Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Yes, They Going After Rents!


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

95% of the cost of everything is rent.

Bread = bakers rent + rent of man who delivered flour + millers rent + rent of man who delivered flour + farmers rent.

Even if each of those only pays 25% of their income in rent, that makes rent 25% of the direct cost of bread.

But here's the catch... it's cyclical. Everything else the baker spends his money will include a portion of rent... and everything else the people the baker buys stuff from spend their money on will be 25% direct rent.

Ultimately 99% of the cost of everything is pure rent/land costs.

The recovery depends on lower rents....mortgage interest rates have fallen for the buyers, now is the time for private rents to fall inline, the state cannot afford to pay the going rate, the rate is not realistic in this economic climate....the poor cannot keep subsidising the rich landlords and rich co directors that get their employees on the cheap on the back of public subsidies. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Without a massive massive drop in rents many people have no point in working. Something needs to happen.

I

no that is my point, rents need to drop so there is a point in working, however the tone of this thread and this site is that people on benefits have no intention of working and there is an awful lot of glee on this thread about the suffering the housing benefits cuts are going to cause people.

What would be more constructive would be for us all to agree that these benefit are cuts needed and benefical for rthe reasons mentioned above, but there must be some protection for those who are going to be affected

e.g. anyone who is going to subject to these changes, should be allowed to stay in their homes for an extra year after the changes but at the new rent levels and this is enforced on the landlords. Thus those who have benefitted from the crazy LHA system pick up the tab for some of it.

The point of this site, is that there is a lot of us here because of unfairness of our society, however there are too many people who despite suffering from this unfairness are still willing to sh!t on others who are less fortunate. Thats makes me think that a lot people here are wouldn't give two hoots about people like themselves if the boot was on the other foot. Maybe a lot of people on this board deserve to be here :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444

National Housing Federation quoted in the article:

"The cuts would hit Britain's 200,000 single, childless claimants hardest. Someone in London with a weekly rent of £350 would see their benefit cut by £35. The NHF said tenants would be forced to make up the shortfall from their £65.45 weekly allowance, leaving just £30.45 for food, clothing and energy."

How many single, childless people are renting places on HB for £350 a week (about £1500 per month)? Somewhere close to zero I would imagine.

A single, childless person in London paying £350 a week in rent would be able to afford a one bed flat in SW1, somewhere like Westminster or Pimlico. You can also rent a studio flat in Knightsbridge for that kind of money.

In fact, you can rent this: a studio flat on Jermyn Street in St James for £350 a week.

These are seriously prestigious addresses, right in the heart of some of the most expensive areas of London. The idea that taxpayers should pay for a single unemployed person to live somewhere like this is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

If low incomes weren't topped up with HB, the employers would have to either do without workers or pay higher wages.

Personally, I think it would be a very good idea for taxpayers to stop subsidising employers.

And tax credits .... they've been keeping wages low for a few years now. If you're in full-time work, sitting next to somebody doing the same job who then leaves to pop out some sprogs, they then return for 16 hours/week, you'll probably find you're flogging yourself doing all kinds of unpaid overtime and covering their job when they're not around ... and they're now taking home a LOT more than you are. Grinds you down it does, makes you stop bothering.

Loads of jobs have gone this way, employers keeping wages as low as they can, taking on part-timers and people who get tax credits top ups. If you don't quite qualify for them (by £1) then you're doomed to a poor life. Where did all the £17-23k jobs go>>>>> they became £13-15k jobs.

Edited by ScaredEitherWay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

And tax credits .... they've been keeping wages low for a few years now. If you're in full-time work, sitting next to somebody doing the same job who then leaves to pop out some sprogs, they then return for 16 hours/week, you'll probably find you're flogging yourself doing all kinds of unpaid overtime and covering their job when they're not around ... and they're now taking home a LOT more than you are. Grinds you down it does, makes you stop bothering.

Loads of jobs have gone this way, employers keeping wages as low as they can, taking on part-timers and people who get tax credits top ups. If you don't quite qualify for them (by £1) then you're doomed to a poor life. Where did all the £17-23k jobs go>>>>> they became £13-15k jobs.

Don't paint someone as lazy or grasping because they are caught in the trap of tax credits. I offered one of my staff extra hours but when she worked it out she realised would be losing money because of extra child care and loss of tax creidt. She wanted to increase her hours but it was daft to do it and lose money. I had to agree with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Me too.

British journalism, like British football and British everything else.

3rd rate dross

Not overgeneralising there a touch? I mean for starters, almost everyone on this site is British, so you've basically just insulted everyone here together with everything they have written on this site.

