Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Price control through National Census

All properties should be re-valued through a National census simillar to the council tax ones.

Prices should be held down and kept well below inflation and the only time a house value can be increased if iyt can be proved the sellor has done improvement works.

Every one who is working full toime should be able to buy a home using the 3,5 x times income formula for a mortgage.

There is a housing shortage so buy to lets should be banned completly.

Why is this idea important?

All properties should be re-valued through a National census simillar to the council tax ones.

Prices should be held down and kept well below inflation and the only time a house value can be increased if iyt can be proved the sellor has done improvement works.

Every one who is working full toime should be able to buy a home using the 3,5 x times income formula for a mortgage.

There is a housing shortage so buy to lets should be banned completly.

Scrap tax exemption for buy-to-let speculators

Since the government is not prepared to level the playing field and reintroduce MIRAS (at 100%) for all, it should instead scrap the tax relief enjoyed by buy-to-let speculators. This exemption/deduction is both expensive (to the taxpayer), distorts the market, encourages speculative bubbles and favours a vested interest over the wider economy.

Why is this idea important?

Since the government is not prepared to level the playing field and reintroduce MIRAS (at 100%) for all, it should instead scrap the tax relief enjoyed by buy-to-let speculators. This exemption/deduction is both expensive (to the taxpayer), distorts the market, encourages speculative bubbles and favours a vested interest over the wider economy.

Stamp Duty

A property costing £250,000 attracts 1% stamp duty at £2,500. A buyer of a property for £250,001 pays 3% on the whole sum £7500.03. A £1 addition to the price attracts an extra £5,000.03 in tax. That is a phenominal rate of taxation. Why isn't stamp duty taxed in bands so that it is 1% up to £250,000 and 3% on the amount over £250,000?

This is the way income tax works and there would be an outcry if income tax was treated like stamp duty. This would mean some earning £43,875 p.a. would pay 20% tax on the amount over the personal allowance but someone earning £1 p.a. more would pay 40% on all their taxable income. If it's unfair for income tax why is it not unfair for stamp duty?   

Why is this idea important?

A property costing £250,000 attracts 1% stamp duty at £2,500. A buyer of a property for £250,001 pays 3% on the whole sum £7500.03. A £1 addition to the price attracts an extra £5,000.03 in tax. That is a phenominal rate of taxation. Why isn't stamp duty taxed in bands so that it is 1% up to £250,000 and 3% on the amount over £250,000?

This is the way income tax works and there would be an outcry if income tax was treated like stamp duty. This would mean some earning £43,875 p.a. would pay 20% tax on the amount over the personal allowance but someone earning £1 p.a. more would pay 40% on all their taxable income. If it's unfair for income tax why is it not unfair for stamp duty?