Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
Anyone who wants it can already get it very easily, not decriminalising and taking the tax (like many other places) just incase a few people are tempted to give it a try or because it smells is incredibly short sighted.cafcnick1992 said:
Legalising it also increases the use of it, makes apartment balconies stink of weed in the summer, and worst of all, people still buy it from the black market because its cheaper than the government shops.shine166 said:
Last time I read there are 170000 people getting private prescriptions for weed, up around 100k in the last year or so, so much money being lost to the blackmarket it's unreal.Carter said:Legalise weed, tax it and wallop. You have a growth sector. A massive one and enormous tax revenue
Do the same for MDMA and the same applies
It's not the golden goose people think it is.
3 -
Rob7Lee said:
I was at the woolwich when it still had London waiting and recalled it not being massive (but was early on in my career).valleynick66 said:
Banks also paid large town allowances in other parts of the country as I recall.Rob7Lee said:
Did you really earn the same in central London as the person in Halifax? No London weighting?RaplhMilne said:
When I worked for Lloyds Bank in central London I had a 3 bed semi in Bexley that cost me £320,000. My colleagues working in Halifax could buy an equivalent property for about £140,000. The London cost of living (including train) was considerably higher, than in Halifax. The point being they earned the same salary as I did. However, their disposable income to live the high live was far greater than mine.Diebythesword said:
But they are rich - they have significant assets that others do not have. Yes it takes time and stress to liquidate these assets, but they still own assets outright and are in the top end of the country for wealth. They also likely have assets in their pension as well as the state pension. They are, by any metric, richer than your average non pensioner.RaplhMilne said:
There are a lot of pensioners, living a very frugal life in the South East whilst living in a 3 bed semi worth £700- £800,000. I really don’t consider them to be rich.CafcWest said:
Wow...thanks but very hard to believe - can't read the full article but I suspect that property accounts for much of the wealth that makes retired people a millionaire - rising house values over a lifetime. I've always considered someone a 'proper' millionaire if they have a million in cash and liquid assets - not bricks and mortar...Diebythesword said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/news/number-millionaire-pensioners-quadruples/CafcWest said:
Ummm...where did you get that snippet? Very hard to believe...or have I been whooshed!Diebythesword said:Get rid of the triple lock and go back to cutting the winter fuel allowance properly and that will make a significant dent in the black hole reeves needs to fill, whilst not taxing people to death and allowing room for some growth.The triple lock will be seen as an utter disaster, if it hasn’t already - imagine guaranteeing pay rises for benefit claimants, they’d be political uproar.25% of pensioners are millionaires, they can take the hit.The problem is solved by collecting the existing taxes that are avoided, rather than additional tax on those already paying. We all have Black Cab mates, who tell you the game was screwed, when people started paying by card and cash takings dried up.It’s just easier to hit thousands of pensioners, than it is thousands of self employed Plumbers. As it is to hit UK Banks and large companies, than chase the smaller enterprises.
An I know so many people claiming £hundreds a month on PIP who pretty much have nothing wrong with them. Managed to fool a busy doctor once, and ride the gravy train forever.Now their Halifax property is £280,000 and mine is £640,000. With equal pension assets, I am rich and they are not. I should be heavily taxed and they shouldn’t.When I die, my kids will lose £hundreds thousands in IHT. Theirs won’t.So whilst having to pay so much more to buy a home, interest on mortgage and pure living costs compared to them. I am the one paying all the rich man’s Tax.London allowance was also infrequently reviewed / raised with inflation in the same way base salary was.Further in my experience NatWest / RBS it became subsumed into salary and not a separate element at some point.So in truth the London allowance didn’t overly compensate.
But in the original example, surely either the Halifax person was being overpaid or London underpaid?
Anyway, you have similar issues now with jobs like teachers. Why anyone (from a financial perspective) would work in inner London for the small extra amount I don't know.London Weighting/Large Town Allowance discussion here. Certainly Barclays held it at £3,450 for about 20 years before doing away with it altogether by folding it into your salary. For many people it didn’t cover their annual season ticket, let alone the multiple other living costs which were/are much higher in London & the South East particularly.https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/94714/london-weighting-allowance
1 -
Can its use get much more widespread?cafcnick1992 said:
Legalising it also increases the use of it, makes apartment balconies stink of weed in the summer, and worst of all, people still buy it from the black market because its cheaper than the government shops.shine166 said:
Last time I read there are 170000 people getting private prescriptions for weed, up around 100k in the last year or so, so much money being lost to the blackmarket it's unreal.Carter said:Legalise weed, tax it and wallop. You have a growth sector. A massive one and enormous tax revenue
Do the same for MDMA and the same applies
It's not the golden goose people think it is.
