Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sell your whole portfolio!


sarahbell

Recommended Posts

classic scheme.  500 quid up front fee.  then 500 quid assessment fee.  then 100 quid per property valuation fee.

 

etc etc

 

then, suddenly "sorry, you fall outside our acceptance criteria!  thanks for the 2k though!" or 'we can sell them all for 5 quid each.  No?  Ah well, see you later but thanks for the 2k!"

  • Agree 1
  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/david-coughlin-how-i-escaped-recession-era-liverpool-to-build-a-100-property-portfolio/

David Coughlin’s journey from the son of an unemployed Bootle docker to a 100-property portfolio landlord is one of the private rental market’s more extraordinary journeys.

Now pushing fifty years old, it was in his mid-20s that he began investing in property.

Coughlin was born into a family where few if any of them had a job and was the first to get a degree (from Leicester University) going on to gain two post-graduate degrees at Cambridge University.

His first purchase didn’t go that well – a property in Manchester that, although it delivered healthy rental profits to help fund his 20-something lifestyle, failed to rise in value during the four years he spent working at McVities in the city.

- Advertisement -
HFTLI-Landlord-Banner-Ad-324x270px_snow-

In 1998 he then bagged a job as a senior operations manager at Mars food in Slough which included a seven days on and five days off shift pattern and £90,000 salary; the vital ingredients to start buying property – time and money.

“I bought a property for £165,000 in Windsor and two years later it was worth £250,000 so I listed it on one of the then newly-arrived online property sales websites and two guys came around to value it,” he says.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Axeman123 said:

Is no -one else going to point out the smaller text:

Untitled.png.1efd2889bfba3cf085a20d1d3e3133ed.png

:)

That's a sales pitch.

Personally I'm at a loss as to what will happen with property as anything that is even vaguely half decent around here is selling in days regardless of the asking price. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axeman123
9 minutes ago, eek said:

That's a sales pitch.

Yes but I still think it is an unusual angle to take: Anyone not selling everything is instantly going to feel resentful towards your pitch, or dismiss everything you say to defend their ego. Half of this guy's business will be selling the houses on once he has bought them, surely he won't want to talk the market down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy
11 hours ago, sarahbell said:

I get emails from nethouseprices.com and this advertorial came in.

Who's buying up portfolios? Is this bill Gates spending his money?

Lloyd's?

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe because Labour are threatening to go all Dennis Healey if they get into power:

 Rachel Reeves yesterday said she would apply the extra layer of tax on buy-to-let and other investment income such as stocks and shares.

In an apparent re-run of Harold Wilson’s 1970s investment income tax surcharge, Labour plan to re-introduce such an additional layer of tax to what is termed “unearned income”.

The Wilson Labour government applied an investment income surcharge of 15% and kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate of tax ever applied in the UK.

Proof of the pudding: it wasn’t long after (1976) Britain faced its worst ever financial crisis. The Labour government was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail it out. An IMF loan was granted but the fund insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure, greatly affecting economic and social policy.

 

https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/breaking-wrong-time-to-raise-taxes-but-im-going-after-buy-to-let-landlords-anyway/
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Libspero said:

Maybe because Labour are threatening to go all Dennis Healey if they get into power:

 

 

There are few places left where additional tax revenue can be extracted from.

Everytime there is a conversation (elsewhere) on how you could generate more tax I  continually come back to a wealth tax focussed on property - it literally is the only thing not taxed appropriately.

And putting a 0.5% tax on wealth via current house prices would probably have a nice impact on current prices by reducing them a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, eek said:

And putting a 0.5% tax on wealth via current house prices would probably have a nice impact on current prices by reducing them a bit. 

I think the thrust of the labour plan was to dump most of it on landlords.

I don't see a massive problem with "sexing up" the council tax to make it based on the last transaction value and adjusted annually by HPI until next sale.  The only issue is with it being a regressive tax,  so it will disproportionately affect people on lower wages.   That is ok when you keep it roughly the same for them as council tax,  but if you add it on top of council tax,  someone on minimum wage goes from paying,  say,  £1500 a year,  to £2,750 on a £150k rented flat.  Or £3000 a year on a £300k rented flat.   To someone in a £600k house,   £4500k might be relatively cheap by comparison.

