Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

New Channel 4 Prog - THE GREAT BRITISH PROPERTY SCANDAL


Recommended Posts

Sorry 6 kids - and they did their home up for them! That'll teach 'em.

What I thought as well. Now they have a bedroom of their own they can go and make a few more. I want a new home too please. The guy looked pretty gormless but at least he had a job in a factory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Forget doubling council tax on vacant properties etc. High taxes are immoral, and methods would be worked out to avoid the tax.

Simply adopt a system of legislation similar to that in Germany, where tenants have better rights and landlords have more responsibilites. Renting is seen as a perfectly acceptable option in Germany, unlike the UK, because of their higher standards. It's the long-term solution to getting rid of the rotten UK slum-lords and BTL flippers in the UK.

But no one will say what German pensioners do when they hit retirement and then have to continue to pay rent because they don't own a home. My understanding is that German pensions are far in excess of UK contemporaries' and therefore the ongoing outgoings to pay rent are more manageable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody understand the finances behind what he did with this property? Who owns it, who is he suggesting pay for the renovations, what do the family now pay, if anything?

The figures seemed a little thin on the ground!

I guess channel 4 said they would pay for it, or half it I cannot remember. So the family will move in and pay reduced rates as it is a council house. I doubt the factory worker could afford a 6 beroom house on his wage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality very few people can afford a 6 bedroom house, but at least he works and is not an unemployed bus driver in a multi-million pound house in Maida Vale paid for by the tax paper, inc their specially delivered breakfasts ...

Still seems unfair to me, he gets hit with the lucky stick because he does not know much about contraception. Grumbingly I can accept it but you know that the net cost to the taxpayer in allowances/benefits/schooling far outweighs his contribution to society by banging peices of metal together in a factory on minimum wage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still seems unfair to me, he gets hit with the lucky stick because he does not know much about contraception. Grumbingly I can accept it but you know that the net cost to the taxpayer in allowances/benefits/schooling far outweighs his contribution to society by banging peices of metal together in a factory on minimum wage.

I think, as a grown man in this country after having one kid after another, he either does know about contraception or should know about it. No, I reckon it's a choice of his and his partner's to have 6 kids. After all, what's to stop them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was pretty funny who the council chose to live in the house. The DM readers will have loved it. From my memory it was man, wife, their 4 kids, man's sister, her 4 kids.

Which (I'm deducing) shows another ridiculous aspect of the system. I suspect that the 2 adults with 4 kids would not be at the top of housing list, but this 'artificial' family unit get to the top.

With the ex-soldier, he split up with his missus and that has created 2 'families' with entitlements to a 2 bed property. It's no wonder the housing lists are so long.

The program was one long stream of examples of why I don't want councils managing peoples housing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But no one will say what German pensioners do when they hit retirement and then have to continue to pay rent because they don't own a home. My understanding is that German pensions are far in excess of UK contemporaries' and therefore the ongoing outgoings to pay rent are more manageable.

How is that possible? Do they pay more in? Or they spend less on other things so tax money can be used to subsidise pensions? Or they are just better at investing their pension funds than we are (for private ones, not unfunded public ones)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But no one will say what German pensioners do when they hit retirement and then have to continue to pay rent because they don't own a home. My understanding is that German pensions are far in excess of UK contemporaries' and therefore the ongoing outgoings to pay rent are more manageable.

Germans save a lot more of their dosh than Brits or pretty much anyone else in Europe so there should be plenty left over for paying rent in retirement.

Also, German friends tell me that having too large a family is seen as "anti-social" in certain circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

You as well be saying that slavery would have been ok in the U.S if the slaves had better rights and the slave owners more responsibilites. Yes this would have been a better situation from the slave's perspective but it's a cowardly way of addressing the problem.

That's a specious argument at best, and a strawman analogy to boot.

I contend that a better, fairer system of regulation around residential rental property would lower demand for purchasing residential property and thus lower the price of houses. The end of the "get rich quick" BTL property wheeze would herald a return of rental property to the market, further depressing house prices. A good thing, I'm sure we all agree.

Personally I'm happy to rent if it's cheaper than the cost of an interest-only mortgage on the equivalent property. No maintenance costs, the money saved can be put into savings / pensions. The ability to rapidly up sticks and move to chase lower rents, better facilities, find better careers or a nicer environment, or just to get away from the repulsive ASBO chavs who've moved in next door at the taxpayer's expense thanks to the largesse of the local council.

There are advantages to renting - at least, in theory.