As @shine166 says, anyone who wants to get hold of some can currently do so as easy as going on telegram and typing in "weed" and have it delivered like a pizza
I do agree with the antisocial aspect of people smoking it on their balcony for example because they don't want their own flat to smell of weed whilst all their neighbours doors and windows are open. By legalising it I think you can reduce that by increased availability and quality stabdard of edibles, oils and even drinks. No need to make everything smell of weed smoke then
And it absolutely is a golden goose. Legit jobs, tax revenue, quality assurance for starters
2 -
Sure, anyone can already get it if they really want it, but there's a difference between actively engaging in an illegal activity vs walking past a weed shop with pretty neon signs and customer service representatives. That will obviously lead to an increase in the use of weed, like it did in Canada following legalisation. After years of government campaigns to reduce smoking and improve mental health, legalising weed for recreational use seems to be at odds with that.
As someone who lived in Canada for 4 years, believe me - the balcony weed stench is there, and it is very annoying.
1 -
As others have said increased use will likely not be from smoking it but through edibles and oils. In fact it's expected to reduce the number of people smoking it as non-smokers would prefer not to smoke it if alternatives are easy and safe. At the moment they are harder to get and more expensive.cafcnick1992 said:Sure, anyone can already get it if they really want it, but there's a difference between actively engaging in an illegal activity vs walking past a weed shop with pretty neon signs and customer service representatives. That will obviously lead to an increase in the use of weed, like it did in Canada following legalisation. After years of government campaigns to reduce smoking and improve mental health, legalising weed for recreational use seems to be at odds with that.
As someone who lived in Canada for 4 years, believe me - the balcony weed stench is there, and it is very annoying.
When I lived in a flat in North Greenwich the balcony smell was pretty much daily anyway.0 -
People smoke less now days in general, my prescription is vaped with a medical device so there's no combustion releated health issues, plus regulation means good growing conditions that can be monitored.
Anyway, il try not to derail this to becoming a recreational drugs thread 😆1 -
meldrew66 said:Buying gold rings in Dubai: we’re off to Dubai soon and plan to buy some gold/diamond rings whilst out there. We last went there 20 years ago when we ended up buying what became our wedding rings so the wife is after a high quality eternity ring as part of our trip. I’ve been advised to buy from the Gold and Diamond Mall rather than the gold souk. Has anyone on here bought out there recently and have any tips of which dealers to go to, whether taking UK cash gets a better deal etc? Any experience and tips greatly appreciated.
0 -
Was about £2000 and didn’t rise in decades. Was eventually abolished and added into salary bands.Rob7Lee said:
Did you really earn the same in central London as the person in Halifax? No London weighting?RaplhMilne said:
When I worked for Lloyds Bank in central London I had a 3 bed semi in Bexley that cost me £320,000. My colleagues working in Halifax could buy an equivalent property for about £140,000. The London cost of living (including train) was considerably higher, than in Halifax. The point being they earned the same salary as I did. However, their disposable income to live the high live was far greater than mine.Diebythesword said:
But they are rich - they have significant assets that others do not have. Yes it takes time and stress to liquidate these assets, but they still own assets outright and are in the top end of the country for wealth. They also likely have assets in their pension as well as the state pension. They are, by any metric, richer than your average non pensioner.RaplhMilne said:
There are a lot of pensioners, living a very frugal life in the South East whilst living in a 3 bed semi worth £700- £800,000. I really don’t consider them to be rich.CafcWest said:
Wow...thanks but very hard to believe - can't read the full article but I suspect that property accounts for much of the wealth that makes retired people a millionaire - rising house values over a lifetime. I've always considered someone a 'proper' millionaire if they have a million in cash and liquid assets - not bricks and mortar...Diebythesword said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/news/number-millionaire-pensioners-quadruples/CafcWest said:
Ummm...where did you get that snippet? Very hard to believe...or have I been whooshed!Diebythesword said:Get rid of the triple lock and go back to cutting the winter fuel allowance properly and that will make a significant dent in the black hole reeves needs to fill, whilst not taxing people to death and allowing room for some growth.The triple lock will be seen as an utter disaster, if it hasn’t already - imagine guaranteeing pay rises for benefit claimants, they’d be political uproar.25% of pensioners are millionaires, they can take the hit.The problem is solved by collecting the existing taxes that are avoided, rather than additional tax on those already paying. We all have Black Cab mates, who tell you the game was screwed, when people started paying by card and cash takings dried up.It’s just easier to hit thousands of pensioners, than it is thousands of self employed Plumbers. As it is to hit UK Banks and large companies, than chase the smaller enterprises.
