Get live statistics and analysis of Moving Home with Charlie's profile on X / Twitter

“A tipping point has been reached. People can’t believe how much central London prices have fallen”. Agent didn’t want to put offer forward. But he insisted. Listen.

No. I don’t believe it. It’s a wind up. What?? The Councillor who let Reeves off for being an unlicensed landlord was, himself, an unlicensed landlord and has had to resign his position. Someone please make it stop!

£3,170 is the monthly take home for someone earning £47,000. Basically £100 a day to cover rent/mortgage, commuting, food, energy, insurance etc, and apparently you're 'rich' and should be taxed more. I can't believe they're going to do this.

So true it’s not funny any more.

It is terrifying how many people have absolutely zero understanding of where jobs and prosperity come from. If you work for a private company you only have a salary, a way to pay for your life, because someone took a risk to start it. That’s an irrefutable fact. So why do so many people hate the people who create these jobs, to the point they want them destroyed?

Don’t want Taylor Wimpey to feel left out of the bad quality new homes party.

There is a very serious point about Rachel Reeves being an unlicensed landlord. It is a Landlord's own responsibility to abide by the rules. The liability rests with a landlord for breaches of landlord law. Agents have other liabilities they are responsible for, but this isn't one. "Inadvertently" is meaningless. The law was broken. That she thinks, even for one moment, that the law doesn't apply to her, and that an apology is enough for her to be absolved, when ALL other landlords would be fined, is deeply egregious. And that's before we remember how she (rightly) lectured other politicians on rule avoidance. It's tone deaf. It's patronising, it's insulting and above all, it's a gross dereliction of her position as a leader of the government that imposes the laws on us. There are absolutely no circumstances under which it's acceptable for her to stay in post. Keir Starmer may end up also having to resign for having tried to pardon and absolve her, a power he does not have. Any minister, of any party, no matter how successful in their job, has only one option when they break the law that others are punished for. Resign immediately. Anything else says "it's ok for some people to break the rules and get away with it." This is arguably more serious than the situation Angela Rayner resigned for. Not paying tax due to an inadvertent error is something many people do all the time, and it's remedied by simply paying the tax. But entering into a tenancy agreement without a license, when one is required, on penalty of unlimited fines and rent repayment, is a breach of the law. It's more serious. If she doesn't resign immediately, and Starmer persists in defending her, this may hasten the fall of this entire government. The principles at stake here couldn't be more serious. If she doesn't go, we are no longer living as equals under the law. We're living in tyranny.

Persimmon. Home builder extraordinaire.

Outgoing politician speeches are often piercing and insightful. This one from July 2024 is 🎯 especially on house prices and the economy. I recommend watching, to the end.

Reeves’ old boss weighs in with another integrity reference.

I just tried listening to Starmer's speech. I had to stop. It was making me too angry. I tried employment. I worked for large companies. Insurance, Banking, Derivatives Broking. It wasn't for me. When I left (ok, got fired) to become self-employed (hence not a "working person" in Starmer's view) and my quality of life immediately improved (as a car valeter), many people turned against me out of pure envy. They didn't want to wash cars. No, they weren't willing to work that hard. They just wanted my freedoms, but weren't willing to put in the work required to get it. Some of them, between jobs, came and asked me for work. I gave it to them. It made them hate me even more. Some of them, friends whom I trusted, even stole from me. This was when I was 23 years old. I employed 16 people in a hand car wash, in Crawley station car park. For some reason that enraged those people more, as if I was doing something wrong. They were angry with me, like I had done something wrong. It's important to note that there were plenty of people, old friends, who congratulated me and wished me well, and even said "I wish I'd had the courage to do the same". It's not everyone. All I had done was choose to take a chance on myself. They were angry, because they didn't have the courage to do it. They should have been angry with themselves. They let themselves down, I didn't. Some of them tried self-employment, but half-heartedly, failed, and gave up almost immediately. That made it even worse. I failed, repeatedly, but just kept going, a little stronger and wiser each time. Eventually, at the ripe old age of 26 I got into the tech world, in property. Suddenly I was working in an office, with a team. I was the boss. I had clients, investors, money was coming in. We were changing things. We opened an office in Australia, because a big client asked us to. I found myself flying back and forth between London and Sydney, signing clients, working up to 20 hours a day, having the best time, seeing the world. At this point, employing some 40 people, some of my old friends just stopped talking to me altogether. "Who the hell does he think he is?" as though me starting a business and creating jobs was an affront to them. I could go on, you get the idea. What's my point? Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and many of the Cabinet are the kinds of people who never had the courage to start anything themselves, and deeply resent those of us who have, because we are a living reminder of their weakness of character. Now they have power, it is their time for revenge. They truly, deeply, viscerally hate free-thinking, harder-working (than employees) change-making people. It's an affront to their misguided sense of self-importance. They hate the self employed. You're not "working people". You're not a pay-rolled wage slave they can control. Plumbers? No, you're not hard working apparently. Feckless, self employed layabouts. We'll soon tax you into submission. Farmers? Hard working, obviously not. So you're completely f***ed. Successful small business people who have worked hard, saved up and invested? F*** you. Prepare to reap the rewards of bitterness and jealousy from people who believe in "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity." There are people I know who are fighting and grinding themselves into the ground in the face of ever weakening economic demand, paying wages, having no time for their families. To suggest these people aren't hard working is an egregious affront, and in today's speech, Starmer has doubled down on his use of this language. This budget is going to be a disaster. The politics of envy, enacted through a budget. [Important point: this is in no way a criticism of people who don't choose self employment. Many people choose employed careers, are fulfilled, happy and do very well, and I have many great friends who have done just that. It is only a commentary on those who are unhappy with their life choices, but not willing to do anything about it. Instead they attack anyone who makes them feel inadequate, when their inadequacies are purely of their own making.]

