Socialist China bans overseas property investment

I’m picturing crabs in a bucket.

Like a crazy ex, you’re not allowed to leave. Maybe they should fix the culture at home if they dislike it so much.

I’m certain the luxe apartment bubble should be a secondary Skyscraper Index, based on height alone. Elevators rely on the electricity grid. In a grid-down, they’d be stranded.

Meanwhile, London

Cheaper housing, how awful of those pesky Leave voters.

Meanwhile, China tries to buy London’s history

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

They are going to lose all their money.

You never bet against London.

It’s like warring with Russia.

You just don’t.

Think of it this way. If it’s a surefire way to make money off this country, why is it legal?

Still, the Guardian readers will continue to argue this is a good thing, because globalism but secretly wish their ‘rents would just die already. Joke is also firmly on them, as most real estate held by the middle class is heavily indebted. They do not know this. Those exceptions cannot manage an estate, having no head for maths.

This is gonna be glorious.

It’s only worth what somebody is willing to pay after you.
If you won’t live in it, it’s worthless.

Rule #1 Buy low.

Rule #2 Never buy something you can’t use.

Nobody told them rule 2.

I love parvenus. They’re so easy to con.

Boomer motive for ruining property market is a “delusion”

Said anyone with an ounce of sense.

Hey, at least they’ll get to retire.

sensible chuckle

In other news, to share their dedication to equality, Universities have taken the capitalist pig economical decision and are going to charge native students the same as foreign. Cos that’ll attract the talented impoverished. Charge the poor kid from a local mining town the same as the spoiled spawn of a Chinese millionaire. Sounds fair. I’m sure their job prospects to pay it off are the same.

“it is frustrating to learn universities were lobbying the minister for the fee rise before the reforms were published.”

Hey, you wanted equal treatment, right, goys?

Piggies in a trough, told ya. Nothing will redpill the Indebted Generation faster than seeing their heroic Cultural Marxist crusaders charge them through the nose to hear why they’re the scum of the earth and should also rebel against their oppressors (???, read: parents).

Lib Dems made the decisive fee increase (3x, that’s a ‘three’, not a ‘free’, for all you liberal arts wankers) and Labour invented tuition fees in the first place.

Students generally don’t know this because the Left fucks them over with censorship. If the topic comes up, be a dear and remind them?

laughing lol haha liar liar

“Yes, you did, in fact, vote for this.”

Make this expression as they look it up on their dumbassphones, it’s immensely satisfying.

On the plus side, the SJW entryism will now be infecting Asia preferentially (whores go where the money is), so economically we won’t have to worry about them in about 10-20 years. They’ll murder their own competitive kin with the cult.

Government stops subsidizing Buy to Let parasites

It’s an investment. You take on the risk.

They don’t cushion others either.

These socialists (in heart) fail to mention that they aren’t contributing any value to the worker, they want to be the Middle Man, sponging.

Having a house and rent-fixing shouldn’t be an occupation. Pay your fair share, Boomer Guardian readers! (the largest BTLers)

The Government has dealt a second body-blow to private landlords in six months with the announcement that from April 1 next year the stamp duty payable by investors will be thousands of pounds higher.

Landlords declared the change “catastrophic”.

You can’t afford it.

Gravy train has stopped. You’re stifling the property market. They believe they deserve sympathy.

Phil Stewardson aims to buy a property every fortnight.

In 2015 he spent £3.5m on 30 properties, mainly in the West Midlands and Lancashire. “If I spent the same again this year I estimate I’d pay between £70,000 and £100,000 more on stamp duty thanks to this change,” he said.

And he’s whining about money?

The Stewardsons own 150 properties in total, but their accountants reckon they will still be treated as private landlords, rather than institutional investors, for stamp duty purposes.

This is because the exemption is likely to favour either developers that build properties or fund managers who invest on behalf of a wide range of shareholders or institutions.

People that add value? Perish the thought.

Little Piggy on the wall.

“Landlords won’t accept this,” Mr Stewardson said. “Initially they will behave like all businesses and try to pass on increased costs to tenants through higher rents. But many will give notice to tenants and sell up.”

That’s the point.

“The small perk some landlords overlooked in their initial shock at the announcement is that stamp duty paid on the purchase of buy-to-lets can be deducted from the taxable gains made when the property is ultimately sold.”

Oh they noticed but they are parasites. All they wanna do is suck.

Why give up their host?

This comment;

I have no idea how many other people reading this thread have a business outside of BTL. But I am sure you have the same problems as me in that we are heavily regulated, inspection every year, if new regulations and costs come into effect we just get on with it and absorb it best we can.. ITS CALLED RUNNING A BUSINESS!!..

I have never heard such a bunch of cry baby’s as these BTL lot, they have had it their own way for far too long now. They pretend to run a business and yet expect Government to handle every little issue for them, pathetic.

Another person who can do maths;

Institutional money has no interest whatsoever in residential property at these price levels. They’re not interested in build to rent and they are certainly not interested in buying a bunch of unloved ex-BTL properties sprinkled here and there.

This present delusion amongst BTL investors that they are going to be able to sell on to institutional money when they exit without taking a loss doesn’t stack up. …

They are going to sell at a loss.