An I know so many people claiming £hundreds a month on PIP who pretty much have nothing wrong with them. Managed to fool a busy doctor once, and ride the gravy train forever.Now their Halifax property is £280,000 and mine is £640,000. With equal pension assets, I am rich and they are not. I should be heavily taxed and they shouldn’t.When I die, my kids will lose £hundreds thousands in IHT. Theirs won’t.So whilst having to pay so much more to buy a home, interest on mortgage and pure living costs compared to them. I am the one paying all the rich man’s Tax.1 -
It's been a while, 3 months to go:
FTSE100 Level 9,284.83 Name Level Variance % Variance Hornchurch 9275 9.83 0.11% meldrew66 9301 16.17 0.17% Housty 9254 30.83 0.33% blackpool72 9245 39.83 0.43% TheGhostofTomHovi 9236 48.83 0.53% WHAddick 9335 50.17 0.54% CharltonKerry 9234 50.83 0.55% Covered End 9220 64.83 0.70% Carter 9212 72.83 0.78% StrikerFirmani 9365 80.17 0.86% Jamescafc 9200 84.83 0.91% Addickinedi 9176 108.83 1.17% cafcpolo 9395 110.17 1.19% Diebythesword 9400 115.17 1.24% RalphMilne 9168 116.83 1.26% valleynick66 9165 119.83 1.29% guinnessaddick 9152 132.83 1.43% Addick Addict 9424 139.17 1.50% thecat 9136 148.83 1.60% IdleHans 9434 149.17 1.61% @TelMc32 9450 165.17 1.78% fat man on a moped 9116 168.83 1.82% wwaddick 9104 180.83 1.95% golfaddick 9101 183.83 1.98% WishIdStayedInThe Pub 9101 183.83 1.98% Jon_CAFC_ 9088 196.83 2.12% BalladMan 9058 226.83 2.44% Arsenetatters 9525 240.17 2.59% Huskaris 9025 259.83 2.80% Solidgone 9021 263.83 2.84% Rob7Lee 9000 284.83 3.07% Bangkokaddick 8998 286.83 3.09% Pedro45 8925 359.83 3.88% Friend or Defoe 9657 372.17 4.01% LargeAddick 8884 400.83 4.32% Redman 8876 408.83 4.40% Jints 9750 465.17 5.01% holyjo 8810 474.83 5.11% Thread Killer 9761 476.17 5.13% PragueAddick 8725 559.83 6.03% CAFCWest 8621 663.83 7.15% Fortune 82nd Minute 8571 713.83 7.69% HardyAddick 8548 736.83 7.94% bobmunro 8452 832.83 8.97% Lenglover 8301 983.83 10.60% Siv_In_Norfolk 7400 1884.83 20.30% Er_Be_Ab_Pl_Wo_Wo_Ch 6500 2784.83 29.99%
1 -
Looking for advice/suggestions please.
Person in late 30's thinking of change of career. This would mean retraining and probably having little or no earned income for a couple of years. Currently owns a property (with a mortgage). The person is thinking of moving in with her partner for this period.
Her thought is then to rent out her current property. The advantage of this is that it would give her an income and also keep a foothold in the property market.
She has asked my opinion.
I must admit I've never been a fan of being a landlord but find it hard to explain why.
Also what are the alternatives that would give her both an income and protect her capital. She has about £200k equity in the property.
