x

Keith pattinson

3876 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Keith's Recent Activity

The object of any party is to have affordable housing,Everyone is used to paying stamp duty at present level. Taking it off provides a short boost in volume,and increases prices,but then there is a disaster when introduced again,just as happened 30 years ago,twice.Schemes like Help to Buy,and selling off Council Houses,have drawbacks,by interfering with supply and demand. The answer is to reduce planning criteria,which increases costs,and supply. Look at other countries,people live in their caravan holiday homes,year round. Tenants are as free as owners to have as many as they can in a house.again increasing supply

From: Keith pattinson 21 November 2023 12:31 PM

Totally agree,and even increasing minimum wage increased cost of living so no-one better off,but they keep interfering with matters to make things worse.If we want affordable homes,we need to reduce demand and increase supply,so gap does not widen from first rung. No-one makes a profit moving up,as differential grows by same amount for next house. We need more houses,and be like other countries,who do not have so much interference. The Spanish welcome holiday homes,continuing building,even if not for locals,but visitors create jobs.Reducing rental supply by removing S21 will increase rents,when Shorthold tenancies created available,affordable rental properties

From: Keith pattinson 07 November 2023 14:22 PM

Increase stamp duty to reduce demand until supply increases. Help to Buy was bad for keeping houses affordable. No-one wins with price escalation,except when cease to own. Minimum wage increased all wages,as nation saw differentials maintained or increased,hence prices rose more than net wage increase. Bottom rung of housing ladder rose,but so did the property on the next rung,so differential increased! Selling Local Authority housing stock,instead of giving tenants a nominal well maintained payment was a folly too.

From: Keith pattinson 02 November 2023 17:14 PM

If they got the seller to pay the same amount of stamp duty,prices would be pushed down,which should be what everyone really wants. No-0ne gains by rising prices. It 10 years ago a two bed terrace ie bottom rung of housing ladder,was £100,000,and a three bed semi £150,000,with inflation this becomes £200,000 for two bed,and owner thinks they have"made" £100,000,but the three bed is now £300,000 so the gap has doubled!!!!! Help to buy pushed people to buy,but supply restricted by Local Authorities,Planners and Nimbys

From: Keith pattinson 02 November 2023 17:08 PM

Privatisation results in loss of control. The end result like water would be passed from French to Chinese,with increased costs. Privatisation is the wrong word when Government control is essential. The information could be linked to peoples tax returns and give Inland Revenue an individuals "balance sheet". It is sad that we will even sell the National Health Service to probably USA.....as already some hospitals,ambulances etc are doing the work. National services should be owned by the people who employ the Government. Once privatised lost forever............and money frittered away,into bodies that pillage our country,take more for their own benefit,as we did in 19th Century when Britain was world power,not a subsidiary of another nation.

From: Keith pattinson 10 January 2023 08:28 AM

Needs to stay Government owned,as in future could use information from Tax Returns and Land Registry to highlight tax evasion. Sometimes seeking quick cash by selling assets has unforeseen effects,eg doing away with tax discs means that revenue has dropped,because some do not receive reminder,eg moved address,while gaining a little by those buying part way through month pay again for car currently taxed.

From: Keith pattinson 20 July 2016 07:49 AM

Selling to get cash,for short-term benefit results in future loss to country when eventually fall into foreign ownership,no taxes paid,prices soar,eg water went from state owned to privatised,to French then Chinese.Very dangerous for future especially when no competition as monopoly.Crazy not to learn,and why not nationalise again,or tax at source

From: Keith pattinson 24 May 2016 07:32 AM

It is accepted practice,for the Government and councils when they buy to pay the sellers agents and solicitors fees. Fees are paid by the buyer in the case of property compulsory purchase,and in case of any chatels auction buyers premium of around 20% is applied. In cases of fine art commanding millions the seller will sometimes pay nothing. There is no such thing as free,a buyer paying £1000 to the selling agent will deduct this from the price they offer.Theytake into account stamp duty,legal fees,too. When the Government in a budget reduces taxes to one group,it has to increase taxes to another. Money does not grow on trees,and services have to be paid for. It is refreshing to see people accepting discounters,whether agents grocers,or modern web based businesses. Specsavers are a great example of efficient,and revolutionary business ,taking over from traditional opticians. It is happening in other industries. So a rise in stamp duty in the past caused sellers to reduce their offers. The same applies to sellers,they get an offer,and should think,after fees I will get £x in my hand. A seller charging buyer will still be working for the seller. Contribution to legal fees seems to becoming the case with some councils,water boards etc. The Cost of Leases Act was brought in to clarify tenants contribution to landlords legal fees. People taking a mortgage now are charged an admin fee,which has come in within the last 20 years. Times change,people have choices,but deposits generally,would improve the system,where buyers gazunder and drop out,causing stress to sellers,even in a rising property market we hear little of gazumping. I smile when I see "no commission " foreign money exchange,Sell at 1.5 to £1,buy at 20,so £10 gets you 15 euros/dollars whatever,trade the 15 back,and get £7.50. Let people be free,the seller receives less if buyer pays agent,so hopefully seller aware and happy by not paying agent so much..There seems to be naivety by the public in many areas,I agree with charging £10 plus for cigarettes,but stopping agents charging tenants letting fee will only increase rents.

From: Keith pattinson 08 June 2015 19:17 PM

Breaking News