At the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee in March 2015, not for the first time, Carney referred to BTL as an “investor market” and noted how at the Bank of England they distinguish between the owner-occupier mortgage market and the BTL mortgage market.

To call BTL an investor market is to make clear that the participants in the market are assumed to be big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves. Investment in the hope of a capital gain always involves running the risk of a capital loss.

…A borrow-to-let speculator will be a landlord too, but not all landlords are borrow-to-let speculators….

BTL is now closing in on representing fully 20% of all outstanding mortgages. It’s not just a few harmless dabblers. It is becoming a 500 lb gorilla that eats rent and sh!ts financial instability.

That is why they are going to close it down.

It isn’t a pension.

I’m glad these abysmally stupid yet sociopathic people, creating Generation Rent, will have a terrible winter life.

Rich Britons don’t want to live in Londonistan

They’re trying to hide it but the estate agents look worried.

Middle class people wanting to start a family are the raison d’etre of their profession.

Those places are selling to foreign buyers, on the whole. London is the safety deposit box of the world. Foreign buyers rent out and don’t contribute to local infrastructure, hence the decline is sped up.

Baby Boomers screech about property monopoly tax

It hasn’t even been applied yet.
It won’t be until 2020.

Yes, you’re reading that link right.
This ….person, has SEVENTY-FIVE properties, and is completely convinced that he has no impact on the market whatsoever, he’s just a small-time investor and this taxation (closing of a loophole) is morally wrong.

Property isn’t a pension.

I’ll repeat it for the cheap seats.

A property is NOT a pension.

Torquay landlord Graham Chilvers owns 75 properties. None of them, he says, could have been bought by first-time buyers – because in every case he either built or restored them himself.

Sounds like a cartoon character.
I’m fairly certain younger people are better at DIY and restoration, actually. Stronger at least.
It’s like saying “nobody else could have won this lottery because I guessed the numbers” – the solipsism.

Landlords argue that not only will the change force them to evict tenants and sell properties en masse, but that it will also prevent the building and development of new homes – hindering the Government’s objective to increase housing supply.

Evict? No.
Sell? Yes.
Why? They could never afford them in the first place.
Inversion of supply-demand law. More properties on the market = less, somehow.

“The Government justifies its attack on buy-to-let by saying landlords have an unfair advantage over people wanting to buy their own homes,” Mr Chilvers said. “But no homebuyer was competing with me on any of these properties.”

staring angry glare really omfg no stop dorian gray

Many of his other properties were also once hotels or care homes, while some he built from scratch.

And he cuts Victorian houses into flats.
What a helpful guy.
So many couples must be cheered living in a 2-bedroom apartment, unable to have more children because it’ll make him more money.

He reckons his portfolio is worth £6.4m, against which there is a modest £2.4m borrowing.

Ah, so he can’t actually afford it.

Rental income totals £330,000 per year. The cost of mortgage interest is £80,000 with maintenance, insurance and other expenses coming in at £100,000 to £120,000.

That gives a taxable annual profit of between £130,000 and £150,000.

His tax bill today is around £50,000. When the new taxes are fully applied he will pay an extra 32pc in tax, with his bill rising to almost £70,000.

He would then be paying a tax rate of 44pc.

It’s a job.
That’s about the right level.

One of Mr Chilvers’ biggest anxieties is the way the proposed tax will bite when interest rates rise. Because of the perverse way in which the tax operates, landlords will actually pay more tax when their mortgage costs go up – even though this will result in their having less gross profit.

You mean, quickly remedying the people who monopolized the market and can’t really afford to be there without taxpayer ignorance?

“Not only will this tax prevent me from undertaking further development, but it poses real risks to my business just at a time that interest rates could rise,” said Mr Chilvers.

You took on that risk.
You lost.
The taxpayer shouldn’t bail you out.

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

Other full-time landlords share Mr Chilvers’ view that mainstream homeowners are not competing for the same properties as landlords.

All property ON A MARKET is competed for.
There isn’t a single attempt at intellectual honesty here, is there?

Fuck Baby Boomers.

Like many professional landlords she is not altering her strategy until more detail about the new tax regime emerges. This is expected within weeks as part of the Finance Act.

These people are morons.

She said future options included selling some of the properties in order to pay down the mortgages on others.

You mean, releasing the houses you can’t afford and bought in greed on credit?

…“The whole point of this was to provide an income to live off.”

See above. Cheap seat.
They imagine themselves to be like serf lords over Millennials. Wankers.

The only buy-to-let investors who will not be hit are the very wealthy who buy property in cash and who don’t need a mortgage.

Aka people who can afford the investment. The way it should be.

In other words, tax will be applied to the rent received – rather than what is left of the rent after the mortgage interest has been paid.

Closing a loophole.

don draper crying baby wah wah wah

They end with a tedious example where the landlord makes zero profit. As if that’s immoral or the end of the world. No, you choose to take a risk and breaking even is a blessing. You aren’t legally obliged to make money. Especially from cornering a market you could only enter because of when you were born.

Link: London is a slum cum safety deposit box

Ok he doesn’t say that, but it’s the general sentiment.

We should block foreign property investment. We should ban social housing in the capital too, nobody is entitled to live there.

These will probably never happen, but they would solve 99% of the problem.

If they aren’t, it can’t, nor should it, be saved.