All suggestions gratefully receieved0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Best to split the 2 scenarios & then look at the pro's & cons.redman said:Looking for advice/suggestions please.
Person in late 30's thinking of change of career. This would mean retraining and probably having little or no earned income for a couple of years. Currently owns a property (with a mortgage). The person is thinking of moving in with her partner for this period.
Her thought is then to rent out her current property. The advantage of this is that it would give her an income and also keep a foothold in the property market.
She has asked my opinion.
I must admit I've never been a fan of being a landlord but find it hard to explain why.
Also what are the alternatives that would give her both an income and protect her capital. She has about £200k equity in the property.
All suggestions gratefully receieved
1) Renting out her property. First she will need to change her mortgage to a Buy-to-let. The lending will be based on the rental income and lenders have strict calculations for this. If the mortgage is too large or the rental income too small then it might not be possible. Also, if she currently has a fixed rate mortgage or something with early repayment penalties then that will have to be factored in.
Then the property will gave to confirm to certain standards. Electricity checks is just one of them. Then she will have to.decide if she wants to manage the property herself or pay an agent to do it for her. They will usually take between 10%-15% of the rental income. If she decides to do it herself she will have to be prepared to be woken at 3am by the tenant with an emergency.
Worse case scenarios......the tenant fails to pay the rent & your friend wants to evict them. This could take up to 6 months. Tjat is 6 months without any money coming in. And when they do finally leave they could trash the place. Might need to spend £5k -£10k doing it up afterwards. Less worse case, the tenant is just late or sporadic with paying the rent.
Then there is the tax issue. Rental income is taxable. There is no mortgage interest relief and any increase in the value of the property (once tenanted) is then subject to Capital Gains Tax.
Also, is the property going to be let furnished or unfurnished. If unfurnished what is she going to do with all her furniture ? Put it in storage? Sell it ? I'm sure her partner wont have room for sofas, desks, coffee table, white goods etc etc.
2) Selling & investing the proceeds. Firstly, sell now & there are no Capital Gains Tax issues. Only downside is the early repayment penalty on her mortgage (if there are any).
Invest in certain investment vehicles and withdraw a monthly "income" and there wont be any tax to pay. Probably no Capital Gains Tax at the end either. £200k should be able to give her £8k to £10k per annum. Capital protection would be the main downside risk, but that could be mitigated depending on where she invests the money.....and what risk she is prepared to take. The only other risk is being "out of the market".....but is that a real risk ? What will property do over the next 3-5 years ? And dont let anyone tell you (or her) that property only goes up. I personally have experienced negative equity twice in my property owning years - the last time having to wait out 5 years during the "banking crisis" between 2009 & 2014. With a good wind & less than 5% withdrawals her £200k could be worth £220k + in 5 years time.
I've probably missed loads & I'm sure others will be able to fill in the gaps. My best advice is... ..take advice. Not from randoms on the internet but from a professional.1 -
On 1 I've had friends get a "right to let" or "agreement to let" added to their mortgage to be able to temporarily rent out their place. They moved to Bath for 2 years for work so rented their flat out and then returned to London and moved back in. Not sure how common or easy they are to get though. For them it was definitely better than converting the mortgage.golfaddick said:
Best to split the 2 scenarios & then look at the pro's & cons.redman said:Looking for advice/suggestions please.
Person in late 30's thinking of change of career. This would mean retraining and probably having little or no earned income for a couple of years. Currently owns a property (with a mortgage). The person is thinking of moving in with her partner for this period.
Her thought is then to rent out her current property. The advantage of this is that it would give her an income and also keep a foothold in the property market.
She has asked my opinion.
I must admit I've never been a fan of being a landlord but find it hard to explain why.
Also what are the alternatives that would give her both an income and protect her capital. She has about £200k equity in the property.
All suggestions gratefully receieved
1) Renting out her property. First she will need to change her mortgage to a Buy-to-let. The lending will be based on the rental income and lenders have strict calculations for this. If the mortgage is too large or the rental income too small then it might not be possible. Also, if she currently has a fixed rate mortgage or something with early repayment penalties then that will have to be factored in.
