General News

[Chris_OGrady]

25 minutes ago, JonnyBoy said:

my partner owns a house, I own a house. She rents hers out and lives with me.. we are buying a house next year together and will sell mine and keep hers still. if it is a NEW joint mortgage, will this be classed as an additional property where we would have to pay an additional 5% stamp duty? 

 

 

I have the Exact same issue. We are trying to sell both but one is proving trickier to shift! You can reclaim the additional 5% back if you sell the second house within 3 years of purchasing the new property, subject to a few technicalities. 

[JonnyBoy]

38 minutes ago, Chris_OGrady said:

I have the Exact same issue. We are trying to sell both but one is proving trickier to shift! You can reclaim the additional 5% back if you sell the second house within 3 years of purchasing the new property, subject to a few technicalities. 

 

Yes it is a bit confusing, we aren't married yet so that can make a difference i believe. If we are going to get stung will be better to pay the fee for exiting the mortgage as i don't believe there is a massive mortgage on it (under 100k) and just sell it. 

[HighPeakFox]

9 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

OK, thanks for explaining - I try to keep out of such stuff so am a little slow.

@David Hankey, just so I understand, were you laughing at me or with me? 

[David Hankey]

31 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

@David Hankey, just so I understand, were you laughing at me or with me? 

C'mon HPF, do you really need to ask? Obviously, always with you.

 

I thought, for a minute, you were getting sensitive in your old age.

[HighPeakFox]

19 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

C'mon HPF, do you really need to ask? Obviously, always with you.

 

I thought, for a minute, you were getting sensitive in your old age.

I am sensitive, but chose to ask carefully rather than jump to conclusions. 

[Sly]

5 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

It was a few pages back but I honestly just can't get on board with the rehabilitation of Sunak's image or character. I did think it was touching in his last PMQs yesterday when he said "I'm proud to have been the first British Asian Prime Minister. But I was even prouder that it was not that big a deal."; as a side note the only complaint I remember at the time was a caller to LBC saying the Prime Minister should be someone born here, "like Boris".

 

But for me nothing can repair the reputation of someone who bragged about undoing Brown's funding formulas designed to distribute money more fairly to deprived areas and give it to more depraved areas like Tunbridge Wells. Or the writing off of billions in COVID fraud because he either couldn't be arsed to retrieve it or because it was given to the Tories mates. Or him spaffing hundreds of millions up the wall on a Rwanda scheme that was never supposed to work. Or allowing his wife to avoid *millions* in taxes. Or favourable contracts given to his father in law's company. Or his Eat Out To Help Out policy that directly lead to 50,000 deaths.

 

His reputation is as stained as Truss, Johnson, Hunt, Hancock or Cameron IMO.

Yeah, but Gordan Brown sold all the gold and Tony Blair is a war criminal. 

[Spiritwalker]

I’m not sure inheritance tax on farms is fair, then again the majority of farmers 

voted for the Tories and Brexit which are the major causes of the economic crisis 

so maybe they should take some of the pain.

 

[ozleicester]

Australian tax office...


Just a for example before the corporate apologists come in.... this is the kind of reason why they dont pay....

 

Earlier this month, Nine Newspapers alleged Mr Ellison and four other senior Mineral Resources executives defrauded taxpayers and company shareholders of around $7 million by transferring company funds to a series of accounts based in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) — a jurisdiction where companies don't have to pay income tax.

It was alleged Mr Ellison and his associates arranged for Mineral Resources to buy mining equipment from the BVI companies at massively inflated prices, the spoils of which were then transferred into their individual offshore accounts which they paid no tax on.

Edited 1 November 2024 by ozleicester

[Daggers]

😂

 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Daggers said:

😂

 

...is this satire?

 

Please tell me this is satire.

[Bellend Sebastian]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...is this satire?

 

Please tell me this is satire.

Well it's real in that it was in The Telegraph. I've always been sceptical about stories about people's lived experiences in certain sections of the press after the DM ran one of their "look at this jobless foreigner living the life of Riley on all these benefits' and the lady in question was an actor with an agent, of which no mention was made in the story for some reason

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Well it's real in that it was in The Telegraph. I've always been sceptical about stories about people's lived experiences in certain sections of the press after the DM ran one of their "look at this jobless foreigner living the life of Riley on all these benefits' and the lady in question was an actor with an agent, of which no mention was made in the story for some reason

You wonder how such acts of blatant misinformation don't attract more attention from the press regulator.

[SecretPro]

53 minutes ago, Daggers said:

😂

 

What the actual **** 

 

**** off Julie and John. 

 

 

Edited 1 November 2024 by SecretPro

[Grebfromgrebland]

On 30/10/2024 at 20:14, David Hankey said:

Didn't the last Labour Government albeit in the mists of time have a 'Spend, Spend, Spend' policy?