It's only because some landlords are so bloody awful that the dynamic changes: No pets, no decorations, no defecating in the back garden. Professionals only, with references and 6 months proof of earnings. After the assured shorthold tenancy period has expired you can be required to vacate the property at any time with only a mere months notice period. No standards required for insulation and energy provision. Liability uncertainties if co-tenants move out after eating vegetables from the back garden. Some greedy landlords try raising rents at an exorbitant rate. The disadvantages are numerous and have been described at length many times on this forum. I think this is, to a large extent, why so many people are prepared to take on desperately absurd amounts of debt in order to buy a property.

I don't think it's the role of government to tell financial institutions what the maximum multiple of income to be lent to prospective buyers should be, in much the same way as government shouldn't bail-out financial institutions that have lent recklessly. Both of these are hallmarks of a centrally-planned economy: History demonstrably shows that this is a very bad idea (would Ireland be in the state it's in if its government hadn't explicitly guaranteed 100% of its bank liabilities in order to stave of Northern-Rock style bank runs?)

Thus if supply of credit can't be directly influenced, then demand for property surely can, by improving tenancy regulations to address the problems listed above. Germany was one of the few countries that didn't experience ridiculous house price inflation between 1997 and 2007. Maybe that's why they also have better pension provision than the Brits - because they don't pee every last penny they have up the wall on mortage interest?

Edited by THEBIGMAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a specious argument at best, and a strawman analogy to boot.

Nope, it's an accurate statement of the economic facts. Landlordism is a form of parasitism because the owners of "property" collect payment for something they didn't have a hand in creating: the value of real estate. What you have to ask yourself is whether the total privatisation of natural resouces results in some form of slavery as the owners of real estate are handed the power to charge the landless high rentals in perpetuity (or force them into taking out gigantic mortgages) to purchase their freedom back. I would answer in the affirmative.

Regulation help may alleviate some of the social problems but it doesn't address the underlying injustice, which is a cartel of owners that demand hefty payments before anyone else is allowed to live or work.

Edited by Authoritarian
Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Spencer meets some of the homeless people worst affected by the housing crisis, and finds single men are sometimes worse off due to a severe shortage of one-bedroom accommodation. He tries to persuade the owner of a property that has been empty for years to let him renovate the building and rent it to those without a place to stay before the onset of winter. Part of the Great British Property Scandal season.

How benevolent of those he persuades - arggggggggghhhhhhhhh

and "giveaway" arggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Link to post
Share on other sites

How benevolent of those he persuades - arggggggggghhhhhhhhh

and "giveaway" arggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

We should have an empty house tax. Not only would it help solve the stupid property as an investment, keep it empty, attitude but it would also raise needed revenue for the country and who could complain? Try and give a good reason for needing to keep somewhere empty.

It works in the USA. Empty properties attract significant taxes. Why do we give allowances instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have an empty house tax. Not only would it help solve the stupid property as an investment, keep it empty, attitude but it would also raise needed revenue for the country and who could complain? Try and give a good reason for needing to keep somewhere empty.

It works in the USA. Empty properties attract significant taxes. Why do we give allowances instead?

I can see that you might keep somewhere empty for a short period but you are absolutely correct.

I bet richish people would just get people to make out they lived there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, it's an accurate statement of the economic facts. Landlordism is a form of parasitism because the owners of "property" collect payment for something they didn't have a hand in creating: the value of real estate. What you have to ask yourself is whether the total privatisation of natural resouces results in some form of slavery as the owners of real estate are handed the power to charge the landless high rentals in perpetuity (or force them into taking out gigantic mortgages) to purchase their freedom back. I would answer in the affirmative.

Regulation help may alleviate some of the social problems but it doesn't address the underlying injustice, which is a cartel of owners that demand hefty payments before anyone else is allowed to live or work.

Are you, in effect, saying "property is theft"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you, in effect, saying "property is theft"?

No, I'm saying the homeownerists have deliberately debased the word property so they can argue with a straight fact that the rightful property of others is in fact theirs. There's property and then there's land "property", which is a formed of legalised enslavement.

Edited by Authoritarian
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying the homeownerists have deliberately debased the word property so they can argue with a straight fact that the rightful property of others is in fact theirs. There's property and then there's land "property", which is a formed of legalised enslavement.

How about all housing property has a designated rentable value. It also has a land value tax, say (1% over 500k). Homeowners either pay tax on the rentable value ( regardless of whether it's rented or not) or they claim it's their main residence and pay lvt. You must be forced to pay lvt on the highest value house if you own several.

It would make no sense to own and keep empty. You could have some exemption for renovation but this should be strictly controlled and limited to a short period.