Then the property will gave to confirm to certain standards. Electricity checks is just one of them. Then she will have to.decide if she wants to manage the property herself or pay an agent to do it for her. They will usually take between 10%-15% of the rental income. If she decides to do it herself she will have to be prepared to be woken at 3am by the tenant with an emergency.
Worse case scenarios......the tenant fails to pay the rent & your friend wants to evict them. This could take up to 6 months. Tjat is 6 months without any money coming in. And when they do finally leave they could trash the place. Might need to spend £5k -£10k doing it up afterwards. Less worse case, the tenant is just late or sporadic with paying the rent.
Then there is the tax issue. Rental income is taxable. There is no mortgage interest relief and any increase in the value of the property (once tenanted) is then subject to Capital Gains Tax.
Also, is the property going to be let furnished or unfurnished. If unfurnished what is she going to do with all her furniture ? Put it in storage? Sell it ? I'm sure her partner wont have room for sofas, desks, coffee table, white goods etc etc.
2) Selling & investing the proceeds. Firstly, sell now & there are no Capital Gains Tax issues. Only downside is the early repayment penalty on her mortgage (if there are any).
Invest in certain investment vehicles and withdraw a monthly "income" and there wont be any tax to pay. Probably no Capital Gains Tax at the end either. £200k should be able to give her £8k to £10k per annum. Capital protection would be the main downside risk, but that could be mitigated depending on where she invests the money.....and what risk she is prepared to take. The only other risk is being "out of the market".....but is that a real risk ? What will property do over the next 3-5 years ? And dont let anyone tell you (or her) that property only goes up. I personally have experienced negative equity twice in my property owning years - the last time having to wait out 5 years during the "banking crisis" between 2009 & 2014. With a good wind & less than 5% withdrawals her £200k could be worth £220k + in 5 years time.
I've probably missed loads & I'm sure others will be able to fill in the gaps. My best advice is... ..take advice. Not from randoms on the internet but from a professional.0 -
Yes, it is possible. I got one on my mortgage when my personal circumstances changed and had to rent my property out. My lender allowed it for 2 years but then it got reverted to a BTL mortgage. Most lenders will allow it for a short time, usually 12 months.cantersaddick said:
On 1 I've had friends get a "right to let" or "agreement to let" added to their mortgage to be able to temporarily rent out their place. They moved to Bath for 2 years for work so rented their flat out and then returned to London and moved back in. Not sure how common or easy they are to get though. For them it was definitely better than converting the mortgage.golfaddick said:
Best to split the 2 scenarios & then look at the pro's & cons.redman said:Looking for advice/suggestions please.
Person in late 30's thinking of change of career. This would mean retraining and probably having little or no earned income for a couple of years. Currently owns a property (with a mortgage). The person is thinking of moving in with her partner for this period.
Her thought is then to rent out her current property. The advantage of this is that it would give her an income and also keep a foothold in the property market.
She has asked my opinion.
I must admit I've never been a fan of being a landlord but find it hard to explain why.
Also what are the alternatives that would give her both an income and protect her capital. She has about £200k equity in the property.
All suggestions gratefully receieved
1) Renting out her property. First she will need to change her mortgage to a Buy-to-let. The lending will be based on the rental income and lenders have strict calculations for this. If the mortgage is too large or the rental income too small then it might not be possible. Also, if she currently has a fixed rate mortgage or something with early repayment penalties then that will have to be factored in.
Then the property will gave to confirm to certain standards. Electricity checks is just one of them. Then she will have to.decide if she wants to manage the property herself or pay an agent to do it for her. They will usually take between 10%-15% of the rental income. If she decides to do it herself she will have to be prepared to be woken at 3am by the tenant with an emergency.
Worse case scenarios......the tenant fails to pay the rent & your friend wants to evict them. This could take up to 6 months. Tjat is 6 months without any money coming in. And when they do finally leave they could trash the place. Might need to spend £5k -£10k doing it up afterwards. Less worse case, the tenant is just late or sporadic with paying the rent.
Then there is the tax issue. Rental income is taxable. There is no mortgage interest relief and any increase in the value of the property (once tenanted) is then subject to Capital Gains Tax.
Also, is the property going to be let furnished or unfurnished. If unfurnished what is she going to do with all her furniture ? Put it in storage? Sell it ? I'm sure her partner wont have room for sofas, desks, coffee table, white goods etc etc.
