Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tired of Waiting

The Economist: " Private Landlords May Be Hurt As Much As Poor Tenants

Recommended Posts

This article by The Economist chimes with IDS interview to Andrew Marr - in both content and timing.

Looks like the government decided to come out of the closet, and admit that they want lower rents, despite the political costs of it for the Tory party - its base.

.

It's so weird that "high rents" should be seen as "good": It is BAD. BAD. BAD. For everyone. It drives up ALL OTHER PRICES.

Jeezuss -- if only people could just SEE THAT!! :angry: :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, at last, we have finally drilled it into SHERWICK's brain that this money is going to BTL landlords and not "benefit scroungers".

well paying somebody upto £2000 per month for housing when people on minimal wage (who actually work .... ) live in sh.t holes does not look very fair to me .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so weird that "high rents" should be seen as "good": It is BAD. BAD. BAD. For everyone. It drives up ALL OTHER PRICES.

Jeezuss -- if only people could just SEE THAT!! :angry: :angry:

Yep. I know. Very frustrating. <sigh>

This whole crisis was a totally self-inflicted disaster, with demand boosted by loose monetary policy and lack of regulation (LIAR LOANS! :) ), and suply blocked by planning. They all felt rich! Just for a while though, the morons! Ponzi!!!

Jeezuss! indeed!

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when a Rent Officer calculates LHA rates they are required by law to exclude rents for tenancies which are assisted or influenced by HB. Thus LHA rates are set only by reference to rents paid by non-HB tenants.

The rule is based on a fallacy - that rents paid without and HB assistance are not "affected" by HB.

Sorry but if 40% of all rents are HB assisted then there is no such thing as a rent which is unaffected by HB. If you have n properties available for rent and you inject x amount of free money into the market (by housing benefit) then simple dynamics of a largely supply-constrained market mean that rents will increase on average by x/n.

So currently average rents are inflated by housing benefit to the tune of 20bil/5mil or .....

£400 / month

:angry:

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

government should NEVER pay a private rent at all ...

they should provide only council owned cheap accommodation ... if they can not they should provide emergency tent cities or mobile houses ...

and if you check around the M25 there is a plenty space for cheap council accommodation ...

paying a private rent should be a criminal act -> total miss management of public founds ... so simple ...

Problem is they very rarley did pay private rent , we had plenty of council houses . But 30 years ago the govenment of the day ( Tory ) decided to sell them all off on the cheap to the people living in them . Don't blame anyone who bought one human nature to take up an offer like that . But then the money raised did not go back into building more , plus not enough planning permission was given to build private houses , coupled with cheap credit we have ended up where we are today.

You say that paying a private rent should be a criminal act but the people you really want to punish are the tax payers who have lost their jobs ( they did not make the policy just got shafted by it ) and force them into living in tents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone I know bought their council house for £30k discounted now rent it out to the same council for over £1k per month. :blink:

Yes could give you a few examples of that . But here is just one

Guy I worked with bought his council house with a massive discount. He lived in it for a few years and then let it and bought another house. A few years ago the council took it on a long lease and pays 3x the rent that he used to pay. That rent covers both his mortgages.

He has 3 sons in their 20's all are priced out of buying and cannot rent from the council so two pay high private sector rents and one lives at home.

He agreed that what he was allowed to do was wrong but could not pass up the oppotunity of such easy gains , he also ageeds that it is people like him who have shafted his own sons.

Edited by miko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes could give you a few examples of that . But here is just one

Guy I worked with bought his council house with a massive discount. He lived in it for a few years and then let it and bought another house. A few years ago the council took it on a long lease and pays 3x the rent that he used to pay. That rent covers both his mortgages.

He has 3 sons in their 20's all are priced out of buying and cannot rent from the council so two pay high private sector rents and one lives at home.

He agreed that what he was allowed to do was wrong but could not pass up the oppotunity of such easy gains , he also ageeds that it is people like him who have shafted his own sons.