I'm also guessing you haven't carried out a thorough and independant review of the media of the world's other 100 or so countries in order to ascertain that Britain's is "third rate"

Yes this article is not amazing, yes the England football team didn't do very well at the World Cup. Please do not tar all 60 million of us with the same brush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

They are going to destroy this country, you can't all of a sudden reduce HB by huge amounts, it has to been done slowly. what they are doing is mostly likely going to destroy both families and landlords, which means banking crisis 2. BC2 will be much worse than BC1 and will last longer. what they need to be thinking is how do we reduce the cost of housing, well build more as you cut.

This is the tories version of social engineering, get the poor out of good areas into run down areas, while the upper middle class enjoy their new social engineer areas.

The tories are finished they'll never gain power again this way.

100% Right. The Tories plans are wreckless and will turn this country into republican America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410

Don't paint someone as lazy or grasping because they are caught in the trap of tax credits. I offered one of my staff extra hours but when she worked it out she realised would be losing money because of extra child care and loss of tax creidt. She wanted to increase her hours but it was daft to do it and lose money. I had to agree with her.

That's exactly the kind of scenario we hope (and expect) messrs DrunkenSmith and Field to do something about ...

Positive incentives to work - at all levels - will do more for the economy than any kind of social engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Don't paint someone as lazy or grasping because they are caught in the trap of tax credits. I offered one of my staff extra hours but when she worked it out she realised would be losing money because of extra child care and loss of tax creidt. She wanted to increase her hours but it was daft to do it and lose money. I had to agree with her.

You invented lazy/grasping, I never said that.

I pointed out that tax credits have changed wages.

In your scenario, if tax credits hadn't been so generous she'd have taken the extra hours because she'd have seen it all as more money. If you'd employed somebody who didn't claim tax credits, they'd have done it.

People on tax credits don't see the extra money for what it is, they also then look at how much tax credits they'll be losing. People who don't get tax credits just see the extra money. If you're paying her £6/hour and she loses £5 tax credits, she'll see she's working for £1. If you're paying me £6/hour then I lose nothing and so I see I'm working for £6... THEN I tell you to go multiply because the rate's not worth me giving up more of my time for :)

Edited by ScaredEitherWay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

Sounds like a vote winner to me. Personally the "poor" (by which most people seem to mean benefit scum) should not have the vote anyway. No representation without taxation.

I agree with this. We can't continue to allow bribing of non-productive (or negatively productive) people to win votes at the detrement of the best interests of the country. With the number we have on welfare now, anyone who tries to administer the bad medicine that this coutnry so badly needs will get voted out at the next election. Then it'll be 'here we go again'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

There is a lot of hypocrits on this thread, you all complain about high housing costs wether rented or buying. Dont some of you realise that some people living in a £1500 a week really dont have a choice about working if they are unskilled and not able to earn more than the national minimun wage.

Some of these people are just like us, except the difference between them and us is that cost of housing and limited wage earning ability means that working is not even an option for them at the moment.

Another point people here need to consider, is that if housing benefit is suddenly cut and people are left with a shortfall is that we will get a rise in crime when people get desperate, and I personally wont condemn anyone is who goes out on the rob if suddenly they are having to spend there non LHA benefit money to top up their rent.

If they are unskilled and are not able to earn more than the national minimum wage, why the hell are they living in a place that costs £1500 per week? Insane. For example, we often see rents isn London Zone 2 mentioned here as some sort of yardstick bu no one needs to live in Zone 2. They might want to, it might be convenient but no one needs to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415

No it didn't. It doesn't matter who owns the subsidised housing the problem is that it is being subsidised and these days to too great an extent in terms of numbers of people and how much they are receiving.

Nope

The above would be true if landlords in the uk only collected payment for the services they provided tenants; as it stands howerver, landlords in the uk mostly collect payment for the monoply power (land location) they hold. So, at the moment, if subsidised housing Is government owned only the tenant is being subsidised, but if its is landlord owned both the tenant and landlord are being susidised.

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

Nope

The above would be true if landlords in the uk only collected payment for the services they provided tenants; as it stands howerver, landlords in the uk mostly collect payment for the monoply power (land location) they hold. So, at the moment, if subsidised housing Is government owned only the tenant is being subsidised, but if its is landlord owned both the tenant and landlord are being susidised.

The cost of the rent on a council house *and* the costs of producing and maintaining the council house need to be met by someone. They do not get built for free.

Occupying the land and securing it for the means of accommodation is one of the services a landlord, council or private, provides. It may be reduced in the case of council houses because the land was probably acquired when it was very cheap, the interest rates councils pay if they borrow to build properties will be lower and there should be no profit motive on the construction of the property but, really there is no magic difference between private and public.

What matters is who is paying these costs and in more cases than we can afford it is not the tenant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

The cost of the rent on a council house *and* the costs of producing and maintaining the council house need to be met by someone. They do not get built for free.