2) Selling & investing the proceeds. Firstly, sell now & there are no Capital Gains Tax issues. Only downside is the early repayment penalty on her mortgage (if there are any).
Invest in certain investment vehicles and withdraw a monthly "income" and there wont be any tax to pay. Probably no Capital Gains Tax at the end either. £200k should be able to give her £8k to £10k per annum. Capital protection would be the main downside risk, but that could be mitigated depending on where she invests the money.....and what risk she is prepared to take. The only other risk is being "out of the market".....but is that a real risk ? What will property do over the next 3-5 years ? And dont let anyone tell you (or her) that property only goes up. I personally have experienced negative equity twice in my property owning years - the last time having to wait out 5 years during the "banking crisis" between 2009 & 2014. With a good wind & less than 5% withdrawals her £200k could be worth £220k + in 5 years time.
I've probably missed loads & I'm sure others will be able to fill in the gaps. My best advice is... ..take advice. Not from randoms on the internet but from a professional.
However, in the OP's case the reason for moving in with her boyfriend as she is giving up work might be a red flag to the lender. Their lending criteria (and agreements with the BOE/FCA) might mean she cant have a residential mortgage with no earned income to cover it. In your friends case (and mine) there was still earned income in the picture & therefore satisfied lending criteria.2 -
Good point! Wasnt aware of that.golfaddick said:
Yes, it is possible. I got one on my mortgage when my personal circumstances changed and had to rent my property out. My lender allowed it for 2 years but then it got reverted to a BTL mortgage. Most lenders will allow it for a short time, usually 12 months.cantersaddick said:
On 1 I've had friends get a "right to let" or "agreement to let" added to their mortgage to be able to temporarily rent out their place. They moved to Bath for 2 years for work so rented their flat out and then returned to London and moved back in. Not sure how common or easy they are to get though. For them it was definitely better than converting the mortgage.golfaddick said:
Best to split the 2 scenarios & then look at the pro's & cons.redman said:Looking for advice/suggestions please.
Person in late 30's thinking of change of career. This would mean retraining and probably having little or no earned income for a couple of years. Currently owns a property (with a mortgage). The person is thinking of moving in with her partner for this period.
Her thought is then to rent out her current property. The advantage of this is that it would give her an income and also keep a foothold in the property market.
She has asked my opinion.
I must admit I've never been a fan of being a landlord but find it hard to explain why.
Also what are the alternatives that would give her both an income and protect her capital. She has about £200k equity in the property.
All suggestions gratefully receieved
1) Renting out her property. First she will need to change her mortgage to a Buy-to-let. The lending will be based on the rental income and lenders have strict calculations for this. If the mortgage is too large or the rental income too small then it might not be possible. Also, if she currently has a fixed rate mortgage or something with early repayment penalties then that will have to be factored in.
Then the property will gave to confirm to certain standards. Electricity checks is just one of them. Then she will have to.decide if she wants to manage the property herself or pay an agent to do it for her. They will usually take between 10%-15% of the rental income. If she decides to do it herself she will have to be prepared to be woken at 3am by the tenant with an emergency.
Worse case scenarios......the tenant fails to pay the rent & your friend wants to evict them. This could take up to 6 months. Tjat is 6 months without any money coming in. And when they do finally leave they could trash the place. Might need to spend £5k -£10k doing it up afterwards. Less worse case, the tenant is just late or sporadic with paying the rent.
Then there is the tax issue. Rental income is taxable. There is no mortgage interest relief and any increase in the value of the property (once tenanted) is then subject to Capital Gains Tax.
Also, is the property going to be let furnished or unfurnished. If unfurnished what is she going to do with all her furniture ? Put it in storage? Sell it ? I'm sure her partner wont have room for sofas, desks, coffee table, white goods etc etc.
2) Selling & investing the proceeds. Firstly, sell now & there are no Capital Gains Tax issues. Only downside is the early repayment penalty on her mortgage (if there are any).