Great post Miko. One can see both sides. The father was right in using that opportunity. The problem has been bad governance, and for decades, and from both parties. A disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes could give you a few examples of that . But here is just one

Guy I worked with bought his council house with a massive discount. He lived in it for a few years and then let it and bought another house. A few years ago the council took it on a long lease and pays 3x the rent that he used to pay. That rent covers both his mortgages.

He has 3 sons in their 20's all are priced out of buying and cannot rent from the council so two pay high private sector rents and one lives at home.

He agreed that what he was allowed to do was wrong but could not pass up the oppotunity of such easy gains , he also ageeds that it is people like him who have shafted his own sons.

That's why I'm against the right to buy. It is bad value for money for the taxpayer. It is the small scale selling off of national assets ( social housing ). All in all a cynical vote winner ( bribe ) by Thatcher that no government since wanted to cancel it because of political cost. I suspect the current government could as those affected by it probably will vote Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Thatcher sold of all the social housing but there is nothing I can find to show it.

England, Social housing sales, Right to Buy and other Council house sales

1979/80-1997/98

1,883,470 Sales 104,637 per year

1998/99-2009/10

1,387,820 Sales 115,651 per year

Labour sold it off faster than Thatcher, there was an initial spike in 1980 with the Right to Buy which fell rapidly off a cliff.

Then it gradually built from the late 1998 until collapsing in 2009.

# Table 648: Social housing sales: Local authority stock sold through right-to-buy and other council house sales by district and region MS Excel, 963 kb

This is the graph they have

Chart 676 Social housing sales: All sales of local authority stock (including transfers to Registered Providers) in England

lasales.gif

Edited by northwestsmith2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is they very rarley did pay private rent , we had plenty of council houses . But 30 years ago the govenment of the day ( Tory ) decided to sell them all off on the cheap to the people living in them . Don't blame anyone who bought one human nature to take up an offer like that . But then the money raised did not go back into building more , plus not enough planning permission was given to build private houses , coupled with cheap credit we have ended up where we are today.

You say that paying a private rent should be a criminal act but the people you really want to punish are the tax payers who have lost their jobs ( they did not make the policy just got shafted by it ) and force them into living in tents.

you can punish only 2 groups of people:

- tax payer who lost the job

- tax payer who pays the tax

there is nobody else who can generate money for HB

paying HB same price as private rent kills all incentives to work and function in the society ... this is a reason why HB costs go up, HB recipient numbers are going up, HB landlord numbers are going up, budget deficit is going up and private rents are going up ...

plus UK is running out of money (13% deficit) and your children will have to pay the debt plus interest back one day ....

the current capitalism is based on the principle that taxes are generated and capital is owned by the middle class ... we have some super rich but it is less than 1% of population ...

---------------------------------------------------------

in general the social housing should be excluded completely from the economy and should provide lower standards of living than the private rent or ownership ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Miko. One can see both sides. The father was right in using that opportunity. The problem has been bad governance, and for decades, and from both parties. A disgrace.

Agreed.

The current HB is a perfect example how the state is replacing a private renter by a subsidised never empty state money printer ... this is not economical ...

Other problem is that the quality of the social housing is too high and attracts people as the life-style ....

The social care should be a safety net and not the life-style .... the citizen should be kicked back from the state protective arm to the commercial job and rental markets ASAP ...

Only then the society will function ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

The current HB is a perfect example how the state is replacing a private renter by a subsidised never empty state money printer ... this is not economical ...

Other problem is that the quality of the social housing is too high and attracts people as the life-style ....

The social care should be a safety net and not the life-style .... the citizen should be kicked back from the state protective arm to the commercial job and rental markets ASAP ...

Only then the society will function ...

The state causes people to rent in the first place by forcing them off the enormous amounts of spare land there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state causes people to rent in the first place by forcing them off the enormous amounts of spare land there is.

Very well put.

Modern day Highland Clearances, and all over the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • 315 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.