Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

Diane Abbott Mp For Hackney On Channel 4 News Advocating Rent Controls

Recommended Posts

I saw this. Rent Control would be an interesting idea worth investigating in the current climate.

Richard Blanco, the private landlord also interviewed, opposed this saying that it would drive landlords out of the market. They would find obtaining mortgages more difficult. That would perhaps mean a greater supply of homes up for sale :unsure: and in turn more competition to drive down asking prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rent controls could work in limited circumstances

indeed, benefit caps are - for social landlords - rent controls under another name

certainly better than allowing social landlords to freely set rents and have housing benefit follow their lead - essentially given social landlords a government backed scheme to increase their returns

Some social landlords (even Fergus) make a fair point when they say that housing benefit should be paid direct to the landlord, rather than being given to the tenant and putting the onus on paying her rent on her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just about rent control. We need a major reform of the rental market to match the German model and elsewhere. Having lived in many countries, the UK model is, as with several other things, archaic and predatory. Europhile or not, some countries do things far better. We need to look, learn, and act. But I dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, rent control would be a good thing. Force the parasites out of the housing market, and get costs down for everyone.

Still, if you made a list of all the possible solutions to the housing crisis (and it would be quite a long list) this would be somewhere near the bottom.

Some social landlords (even Fergus) make a fair point when they say that housing benefit should be paid direct to the landlord...

Why is it any of the landlords business how you get your income? Is it because they are special flowers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to live in San Francisco, where they have rent control.

Here's what happened. Pothead baby boomers on disability for "mental health issues" occupied every single last rent controlled property, paying cents on the dollar in rent. As the landlords received no benefit from the property, other than as a speculative investment based on capital gains, they provided no maintenance for rental properties. Anyone with an actual job was forced to flat-share in squalid conditions, handing over 50%+ of income, in the few houses not covered by rent control. A completely dysfunctional, deeply unfair system that harmed just about everyone.

I'm completely not surprised that it would be Diane Abbott advocating such a policy. Has she grown bored with trying to instigate race riots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just about rent control. We need a major reform of the rental market to match the German model and elsewhere. Having lived in many countries, the UK model is, as with several other things, archaic and predatory. Europhile or not, some countries do things far better. We need to look, learn, and act. But I dream.

I agree......in this country they make out that renters are either lower class, stupid, poor, or have shit jobs......things need to change to make renting more secure and desirable to more people....owning a home or homes does not make anyone a better person.....get real. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't any business of the landlord's unless you prove to be a bad payer

If you prove to be a bad payer when the state is giving you the money to pay the rent with, the state should cut you out of the loop and pay the landlord directly

so, rather than over complicate the system by keeping tabs on who is a good at passing on the money the state gives them for rent to its intended destination or not, the state should simply pay the landlord directly

the state should, in effect, become the tenant

and the state should kick up a right fuss to enforce the landlord meeting her obligations re things like broken central heating etc. too

one should expect the state to be better at this than most tenants are at the hands of social landlords now

and, of course, as the rent is then guaranteed by the state, it should be viewed as lower risk by the landlord and, therefore, be a lower return than she could get from renting to a more risky private tenant

Edited by JPJPJP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it any of the landlords business how you get your income? Is it because they are special flowers?

It's money that the state gives you to have a roof over your head. If that's why you are being given it then that's what it is to be spent on so why does it need to pass through your account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to live in San Francisco, where they have rent control.

Here's what happened. Pothead baby boomers on disability for "mental health issues" occupied every single last rent controlled property, paying cents on the dollar in rent. As the landlords received no benefit from the property, other than as a speculative investment based on capital gains, they provided no maintenance for rental properties. Anyone with an actual job was forced to flat-share in squalid conditions, handing over 50%+ of income, in the few houses not covered by rent control. A completely dysfunctional, deeply unfair system that harmed just about everyone.

I'm completely not surprised that it would be Diane Abbott advocating such a policy. Has she grown bored with trying to instigate race riots?