 

And look where that got us.

Things were comparatively great in every aspect of life for pretty much every one back then. 

 

Labour didn't cause the global financial crash. You need to look at people like rishi for that. 

 

But yeah you believe what the sun tells you to.

[kenny]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

...is this satire?

 

Please tell me this is satire.

It's real enough but it's been grabbed to make them look like idiots. The rest of the blurb is that their business no longer makes them money so they are working full time until the properties are sold.

 

Their thrust is that the changes are bad for business and landlords. It sounds like they weren't making any money before the changes though.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

😂

 

Just shows that money does not give you brains or the ability to effectively control said money. You were born in the greatest generation ever, have built up that portfolio, but have to work at 77?! 

How dumb must these people be. Still, people like this wasting their money on things like cars on finance or unable to structure their leverage efficiently is what keeps the economy running. Now shut up and get back to work John and Julie.

 

[Grebfromgrebland]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

😂

 

Let's assume this isn't satire for a moment. The thing that screwed them would have actually been the Tory rule change in stopping interest payments tax deductable unless in limited co arrangement. The Tory increase in stamp duty on second property. The Tory total crashing of the economy pushing up interest rates for everyone. 

 

But yeah it's labours fault.

[David Hankey]

30 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Things were comparatively great in every aspect of life for pretty much every one back then. 

 

Labour didn't cause the global financial crash. You need to look at people like rishi for that. 

 

But yeah you believe what the sun tells you to.

Had the Government of day concerned themselves with the antics of Northern Rock and the like things would have been a lot better.

 

Anyway you carry on believing what you think.

[Robo61]

9 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Had the Government of day concerned themselves with the antics of Northern Rock and the like things would have been a lot better.

 

Anyway you carry on believing what you think.

A quote from 2006

"I fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult.

“This is exactly the wrong direction in which Europe should be heading and it threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London.”

 

Guess who? Hint, it was not Gordon Brown

[grobyfox1990]

17 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Let's assume this isn't satire for a moment. The thing that screwed them would have actually been the Tory rule change in stopping interest payments tax deductable unless in limited co arrangement. The Tory increase in stamp duty on second property. The Tory total crashing of the economy pushing up interest rates for everyone. 

 

But yeah it's labours fault.

Exactly, regardless of the political environment you structure your affairs appropriately and balance risk with reward. Clearly these people have spectacularly failed in that. They are very lucky with the time and country they were born in, as an efficient market/Darwinism would mean they're out on the streets if they are as dumb as they are but were born in the Congo.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, kenny said:

It's real enough but it's been grabbed to make them look like idiots. The rest of the blurb is that their business no longer makes them money so they are working full time until the properties are sold.

 

Their thrust is that the changes are bad for business and landlords. It sounds like they weren't making any money before the changes though.

 

Appreciate the additional context. I think that with public services the way that they are at present, it's yet another situation where there are no good options, it's about choosing the best bad one.

 

NB. I've no idea why some people still think laissez-faire measures do anything other than create greater inequality.

[kenny]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Appreciate the additional context. I think that with public services the way that they are at present, it's yet another situation where there are no good options, it's about choosing the best bad one.

 

NB. I've no idea why some people still think laissez-faire measures do anything other than create greater inequality.

I think it's a sign of the countries addiction to low rates that has done it rather than regulation. They are probably mortgaged to 70% and don't own them through a company, so pay more in interest and tax than the rent pays.

 

Had they considered that rates would go up, they would have stopped buying more and owned 5-10 outright. They have also had plenty of time to consider what labour would do to CGT.

[Dunge]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c748kmvwyv9o
 

At last, some real news.

[grobyfox1990]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Appreciate the additional context. I think that with public services the way that they are at present, it's yet another situation where there are no good options, it's about choosing the best bad one.

 

NB. I've no idea why some people still think laissez-faire measures do anything other than create greater inequality.

Too easy to blame it on laissez-faire regulation. There are many who have set up structures that are resilient to something as easily predictable as rising rates or a changing political environment. J&J are likely just a bit basic. Probably borrow money from a high st bank, levered up assuming rates would stay at 1-2% forever and thought they could up each rent by 5% pa with no complications.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Too easy to blame it on laissez-faire regulation. There are many who have set up structures that are resilient to something as easily predictable as rising rates or a changing political environment. J&J are likely just a bit basic. Probably borrow money from a high st bank, levered up assuming rates would stay at 1-2% forever and thought they could up each rent by 5% pa with no complications.

Yeah, in this specific situation, absolutely.

 

I was talking more about generalities.