How to keep house prices low for generations to come

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Mmm because they're in to benefit the tenants aren't they...

Wakey wakey

I'd call having a roof over your head quite a big benefit wouldn't you?

Of course the landlord also benefits, as does the letting agent, the electrician, the plumber, the handyman...

Think you need to wake up to economic reality.

Or do you think your boss/employer is a blood sucking vampire as well? If they don't make a profit how long do you think your job will last?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OhReally

I'd call having a roof over your head quite a big benefit wouldn't you?

Of course the landlord also benefits, as does the letting agent, the electrician, the plumber, the handyman...

Think you need to wake up to economic reality.

Or do you think your boss/employer is a blood sucking vampire as well? If they don't make a profit how long do you think your job will last?

Depends, if that roof is on a house, that is warm & secure, not filled with damp, doesn't make you ill then yes, I'd agree.

I work for an employer that whilst they expect long hours and hard work, pay very very good wages with fantastic employee benefits. They also firmly believe in training and retaining their staff.

Compare that perhaps to a 0hrs contract where you have to come in early before your shift and not get paid for it

One is fair, one is exploitation.

Just because the former is rarer, it doesn't make the latter any more justifiable.

I

[Taf]

Originally Posted by OhReally

Of course the landlord also benefits, as does the letting agent, the electrician, the plumber, the handyman...

All at cost to the taxpayer if full housing benefit is being claimed by the tenant. A free house at the end of the mortgage at no cost to the landlords.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Taf

All at cost to the taxpayer if full housing benefit is being claimed by the tenant. A free house at the end of the mortgage at no cost to the landlords.

And what he said...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Taf

All at cost to the taxpayer if full housing benefit is being claimed by the tenant. A free house at the end of the mortgage at no cost to the landlords.

So the alternative to that is not to allow private landlords to have tennants who are on housing benefit.

Local councils would then have to house them in B&B at a greater cost to the community.

Your call Taf.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

So the alternative to that is not to allow private landlords to have tennants who are on housing benefit.

Local councils would then have to house them in B&B at a greater cost to the community.

Your call Taf.

You could potentially argue that with the cap in housing benefits private landlords wont have tenants who are on housing benefit anyway due to them being unable to afford the rent in the first place.

[pip08456]

Not all Landlords are that bad. I live in an MOD where one tennant is on HB. The Landlord understands his plight and does not ask him for the extra as he knows he can't afford it.

I must admit he is one of the few that would do that though.

[Taf]

B2L has been a great inflationary measure pushing the cost of "affordable housing" out of reach or many, if not most buyers.

And HMG is very aware of this, hence all the changes to Housing Benefit to try to curb the inflationary increases in rents in the B2L sector. And perhaps to make it less and less attractive to "investors" who aren't "investing" anything apart from their own self interests.

[tweetiepooh]

It is a complex situation.
Do you punish the "normal" person who has invested in a property to provide income? Or to help a family member or friend?
Do you punish people who have invested in their property to get/help a price increase. This may be decades of "investment". And lots of money.

If all prices fell evenly then it makes it easy to move up and the differences also fall but it would hit those who are moving down. It would also hit those with large mortgages put into negative equity. They can't now sell off to pay the debt and start again.

We "know" who we want to hit but how do you frame that in a way that is specific and difficult to avoid?

[mariajones4389]

Originally Posted by Taf

The only way to stop the growth of the bubble would be to build more homes than were required. And with the present demand that would take a building revolution which we are always told is "planned" but never happens.

Oh, and make buy-to-let a lot less easy and lucrative for the vultures.

totally agree with the first part. but about the second there is an alternative - to make property less attractive asset for foreign investors (chinese particularly) to decrease demand

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

You could potentially argue that with the cap in housing benefits private landlords wont have tenants who are on housing benefit anyway due to them being unable to afford the rent in the first place.

Landlords have bills to pay the same as everyone else, including you. If HB doesn't cover the bills, the tenants get evicted, simple economics. If not house gets repossessed and they still get evicted, this time though the letting agent et al have also now lost income.

Everyone loses.

You still don't get it do you?

Let's put it this way, your wages also support - council workers, Tesco staff, petrol station attendant etc, do you get it yet?

I know, how about the government caps your wages and gives it to someone else more deserving, you clearly will have no problem with that will you?

Thought not.

I'd like something done about 'tourist' investors like the Russians and Chinese who purchase housing and never ever let it out to anyone..

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'd like something done about 'tourist' investors like the Russians and Chinese who purchase housing and never ever let it out to anyone..

Why would they rent it out? They won't get paid, the place will be trashed, and you can't get rid of them. Then there is all the expense and hassle of dealing with the rules and regulations.

[Osem]

Is it any surprise that housing has, for many, become an investment given that their pensions have turned to dust, the stock market is very risky and hard earned savings pay virtually nothing in interest and are being eroded by inflation? What are these people supposed to do? They're not all **** bag landlords and multi-millionaire property developers. Far from it.

IMHO not many people would bother being landlords if they could get any sort of return anywhere else. It's a whole lot of hassle and not without considerable financial risk for those unlucky enough to have tenants who exploit the system to their own benefit e.g. sub letting, failing to pay the rent, refusing to vacate, damaging the property etc. etc. etc.

[pip08456]