fluency in English a pre-requisite is just too high a bar I think. But 'fluency' isn't the bar. I just checked and the required level is A1. Which is, frankly, a piece of wee-wee.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > If you want to live in a country, you should be able to speak the language - or have the desire > > and means to learn. > > Tell that to the millions of expats in Spain who don't speak any Spanish. I wish someone would. In a previous job I had to visit the British consulate in Alacante. Most of their work is dealing with the ex-pats who have little to no clue about the country they'd spent the last decade or so in. Every government form they had to fill in, they'd have to come to the consulate for help. Hopeless.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Learning Enlgish within a certain time period would also be perfectly OK with me. Chortle.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, what do you think the issue was with deportation? I don't doubt this might be true but am curious. Oh, not based on anything concrete - just my thoughts, purely based on 1) It's easier to refuse entry than to deport someone. 2) Deporting people is notoriously difficult and costly. 3) Less lawyers involved!