I agree - but as i said, most of the payment from tenants to landlords presently is not for this service

As a result, if the goverrnment takes on the cost of providing and maintaining the houses a considerable saving is made because only the cost of providing the houses has to be borne by the taxpayer

Occupying the land and securing it for the means of accommodation is one of the services a landlord, council or private,

Ocuppying land is not a service and the landlord does not provide security of the land for the tenant, the uk government does

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

The whole ponzi was propped up by HB. These changes aren’t going to happen till April 2013, surely they should start soon and be phased in? Could the long lead time be politically motivated?

I think that a lot of people would agree now that the policy selling off council houses has contributed to the rising cost of housing in both the private sector and through HB, in the public sector. I wonder what Nulabour have done with their policy of PFI that we’ll be regretting in future?

I’ve often felt that state ownership of some industries is not necessarily a bad thing whilst retaining the power to contract the management out. If the policy of selling off social housing hadn't been implemented I wonder how the country would be today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

The whole ponzi was propped up by HB. These changes aren't going to happen till April 2013, surely they should start soon and be phased in? Could the long lead time be politically motivated?

flippin eck - good point

this prob IS politically motivated - gotta take on public sector unions over pensions first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

The cost of the rent on a council house *and* the costs of producing and maintaining the council house need to be met by someone. They do not get built for free.

Occupying the land and securing it for the means of accommodation is one of the services a landlord, council or private, provides. It may be reduced in the case of council houses because the land was probably acquired when it was very cheap, the interest rates councils pay if they borrow to build properties will be lower and there should be no profit motive on the construction of the property but, really there is no magic difference between private and public.

What matters is who is paying these costs and in more cases than we can afford it is not the tenant.

No there's no 'magical difference' between a house bought by a btl'er a couple of years ago and a home such as mine built in 1953 for 1,100 on commom land. The difference is plainly massive though. Only tiny numbers of houses have been built over the last 40 years and the average property is around 50 years old. Chalk and cheese really, no need to pay over and over again for the services of long dead brickies....etc.

Interestingly enough our LA looks like it will buy its council properties from the government for an average price of 35k rather than paying half of our rents and 75% of RTB sales to central government as at present. How they arrived at the 35k figure is anyones guess.

As for repairs these are few and far between of course, a large part of our rent is used for other purposes, no doubt a good deal goes on PS pensions. Anyway, council housing will end sometime, (rigged) market rates must be paid finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

I think you under estimate the amount of people who are sick of lazy blood sucking parasytic claimants. Claiming is a lifestyle choice, if the To ries change this 'lifestyle' for good they will be in power for a significant period of time imho.

If it were only this you may be right. However, what will keep the Tories in opposition for a generation will be things like cutting living standards, pensions,transport infrastructure,education,defence,policing etc etc which will result in the already cr@p lifestyles of the average UK citizen becoming even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

No there's no 'magical difference' between a house bought by a btl'er a couple of years ago and a home such as mine built in 1953 for 1,100 on commom land. The difference is plainly massive though. Only tiny numbers of houses have been built over the last 40 years and the average property is around 50 years old. Chalk and cheese really, no need to pay over and over again for the services of long dead brickies....etc.

Thanks for making my point, CD. The council house sell-off ended the economic but low rents.

One might suppose that HPI has forced rents ever upwards up far more than subsidies, since there is a clear correlation between purchase price or property loan to economic rent.

Amongst all the 'scrounger scum' and 'landlord scum' bigotry here, I haven't seen any stats or math to prove that HB has skewed the market more than HPI, nor to what extent. Benefits are often small in relation to the rental and only 'up to' a maximum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

The large majority of private sector landlords refuse to rent to LHA claimants anyway, and/or are prevented from doing so by the conditions of their BTL mortgage. There are some landlords who specialise in LHA tenants, and in my experience they tend to be at the rubbish end of the market, charging high rents and not spending a penny on maintenance. Their business model, if you want to dignify what is basically racketeering, will be damaged by this change, and they may be forced to improve their properties to find working tenants if they feel the new LHA limits are too low, or just accept lower rents and do even less maintenance, or start adding on all sorts of spurious charges. Here's hoping that councils will use their powers for a change to crack down on these people, who give the majority of good landlords a bad name, just as LHA fraudsters and professional property-trashers give LHA tenants a bad name.

Overall I think this is a good move as it will reduce excessive rent claims and some of the potential for fraud, for example where tenant and landlord connive to claim a high rent and share the proceeds. It will also save the country a fortune and stop LHA claimants living in fancy properties that it should not be the State's business to subsidise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

One might suppose that HPI has forced rents ever upwards up far more than subsidies, since there is a clear correlation between purchase price or property loan to economic rent.

no there isn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information