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to live in San Francisco, where they have rent control.

Here's what happened. Pothead baby boomers on disability for "mental health issues" occupied every single last rent controlled property, paying cents on the dollar in rent. As the landlords received no benefit from the property, other than as a speculative investment based on capital gains, they provided no maintenance for rental properties. Anyone with an actual job was forced to flat-share in squalid conditions, handing over 50%+ of income, in the few houses not covered by rent control. A completely dysfunctional, deeply unfair system that harmed just about everyone.

I'm completely not surprised that it would be Diane Abbott advocating such a policy. Has she grown bored with trying to instigate race riots?

In some ways this is the exact opposite of the system that prevailed here until recently: landlords set a rent and the council set its housing benefit at a percentage of the prevailing rent in the area. Social rents led the market up in the UK whilst social rents led the market down in San Fran

Both systems fundamentally flawed

Edited by JPJPJP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to live in San Francisco, where they have rent control.

Here's what happened. Pothead baby boomers on disability for "mental health issues" occupied every single last rent controlled property, paying cents on the dollar in rent. As the landlords received no benefit from the property, other than as a speculative investment based on capital gains, they provided no maintenance for rental properties. Anyone with an actual job was forced to flat-share in squalid conditions, handing over 50%+ of income, in the few houses not covered by rent control. A completely dysfunctional, deeply unfair system that harmed just about everyone.

I'm completely not surprised that it would be Diane Abbott advocating such a policy. Has she grown bored with trying to instigate race riots?

Sounds exactly like the UK without rent controls.

Anyway, at this moment, in the UK, we almost certainly have an oversupply of rental accommodation and an under supply of owner-occupied housing.

It is likely that most of the demand for rental accommodation comes from landlords. That is, the housing market is being driven by the demand for an unearned income (or a lottery ticket) rather than the demand for accommodation, which is disgraceful.

Long-term, if we had a free-market for housing, if circumstances were different, then maybe rent controls would start to create their own problems.

We have a crisis to deal with right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's money that the state gives you to have a roof over your head. If that's why you are being given it then that's what it is to be spent on so why does it need to pass through your account?

Yes, but what has that got to do with the landlord?

If I expense a hotel (I don't), then I simply a receipt to my employer, I don't have to inform the hotel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's money that the state gives you to have a roof over your head. If that's why you are being given it then that's what it is to be spent on so why does it need to pass through your account?

Changes behaviour so the tenant is more concerned about value for money rather than 'council pays it innit.'

Works the same for landlords too who currently use the State as their debt collectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's money that the state gives you to have a roof over your head. If that's why you are being given it then that's what it is to be spent on so why does it need to pass through your account?

As an attempt to keep people accustomed to independent adult behaviour like making regular payments for the housing they occupy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes behaviour so the tenant is more concerned about value for money rather than 'council pays it innit.'

Works the same for landlords too who currently use the State as their debt collectors.

That's the theory.

In practice this means it's open to abuse.

There are lots of recorded instances of tenants signing up to Housing Association affordable rent properties (say £120 per rent) and then paying nothing for two months, losing the tenancy, but going off then into private rented with £1,000 in their pocket and then claiming HB again.

So as the council is paying the rent the council is entitled to know that it is going on rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an attempt to keep people accustomed to independent adult behaviour like making regular payments for the housing they occupy?

Have you all been on a touchy feely seminar or something?

LHA pays for rent, so make sure that's what it's paying for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but what has that got to do with the landlord?

If I expense a hotel (I don't), then I simply a receipt to my employer, I don't have to inform the hotel.

but if your employer booked you a hotel and gave you the money in advance to pay the bill and then you didn't pay the bill, what should your employer do next time a hotel stay is looming on the horizon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but if your employer booked you a hotel and gave you the money in advance to pay the bill and then you didn't pay the bill, what should your employer do next time a hotel stay is looming on the horizon?

they should sack you for misappropriating funds, just as recipients of HB should be taken to court for missapropriation.

