Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
macca13

Do renters pay twice?

Recommended Posts

So it occurred to me that since the tax payer bailed the banks, and the term funding scheme lends money to banks against tax payer debt at near 0% interest rates. 

The renter is not only paying the mortgage, but will also be clobbered by the debt from all the money given to the banks.. that same debt is the money the BTL investors are using to mortgage all their properties.

so in years to come if you ever do get a house, you will still be paying for the BTL record low interest rates through higher taxes and poorer services?

its unbelievable what scum these bankers and MP’s are! ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, macca13 said:

So it occurred to me that since the tax payer bailed the banks, and the term funding scheme lends money to banks against tax payer debt at near 0% interest rates. 

The renter is not only paying the mortgage, but will also be clobbered by the debt from all the money given to the banks.. that same debt is the money the BTL investors are using to mortgage all their properties.

so in years to come if you ever do get a house, you will still be paying for the BTL record low interest rates through higher taxes and poorer services?

its unbelievable what scum these bankers and MP’s are! ?

I think most of us here would agree with this.  When house buyers are 'underwater' (as they put it in the US) we are supposed to feel concern for the poor dears...hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dougless said:

I think most of us here would agree with this.  When house buyers are 'underwater' (as they put it in the US) we are supposed to feel concern for the poor dears...hmmm.

You hardly ever hear about the poor buggers outbid.

Its calmed down now (because it has become obvious now) but numerous times my kids and wife have placed pressure on me to just pay whatever it takes etc  rows/stress/tears the lot.

I can only empathise for others less fortunate.

Buyers are often geniuses on the way up victims on the way down.

Edited by Fromage Frais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, macca13 said:

So it occurred to me that since the tax payer bailed the banks, and the term funding scheme lends money to banks against tax payer debt at near 0% interest rates. 

The renter is not only paying the mortgage, but will also be clobbered by the debt from all the money given to the banks.. that same debt is the money the BTL investors are using to mortgage all their properties.

so in years to come if you ever do get a house, you will still be paying for the BTL record low interest rates through higher taxes and poorer services?

its unbelievable what scum these bankers and MP’s are! ?

If it you put it that way, then its 3x if you also include the zero interest on savings that is bailing out home "owners" with low mortgage rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, macca13 said:

So it occurred to me...

It's worse than that.

Private tenants pay to cover the actual cost of rental provision. Again to cover the land monopoly surcharge collected by landlords or banks. Again in general taxation/existence to maintain landowner right of exlusion above their own rights to shelter. Again when it gets specifically bailed out/in to keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neverwhere bossed this topic for me, in the past.

On 07/09/2015 at 6:52 PM, Neverwhere said:

....

On homeownerism working homeowners are not net subsidised. It's specifically non-working homeowners and non-working landowners that are net subsidised. The net position is important because land rights require money to enforce, and surrounding value-adding infrastructure requires money to build, so where you have uncompensated for land rights you have to look at where the balance of taxation has been shifted instead because that compensation still needs to be paid and so somebody is paying it in lieu of the landowners. Currently workers and businesses are picking up the tab via taxes on labour and productivity. This means that many working homeowners and working prospective homeowners (for whom the situation is significantly worse if they are renting) are already effectively compensating for their own land use and then paying additional tax on top of that to compensate for the land use of unproductive others.

Uncompensated land rights are bad for society, and that does cover all land ownership, but to say that even non-working homeownerism is just as bad as landlordism is wholly wrong. If there were no state enforced property laws then people would still have to live somewhere and so they would still have homes - they would just have to defend them rather than relying on the state to defend them.

Homeownerism is the natural state, the thing which we evolved to do - shelter ourselves and our families. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that impulses.

Landlordism, on the other hand, causes insecurity of shelter and all of the associated social ills that go with that and effectively imposes a greater burden of taxation on renters than on any other sector of society as their taxes effectively compensate for land rights and yet they have no free access to land and must pay for a second time in order to shelter themselves.