For those wondering why the UK government’s tax take is lowering despite taxes rising, Javier Milei explains it for you. (The Laffer Curve).

A wealth tax will, with mathematical certainty, accelerate the impoverishment of the UK. It will make everyone poorer, because the poorest will have to pay a larger share of government spending, when the wealthiest 1%, who currently cover 30% of government spending, leave.

Not a happy chappy. But a cautionary tale for those who still think there’s easy profit to be made in property. Oh and maybe someone told him the tall tale that “house prices were at record highs” because it’s in the news. 🤦🏻‍♂️

“A tipping point has been reached. People can’t believe how much central London prices have fallen”. Agent didn’t want to put offer forward. But he insisted. Listen.

It is terrifying how many people have absolutely zero understanding of where jobs and prosperity come from. If you work for a private company you only have a salary, a way to pay for your life, because someone took a risk to start it. That’s an irrefutable fact. So why do so many people hate the people who create these jobs, to the point they want them destroyed?

A highly qualified 30 year old who wants a family and a home big enough to raise one but on 2 x 6 figure incomes can’t afford one. Even If she could get a job which she now can’t.

£3,170 is the monthly take home for someone earning £47,000. Basically £100 a day to cover rent/mortgage, commuting, food, energy, insurance etc, and apparently you're 'rich' and should be taxed more. I can't believe they're going to do this.

I think she’s going to lower the VAT threshold, forcing literally millions of small businesses to start charging, and say that that’s not increasing vat.

There is a very serious point about Rachel Reeves being an unlicensed landlord. It is a Landlord's own responsibility to abide by the rules. The liability rests with a landlord for breaches of landlord law. Agents have other liabilities they are responsible for, but this isn't one. "Inadvertently" is meaningless. The law was broken. That she thinks, even for one moment, that the law doesn't apply to her, and that an apology is enough for her to be absolved, when ALL other landlords would be fined, is deeply egregious. And that's before we remember how she (rightly) lectured other politicians on rule avoidance. It's tone deaf. It's patronising, it's insulting and above all, it's a gross dereliction of her position as a leader of the government that imposes the laws on us. There are absolutely no circumstances under which it's acceptable for her to stay in post. Keir Starmer may end up also having to resign for having tried to pardon and absolve her, a power he does not have. Any minister, of any party, no matter how successful in their job, has only one option when they break the law that others are punished for. Resign immediately. Anything else says "it's ok for some people to break the rules and get away with it." This is arguably more serious than the situation Angela Rayner resigned for. Not paying tax due to an inadvertent error is something many people do all the time, and it's remedied by simply paying the tax. But entering into a tenancy agreement without a license, when one is required, on penalty of unlimited fines and rent repayment, is a breach of the law. It's more serious. If she doesn't resign immediately, and Starmer persists in defending her, this may hasten the fall of this entire government. The principles at stake here couldn't be more serious. If she doesn't go, we are no longer living as equals under the law. We're living in tyranny.

Buying a £300k home with a 50k deposit and a 30yr 5% mortgage for the balance means you need to sell it for £965,000 at the end, just to break even. Your £300k home with a £250k 5% mortgage over 30 years will actually cost you £513,000 including interest, excluding maintenance. So you won’t make any “profit” on it until its value exceeds £513,000, AND THEN you need to adjust for inflation. 30 years of inflation even at just 2% means it will need to sell at £965,000. TO BREAK EVEN. See why renting and investing might be a faster way to ownership? To determine the future value of the home needed in 30 years to break even on all costs, including the mortgage interest and accounting for 2% annual inflation, we need to calculate the total cost of the mortgage (principal plus interest), adjust it for inflation, and ensure the home’s value covers this amount plus the initial deposit, also adjusted for inflation. Step 1: Total Mortgage Costs From the previous calculation, for a £250,000 mortgage with a 5% interest rate over 30 years: •Total interest paid = £233,059 •Principal = £250,000 •Total mortgage cost = £250,000 + £233,059 = £483,059 Step 2: Adjust Total Mortgage Cost for Inflation Inflation at 2% per year over 30 years increases the future value of money. We use the future value formula for inflation: [ FV = PV \cdot (1 + i)^n ] Where: •( PV ) = present value = £483,059 •( i ) = annual inflation rate = 2% = 0.02 •( n ) = 30 years Calculate: [ (1 + 0.02)^{30} = 1.02^{30} \approx 1.811361 ] [ FV = 483,059 \cdot 1.811361 \approx 875,054 ] The inflation-adjusted total mortgage cost in 30 years is approximately £875,054. Step 3: Adjust the Initial Deposit for Inflation The initial deposit is £50,000. Adjust this for 2% inflation over 30 years: [ FV = 50,000 \cdot 1.811361 \approx 90,568 ] The inflation-adjusted value of the deposit is approximately £90,568. Step 4: Total Future Value Needed to Break Even To break even, the home’s future value must cover: •The inflation-adjusted mortgage cost (£875,054) •The inflation-adjusted deposit (£90,568) [ \text{Total future value} = 875,054 + 90,568 = 965,622 ] Step 5: Final Answer The home’s future value in 30 years needs to be approximately £965,622 to break even on all costs, including the mortgage interest and accounting for 2% annual inflation.