Of course this doesnt change the fact that the missapropriation only happens because the recipient doesnt deem the benefit of the allocation to be correct. Why housing benefit exists is any landowning monopolisers guess. Diane Abbott calls for rent controls, they already exist (in the form of completely natural resource scarcity and taxpayer subsidy to access it), its just they are at the bottom of the market forcing rents up and she wants an equally retarded distortion at the top despite seeing the damage the distortion at the bottom causes.

As for HB paying to put a roof over someones head thats clearly nonsense because identical roofs in different locations receive different amounts

If a direct beneficiary deems a roof over there head to be worth 5 quid, then patently thats what its worth to them, if someone else deems it to be worth 1000 because to not accept that imprisonment/kidnap is the alternative then clearly rent controls already exist to cause that disparity

It really comes down to whether you want favellas or open space, either way is fine ias long as the state imposed gun controlled violent monopoly benefit is removed

Edited by Maria Gorska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to live in San Francisco, where they have rent control.

Here's what happened. Pothead baby boomers on disability for "mental health issues" occupied every single last rent controlled property, paying cents on the dollar in rent. As the landlords received no benefit from the property, other than as a speculative investment based on capital gains, they provided no maintenance for rental properties. Anyone with an actual job was forced to flat-share in squalid conditions, handing over 50%+ of income, in the few houses not covered by rent control. A completely dysfunctional, deeply unfair system that harmed just about everyone.

I expect Diane Abbott would be delighted with this kind of scenario.

The people in rent-controlled housing would be totally dependent on the state to keep the controls in place so people like her would have lots of power over their lives and the renters would have to keep voting for whoever promised to maintain the controls. They could introduce waiting lists and points-based schemes to make sure the kind of people Diane Abbott thinks should have rent-controlled housing would be able to get it, just as happens with council housing in London at present. She could go around campaigning against "slum landlords" about the squalid state of their properties. Labour could turn London into an electoral fortress by making it so that as many people as possible were dependent on the state for the roof over their family's heads.

She couldn't care less about the (mostly white and middle class) young professional Londoners trying to house themselves by showing up in the housing market with their wages. Well I suppose she could care less by actively disliking them, which she probably does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but if your employer booked you a hotel and gave you the money in advance to pay the bill and then you didn't pay the bill, what should your employer do next time a hotel stay is looming on the horizon?

I always pay (would always...oh anyway), so why would the company penalise me?

This isn't about 'teaching people to be independent adults' or any of that other appalling patronising 'white-man's burden' shit.

It's about making sure that landlords cannot discriminate against benefit claimants, which I'm sure you would find much more important were you to become one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you all been on a touchy feely seminar or something?

LHA pays for rent, so make sure that's what it's paying for.

Habits matter. If you do something for somebody, you shouldn't be surprised when they keep coming back to ask you to do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they should sack you for misappropriating funds, just as recipients of HB should be taken to court for missapropriation.

Of course this doesnt change the fact that the missapropriation only happens because the recipient doesnt deem the benefit of the allocation to be correct. Why housing benefit exists is any landowning monopolisers guess. Diane Abbott calls for rent controls, they already exist (in the form of completely natural resource scarcity and taxpayer subsidy to access it), its just they are at the bottom of the market forcing rents up and she wants an equally retarded distortion at the top despite seeing the damage the distortion at the bottom causes.

As for HB paying to put a roof over someones head thats clearly nonsense because identical roofs in different locations receive different amounts

If a direct beneficiary deems a roof over there head to be worth 5 quid, then patently thats what its worth to them, if someone else deems it to be worth 1000 because to not accept that imprisonment/kidnap is the alternative then clearly rent controls already exist to cause that disparity

To see the pointlessness of landlords, consider that the government could grant itself planning permission, pay the private sector to build council houses, and pay private companies to manage the housing.

All done within the private sector, but without a landlord, and without the need for anyone to pay any rent.

Rent control is a sticking-plaster solution to a terminally diseased system. However, it is still an improvement.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.