There would be some losers like asset rich widows but my thoughts on this are " feck 'em"

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying the homeownerists have deliberately debased the word property so they can argue with a straight fact that the rightful property of others is in fact theirs. There's property and then there's land "property", which is a formed of legalised enslavement.

Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I don't understand this at all. Can you justify any of these statements - back them up in any way to lend evidence to your claims?

  • What on earth is a "homeownerist"? How have they "debased the word property..."?
  • What do you mean by "There's property and then there's land 'property'"? How is "land property" a formed [sic] of legalised enslavement?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I don't understand this at all. Can you justify any of these statements - back them up in any way to lend evidence to your claims?

  • What on earth is a "homeownerist"? How have they "debased the word property..."?
  • What do you mean by "There's property and then there's land 'property'"? How is "land property" a formed [sic] of legalised enslavement?

A homeownerist is somebody that is prepared to refute facts, logic and morality with the end of protecting the housing market free for all. A surprising number of these people also class themselves as libertarians which I find particularly amusing. Socialists are easily dismissible because most of them clearly mentally ill, but I always assumed libertarians were cut from a different cloth. Big mistake.

The housing market isn't like the market for food or energy: it's an artificial legal construct. So if you grow some veg for example from a moral standpoint the veg you've grown can be classified as yours because you and only you have added it to the world. This isn't the same with the real estate because the land portion was already there before humans took it into ownership, therefore any payments from one person to another for use of the plot amounts to a transfer payment as opposed to a free market exchange of goods and services. Basically it's a liability thrust upon working people to the benefit of the landed and backed up with the force of the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be some losers like asset rich widows but my thoughts on this are " feck 'em"

If LVT replaces IHT on real-estate assets, then it ought to be pretty simple for people over retirement age to defer the LVT until their clogs are popped. On Granny's death, or when she sells up to downsize, the outstanding LVT would then need to be paid before the land can change hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A homeownerist is somebody that is prepared to refute facts, logic and morality with the end of protecting the housing market free for all. A surprising number of these people also class themselves as libertarians which I find particularly amusing. Socialists are easily dismissible because most of them clearly mentally ill, but I always assumed libertarians were cut from a different cloth. Big mistake.

I'm even more confused now. What's a "housing market free for all"? A free and open market in housing? Can't be that - that's patently nonsense; it's possibly the most distorted and manipulated market I can think of. Are BTL investors "homeownerists"? Or is this really just a, arbitrary term you've just made up and can't articulately explain? Is it really a proxy for the image of yourself, shaking your fist at the clouds and cursing the world for not conforming your subjective ideal?

The housing market isn't like the market for food or energy: it's an artificial legal construct. So if you grow some veg for example from a moral standpoint the veg you've grown can be classified as yours because you and only you have added it to the world. This isn't the same with the real estate because the land portion was already there before humans took it into ownership, therefore any payments from one person to another for use of the plot amounts to a transfer payment as opposed to a free market exchange of goods and services. Basically it's a liability thrust upon working people to the benefit of the landed and backed up with the force of the state.

So, you do believe that "property is theft". With the implicit backing of the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm even more confused now. What's a "housing market free for all"? A free and open market in housing? Can't be that - that's patently nonsense; it's possibly the most distorted and manipulated market I can think of. Are BTL investors "homeownerists"? Or is this really just a, arbitrary term you've just made up and can't articulately explain? Is it really a proxy for the image of yourself, shaking your fist at the clouds and cursing the world for not conforming your subjective ideal?

So, you do believe that "property is theft". With the implicit backing of the state.

You've bored me now. If you want to remain willfully ignorant that's your call.

Edited by Authoritarian
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I thought as well. Now they have a bedroom of their own they can go and make a few more. I want a new home too please. The guy looked pretty gormless but at least he had a job in a factory.

.....a family with six children go on to require six more houses in the future.....to whom it may concern take note.

Watching that programe I would far rather live in one of those well built solid terraced homes renovated than any new build at three times the price......for a larger home knock them through, two can become one....councils need to wake up and take note of the high demand for homes....we encouraged a higher population we have to provide for it.....people have and need to live somewhere....having kids should not be the only way out to a home of your own. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />You've bored me now. If you want to remain willfully ignorant that's your call.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

I found your adolescent screeds boring a long time ago. At least I offered you the chance to back up your rants, which you did a poor job of. I suspect you often get bored with those who don't unthinkingly accept your claims verbatim. Get used to it, nincompoop.

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.



×
×
  • 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.