There is also the issue that if you tax landlords out of the market,  the government will have no where to home all of the dependents,  and so the rental price will go up..  meaning a lot of what they raise in taxes will be spent again on housing benefit.

These are well worn arguments,  and may not stand up to more thorough scrutiny..  but I don't think taxing houses directly is necessarily the best way.   Perhaps introducing a capital gains tax on primary residencies would be a better way.. not least because the money is there and available at the point of sale..  so you can't easily spend it before the government can get their claws on it.  But that would be even more unpopular as everyone is conditioned to expect free money from houses.  It's a national institution.  

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capital gains tax as an option fails as the market is structured around people trading up which means that they use their equity from the previous home as the foundation of their next purchase.

So the only time you could actually extract money without destroying the housing market would be when a couple decide to downsize at retirement and capital gains then would probably dissuade people from doing so.

As you say there is no easy options but binning council tax for a wealth tax based on current house prices is just about the easiest way. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eek said:

Capital gains tax as an option fails as the market is structured around people trading up which means that they use their equity from the previous home as the foundation of their next purchase.

I'm not sure that's such an issue.   At,  what,  28%.

You take out a mortgage for £200k..  buy a house.   The house doubles in value over 10 years say.

You now have a £400k house and a £100k mortgage.   CGT on the gains is £56k.

You have £344k assets.   Top the mortgage back up to £200k.

New budget is £544..   plus the bank will probably lend you more now as your salary has likely increased.  Say £600k.

As a replacement for stamp duty it could work in theory I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stamp duty on that £500k+ house is currently £25k or £30k on the £600k one and you really couldn't have both as who is going to send the taxman £86k to move house.

So you actually aren't raising as much as you think you are. 

Edited by eek
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

belfastchild

Adverts on local radio here for people who will buy your house ethically...
Then you go on to the website and see its also an invite for special people to become a franchisee in buying peoples houses ethically.

Is that like a cash buyers derivative? Millionaire by proxy?

Gotta love the franchise model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, eek said:

So you actually aren't raising as much as you think you are. 

Agreed.  You only raise a bit more,  but one of the advantages of the CGT model is you only tax people who have made a profit and have that cash available to spend.

Stamp duty has to be added to a mortgage..  which will immediately put first time buyers in negative equity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Libspero said:

Maybe because Labour are threatening to go all Dennis Healey if they get into power:

 

 

A reason to vote Labour, Tories haven't come up with 1 policy other than BRINO which has now passed to vote for them.

Love the way landlords have needed govts to steal money from other people to gift to them for 2 decades now, yet as soon as its mentioned a future govt would like to tax them a little, then that govt is communist and looking to take money from the productive hard workers.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hancock said:

A reason to vote Labour, Tories haven't come up with 1 policy other than BRINO which has now passed to vote for them.

Careful what you wish for though..   this isn't about equality,   in hard times governments will claw money off anyone with assets.

Landlords are an easy target,  but anyone with shares or any other money had better look out..  desperate times call for desperate governments. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Libspero said:

Careful what you wish for though..   this isn't about equality,   in hard times governments will claw money off anyone with assets.

Landlords are an easy target,  but anyone with shares or any other money had better look out..  desperate times call for desperate governments. 

This kind of tax is being touted all over the western world, as most money has gone to a select group for doing sweet FA.

I do hope it happens to avoid manual labour getting taxed more, its much fairer than the NI rise thats happening in April.

Edited by Hancock
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hancock said:

This kind of tax is being touted all over the western world, as most money has gone to a select group for doing sweet FA.

I'd rather see assets revalue naturally and wages rise..  and we might just get it.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Libspero said:

I'd rather see assets revalue naturally and wages rise..  and we might just get it.

Thats impossible with govt taking so much money to gift to landlords via housing benefit which will stay even if all other scams ended tomorrow ... not to mention the taxes needed to police the western worlds strictest planning laws.

Obviously i'd prefer the govt to spend less and half in size, but govt spending has to come from somewhere and its fairer to tax money that was obtained via asset price inflation as opposed to manual labour.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...