Invest in certain investment vehicles and withdraw a monthly "income" and there wont be any tax to pay. Probably no Capital Gains Tax at the end either. £200k should be able to give her £8k to £10k per annum. Capital protection would be the main downside risk, but that could be mitigated depending on where she invests the money.....and what risk she is prepared to take. The only other risk is being "out of the market".....but is that a real risk ? What will property do over the next 3-5 years ? And dont let anyone tell you (or her) that property only goes up. I personally have experienced negative equity twice in my property owning years - the last time having to wait out 5 years during the "banking crisis" between 2009 & 2014. With a good wind & less than 5% withdrawals her £200k could be worth £220k + in 5 years time.
I've probably missed loads & I'm sure others will be able to fill in the gaps. My best advice is... ..take advice. Not from randoms on the internet but from a professional.
However, in the OP's case the reason for moving in with her boyfriend as she is giving up work might be a red flag to the lender. Their lending criteria (and agreements with the BOE/FCA) might mean she cant have a residential mortgage with no earned income to cover it. In your friends case (and mine) there was still earned income in the picture & therefore satisfied lending criteria.0 -
Thanks for this. Very helpful.golfaddick said:
Best to split the 2 scenarios & then look at the pro's & cons.redman said:Looking for advice/suggestions please.
Person in late 30's thinking of change of career. This would mean retraining and probably having little or no earned income for a couple of years. Currently owns a property (with a mortgage). The person is thinking of moving in with her partner for this period.
Her thought is then to rent out her current property. The advantage of this is that it would give her an income and also keep a foothold in the property market.
She has asked my opinion.
I must admit I've never been a fan of being a landlord but find it hard to explain why.
Also what are the alternatives that would give her both an income and protect her capital. She has about £200k equity in the property.
All suggestions gratefully receieved
1) Renting out her property. First she will need to change her mortgage to a Buy-to-let. The lending will be based on the rental income and lenders have strict calculations for this. If the mortgage is too large or the rental income too small then it might not be possible. Also, if she currently has a fixed rate mortgage or something with early repayment penalties then that will have to be factored in.
Then the property will gave to confirm to certain standards. Electricity checks is just one of them. Then she will have to.decide if she wants to manage the property herself or pay an agent to do it for her. They will usually take between 10%-15% of the rental income. If she decides to do it herself she will have to be prepared to be woken at 3am by the tenant with an emergency.
Worse case scenarios......the tenant fails to pay the rent & your friend wants to evict them. This could take up to 6 months. Tjat is 6 months without any money coming in. And when they do finally leave they could trash the place. Might need to spend £5k -£10k doing it up afterwards. Less worse case, the tenant is just late or sporadic with paying the rent.
Then there is the tax issue. Rental income is taxable. There is no mortgage interest relief and any increase in the value of the property (once tenanted) is then subject to Capital Gains Tax.
Also, is the property going to be let furnished or unfurnished. If unfurnished what is she going to do with all her furniture ? Put it in storage? Sell it ? I'm sure her partner wont have room for sofas, desks, coffee table, white goods etc etc.
2) Selling & investing the proceeds. Firstly, sell now & there are no Capital Gains Tax issues. Only downside is the early repayment penalty on her mortgage (if there are any).
Invest in certain investment vehicles and withdraw a monthly "income" and there wont be any tax to pay. Probably no Capital Gains Tax at the end either. £200k should be able to give her £8k to £10k per annum. Capital protection would be the main downside risk, but that could be mitigated depending on where she invests the money.....and what risk she is prepared to take. The only other risk is being "out of the market".....but is that a real risk ? What will property do over the next 3-5 years ? And dont let anyone tell you (or her) that property only goes up. I personally have experienced negative equity twice in my property owning years - the last time having to wait out 5 years during the "banking crisis" between 2009 & 2014. With a good wind & less than 5% withdrawals her £200k could be worth £220k + in 5 years time.
I've probably missed loads & I'm sure others will be able to fill in the gaps. My best advice is... ..take advice. Not from randoms on the internet but from a professional.0 -
Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.4 -
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.2 -
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.10 -
That'll be 75% of the country, where does that leave us in years to come?superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.0 -
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Common sense prevails.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.3 -
You know (because it's your job) that poverty in this country is relative. You literally can't eliminate childhood poverty in this country unless you make everyone without children at the bottom of the financial pile.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Regardless, sanity will prevail, although I wonder how much more economic damage will be done before then. And I'm not aiming this at Labour to be clear, this is decades of mismanagement. Labour just seem to pour kerosene on it.