Everyone should have the opportunity to have security of shelter and the best way to achieve that would be through compensated property rights, a removal of all taxes on income and productivity, and widespread homeownership. Maybe those first two are pipe dreams but they are worth arguing for, and in the meantime we can at least practically shoot for the last one: housepricecrash!

Quote

 

Winston Churchill
Speech made to the House of Commons
on May 4, 1909. 

PDF: http://www.grundskyld.dk/pdf/Winston-Churchill-Land-Monopoly.pdf

...[snip]Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric
light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred
miles off in the mountains -- and all the while the landlord sits still.
Every one of those improvements is effected by the labor and cost of
other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements
does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet
by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders
no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general
welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own
enrichment is derived. [/snip]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Venger said:

Neverwhere bossed this topic for me, in the past.

Ho-moanerism is the natural state, the thing we evolved to do?

That's an interesting perspective on reproductive heritability but the last time I looked the Germans were managing pretty well with their rental housing model. Squeezing the private sector out of the market is probably the key to their success and I'd argue we should be doing the same over here.

https://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Ho-moanerism is the natural state, the thing we evolved to do?

That's an interesting perspective on reproductive heritability but the last time I looked the Germans were managing pretty well with their rental housing model. Squeezing the private sector out of the market is probably the key to their success and I'd argue we should be doing the same over here.

https://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/

The point Neverwhere makes about how renters pay more is fully correct imo - in the BTL landlordism.

You make a good point zugzwang - and in a way I know my mindstate has been deeply affected by events (BTLers/Gov) of so many years we've hoped some sense would finally prevail.  

If I could trust Government but they've been so involved in creating the housing mess of today... celebrating HPI+++++++++++/allowing BTLers to extremes.   BTL with all its insecurity of tenure... other people lording it over you... the power.   I don't trust Government with housing, whatsoever.   

It would be decades before we could switch to a rental model imo.   And I don't want to live in a featureless apartment block the state throws up.   No one is going to give their home up to the state to become renter.   Indeed some argue for mortgages to be wiped out, and renter-savers to lose all their hard earned deposit in a reset - 'to begin again'.     

Homeownership for me - but not at any mad price, and not with the BTLers still in reap-the-rent positions.   Also I like the idea of also being free from the state (even in a far improved rental situation/Germany or Spain - vs UK).  Being able to make adjustments to the property as one sees fit (choice of front door etc) rather than relying on state.

And my guess is there are sharp differences in circumstances across Germany (although they don't seem to have as much 'BTL' as us - private-landlord to working fool)...

Quote

 

 

In a move designed to win over younger voters, May has imposed punitive taxation on landlords, cutting one of the life-lines of UK real estate and driving many out of the market. 

 

 

...if only.

Quote

 

What annoys many people is rachman - like many in London - are literally lottery winners. (Being given £1-1.5 million pounds for nothing can most definitely be classed as a lottery win) - (HPI++++++++++)

And are not even cashing it in !!

There is also the belief that they are somehow deserving of it - which is ********.

 

Quote

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-housing/londons-housing-market-stalls-time-to-buckle-up-idUKKBN1CB0PS

Valentino said he bought his house in the early 1990s for £175,000

Valentino, a 59-year-old businessman, lowered the price of his four-bedroom house by £75,000 pounds [from £935,000] to £860,000 but still found no takers.

For now, Valentino is sticking with his plan to sell but he balked at his estate agent’s advice to drop the price a second time.

“Too low,” he said. “We will probably wait and hope things get better.”

“Too low,” he said. “We will probably wait and hope things get better.”

 

 

Quote

goldbug999

Its not envy its basic economics, we are perfectly entitled to welcome a shift of wealth back in the direction of the non-property owner.

When someone celebrates their house goes up in value they don't get castigated as wishing ill fortune on others but ... that is exactly what they are doing in reality since their increasing equity is funded by someone else's debt. What we are doing is no different.