Don’t want Taylor Wimpey to feel left out of the bad quality new homes party.

A wealth tax will, with mathematical certainty, accelerate the impoverishment of the UK. It will make everyone poorer, because the poorest will have to pay a larger share of government spending, when the wealthiest 1%, who currently cover 30% of government spending, leave.

Persimmon. Home builder extraordinaire.

Either Gary’s not as good as maths as he thinks, or he thinks that £4 per person per month solves poverty. Or he has a different agenda.

Think of government debt like a giant shared restaurant bill we all have to pay. Every penny the government extends its overdraft, we must repay. It blows my mind how many don’t understand this. Even as the young struggle for a decent life, due to this, they don’t get it.

I just tried listening to Starmer's speech. I had to stop. It was making me too angry. I tried employment. I worked for large companies. Insurance, Banking, Derivatives Broking. It wasn't for me. When I left (ok, got fired) to become self-employed (hence not a "working person" in Starmer's view) and my quality of life immediately improved (as a car valeter), many people turned against me out of pure envy. They didn't want to wash cars. No, they weren't willing to work that hard. They just wanted my freedoms, but weren't willing to put in the work required to get it. Some of them, between jobs, came and asked me for work. I gave it to them. It made them hate me even more. Some of them, friends whom I trusted, even stole from me. This was when I was 23 years old. I employed 16 people in a hand car wash, in Crawley station car park. For some reason that enraged those people more, as if I was doing something wrong. They were angry with me, like I had done something wrong. It's important to note that there were plenty of people, old friends, who congratulated me and wished me well, and even said "I wish I'd had the courage to do the same". It's not everyone. All I had done was choose to take a chance on myself. They were angry, because they didn't have the courage to do it. They should have been angry with themselves. They let themselves down, I didn't. Some of them tried self-employment, but half-heartedly, failed, and gave up almost immediately. That made it even worse. I failed, repeatedly, but just kept going, a little stronger and wiser each time. Eventually, at the ripe old age of 26 I got into the tech world, in property. Suddenly I was working in an office, with a team. I was the boss. I had clients, investors, money was coming in. We were changing things. We opened an office in Australia, because a big client asked us to. I found myself flying back and forth between London and Sydney, signing clients, working up to 20 hours a day, having the best time, seeing the world. At this point, employing some 40 people, some of my old friends just stopped talking to me altogether. "Who the hell does he think he is?" as though me starting a business and creating jobs was an affront to them. I could go on, you get the idea. What's my point? Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and many of the Cabinet are the kinds of people who never had the courage to start anything themselves, and deeply resent those of us who have, because we are a living reminder of their weakness of character. Now they have power, it is their time for revenge. They truly, deeply, viscerally hate free-thinking, harder-working (than employees) change-making people. It's an affront to their misguided sense of self-importance. They hate the self employed. You're not "working people". You're not a pay-rolled wage slave they can control. Plumbers? No, you're not hard working apparently. Feckless, self employed layabouts. We'll soon tax you into submission. Farmers? Hard working, obviously not. So you're completely f***ed. Successful small business people who have worked hard, saved up and invested? F*** you. Prepare to reap the rewards of bitterness and jealousy from people who believe in "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity." There are people I know who are fighting and grinding themselves into the ground in the face of ever weakening economic demand, paying wages, having no time for their families. To suggest these people aren't hard working is an egregious affront, and in today's speech, Starmer has doubled down on his use of this language. This budget is going to be a disaster. The politics of envy, enacted through a budget. [Important point: this is in no way a criticism of people who don't choose self employment. Many people choose employed careers, are fulfilled, happy and do very well, and I have many great friends who have done just that. It is only a commentary on those who are unhappy with their life choices, but not willing to do anything about it. Instead they attack anyone who makes them feel inadequate, when their inadequacies are purely of their own making.]

Do you agree?