Structural problems, we will agree that those exist, but I think our views of what they actually are would vary massively2 -
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.2 -
Yes and no. Its relative in that its the proportion of children living in households with income below 60% of the median. You can have massive impacts on it as shown by the fact that we have been over the last couple of years being a 30 year high in child poverty. Its not about putting others down the bottom - a single person or couple will do much better on a below median income than a family with multiple children. And thats if you only look short term, the long term effects on educational outcomes, future employment and productivity are massive. If we do not change this direction we will have a handbrake on the economy for another generation. We have record numbers of children skipping meals, going to school hungry and wearing coats at home due to the cold. This has to end.Huskaris said:
You know (because it's your job) that poverty in this country is relative. You literally can't eliminate childhood poverty in this country unless you make everyone without children at the bottom of the financial pile.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Regardless, sanity will prevail, although I wonder how much more economic damage will be done before then. And I'm not aiming this at Labour to be clear, this is decades of mismanagement. Labour just seem to pour kerosene on it.
Structural problems, we will agree that those exist, but I think our views of what they actually are would vary massively
You can tell a lot about a society (and person) by how they treat the poorest, particularly the poorest children.1 -
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.1 -
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.7 -
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
1 -
So you think that it's a change of circumstances that causes most child poverty.cantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I don't even agree with the term "child poverty". It's simply a term that academics have coined. Poverty, really, I don't think so.
I'd love to see how the parents of these children in poverty are spending the money they do have.
Perhaps if more people chose working over getting hand outs then the country would be more productive and the economy in a better shape.3 -
The common sense he is talking about is if you have 2 children that you cant afford, the lack of any sense let alone common sense is having more. It can be painted as just sense, there isnt a shortage of preventative help readily available but that would be holding people to accountcantersaddick said:
"its common sense". Tell me what research have you done? was it single or double blind? what form of regression model did you use? what variables did you control for?superclive98 said:
It's common sense that it isn't the case with the majority.cantersaddick said:
How can you possibly know that? And even if you do are you saying those who do experience those circumstances should be punished because of the choices of others?superclive98 said:
That is not the situation with the vast majority of people though, is it?cantersaddick said:
Which is a fine thing to say but when applied to reality lacks all critical thought. Peoples circumstances change, they lose jobs, have accidents, get sick, relationships break down. Something they may have been able to afford at one time they may no longer be able to afford. If we leave those kids behind we condemn the economy for another generation. We are already paying the price for the lost austerity generation of children. Lets not make it two.superclive98 said:
If you can't afford to have children, then don't have children.cantersaddick said:
As opposed to being concerned about the actual health of the 30% of the children in this country growing up in poverty. This is exactly what I mean about the structural problems in this country. We have to solve them or we will never have a productive economy. The intergenerational effects of these children growing up in poverty is huge, it means their earning potential is significantly limited even their prospects of holding a job. If we do not do these kind of things to end these cycles we will condemn the economy for another generation.Huskaris said:Looks like the 2 child benefit cap is going to be scrapped.
I'm incredibly concerned about the financial health of this nation.
You want an economy to grow in the future, end these generational curses for children.
Perhaps some of these parents need to look at themselves.
Sometimes in life things don't go your way. You have to adjust accordingly. The state cannot be expected to pick up the tab always. The bloated welfare state just gets more and more bloated and unaffordable.
No? none of that? ohhh okay. So you dont know.
As for your last point. Its classic small c conservativism - knowing the cost of everything the value of nothing. If we punish children for ending up in those situations which are outside their control you only condemn them to experience the same or worse when they are adults, and as its often multiple children in those situations it become a growing problem. Thats why we've found ourselves with the bloated welfare bill in the first place. If we extend that to the next generation we will continue to have the handbrake on the economy for another 30 odd years. We have to end these cycles or we will never have a productive and dynamic economy.
I'm for a welfare state but the amount it is now is unsustainable and you can find all manner of data to prove that. I'm also very much for people taking some accountability and responsibility for their life choices and 3 children is a succession of choices
4 -
372 pages on this thread.
My conclusion is that Labour and the Tories are fucking shit.
If Reform can do any better remains to be seen.
But fuck me we have some absolute cnuts in parliament4