I think its entirely reasonably that someone in the top %5 of the income bracket has aspirations beyond living in a ex mill workers 2 up 2 down slum.

Quote

 

On 03/10/2017 at 3:51 PM, janch said It's time for a re-set..........assets should be taxed more and employment taxes lowered.  I've thought this for a long time.   Maybe I'm turning socialist even though I've never voted for them all my life.

On 03/10/2017 at 4:23 PM, Freki saidYou are more likely turning in a capitalist by saying productive forces should be taxed less than non productive assets.

Once again, we don't live in a free market country. Nor is sensible regulations applied.

 

Quote

A smart barrister posted this below on a forum some time ago, and I put it in a Word file to refer to in the future.
-----

"An Englishman's home is his castle"

The idea was first stated in Elizabeth I's reign, in a case called Sendil's Case (1585) 7 Co Rep 6a.


And 20 years later comes this phrase

The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.

It's from Semayne's case (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a.

Or, as the Earl of Chatham put it in the next century:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way the renter pays is having the identical council tax as somebody who actually owns their own property, therefore ensuring there is no real tax on ownership or appreciation of the actual asset. The renters council tax may have paid for a local tram link or such, pushing up property prices, yet all they get in return is a higher rent.  Also by having low taxation on property (by historical and international levels), taxation is disproportionately loaded on to income and vat, with the latter disproportionately paid by the poor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, macca13 said:

So it occurred to me that since the tax payer bailed the banks, and the term funding scheme lends money to banks against tax payer debt at near 0% interest rates. 

The renter is not only paying the mortgage, but will also be clobbered by the debt from all the money given to the banks.. that same debt is the money the BTL investors are using to mortgage all their properties.

so in years to come if you ever do get a house, you will still be paying for the BTL record low interest rates through higher taxes and poorer services?

its unbelievable what scum these bankers and MP’s are! ?

Its unbelievable what scum trolls will post these days.

 

Is some one trying to spread disinformation, are you people getting paid to spout this pi#h?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Ho-moanerism is the natural state, the thing we evolved to do?

That's an interesting perspective on reproductive heritability but the last time I looked the Germans were managing pretty well with their rental housing model. Squeezing the private sector out of the market is probably the key to their success and I'd argue we should be doing the same over here.

https://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/

That’s fine but the problem I see is generation rent retire in abject poverty.. will pensions cover the cost of rent? I think not! 

Current housing cost to the tax payer.. £25 billion per year and rising.. when the generation rent come to retire? £100 billion in topups? Mass homelessness? Where does it lead us with current interest rates destroying savings, and rents outstripping any pension anyone could hope to receive.. what about care homes, funerals, health care? 

I think generation rent is more than just a problem, I think it’s a humanitarian disaster! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~£26bn a year in housing benefit flowing from the treasury with a share sticking to the grubby mittens of the BTLers who pass the lion's share onto the banks. 

By being a productive non-claiming generation rent worker, you are subsidising the means of your exclusion.

You are also being priced out of participation in many forms of business. Try starting a business needing a commercial premesis to operate without the means to own one, and you'll soon find this out. A modest retail unit currently operating as a cafe at the crap end of the high street in my run down Midlands home town was up for £40,000 a year to rent recently. The owner employs nobody and adds no value, yet assuredly earns more than anybody operating it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, disenfranchised said:

~£26bn a year in housing benefit flowing from the treasury with a share sticking to the grubby mittens of the BTLers who pass the lion's share onto the banks. 

Government will spend £26 billion on housing benefit this year. 3 times what we spend on roads, £8 billion more than the entire police budget and close to what we spend every year on educating more than four million pupils in 20,000 primary schools.

its worse than just BTL steeling houses, they are steeling public services that effect us all, including them! If they ever get attacked in the street, burgled, require hospital treatment.. I bet they would be the first to complain about colapsing services, whilst taking the money away that those services so desperately need to enrich themselves.. 

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.

  • 406 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.