| Don't believe he has thought this one through 15:48 - May 8 with 5255 views | GlasgowBlue |
[Post edited 8 May 15:49]
|  |
| |  |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:18 - May 9 with 917 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:10 - May 9 by chicoazul |
Profit margins on food are very thin. Margins on letting houses are often enormous. We have a mostly successful food chain in this country; housing is completely broken. It’s deranged that people are charged 1.5k for rent and told they can’t afford a mortgage, it’s massively unfair they can be kicked out of the places they rent at the landlord’s whim (I appreciate this is changing slowly now). |
I feel for people trying to get a foot on the ladder or just trying to manage budgets after forking out huge rent payments. I was a relatively late entry into the housing market in 2001, but even then my first place was only about 2.5x my modest salary. It’s about 7-8x now isn’t it? Crackers and it must be having such a bad impact on a generation. |  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:29 - May 9 with 883 views | leitrimblue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:19 - May 9 by Swansea_Blue |
Time were very different in the 1860s though  |
It's shocking to hear now Swanners, but apparently he was forced to sit at the back of the bus as well.  |  | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:31 - May 9 with 875 views | BigManBlue |
It's a nice idea and all but if there's no profit, why is a landlord going to offer their property for rent. As much as privately rented accommodation is portrayed as the devil incarnate (not without fault - I lived in some awful places with greedy, uncontactable landlords) it still serves an important function in the housing market, particularly in a more mobile and transient society.
I think some of the provisions in the renters rights act are going to go some way to making the market more equitable, although the issue remains is that the cohort most in need of protection - ie people who struggle to maintain accommodation and regularly find themselves homeless or threatened with homelessness - will actually be negatively impacted (history of arrears, evictions, ASB etc) since landlords simply won't take them in the first place, shutting them out of yet another route into housing. But maybe that's a different issue.
I'm probably also in a minority here but I don't think that simply saying "more social housing" is the answer either. Having worked in local authority housing it strikes me that areas with high levels of stock generally have higher levels of deprivation and concentrate inequality, leading to it becoming entrenched and persistent.
Edit to clarify my thoughts - it's a bit "student politics" to blame the lack of affordable housing all on landlords, fundamentally house prices in the UK are too high relative to wages and this exacerbates the issue of unaffordable housing across all types of tenure, although absolutely bad landlords need to be held to account and profiteering on housing (I'd imagine I'm fortunate not to live in a big city where this kind of extortion is more prevalent) need to be clamped down on. [Post edited 9 May 11:36]
|  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:32 - May 9 with 873 views | leitrimblue |
Guess it depends on what as a nation we feel is more important. The improved wealth and equity of a few or the right of affordable quality housing for all.
It's a no brainer for me | | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:35 - May 9 with 853 views | DJR |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:29 - May 9 by leitrimblue |
It's shocking to hear now Swanners, but apparently he was forced to sit at the back of the bus as well. |
I am not sure forced is the right word.
I've always done that, and do the same in things like conferences.
And had I been on the bus a couple of years ago, I would have been sat at the back alongside Omari, Kayden and Sarmeiento. |  | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:38 - May 9 with 833 views | leitrimblue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:35 - May 9 by DJR |
I am not sure forced is the right word.
I've always done that, and do the same in things like conferences.
And had I been on the bus a couple of years ago, I would have been sat at the back alongside Omari, Kayden and Sarmeiento. |
The bundle for the back seats is 1 of the great childhood wonders. 
It's good that the cool kids like Omari, Kayden etc are still keeping it real | | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:42 - May 9 with 821 views | giant_stow |
Ive got a lot of sympathy with his point that rents are huge, but £600 a month would be a guarenteed loss* for most landlords in London. So why should any individual do that? Would some of those in thsi thread fancy losing hundreds plus per month?
The only answer is a massive programme of social house building, run by the government on a not for profit basis (cut the big house building companies out of it)
*from what I gather that would be about the same or less than council rent. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:48 - May 9 with 797 views | leitrimblue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:42 - May 9 by giant_stow |
Ive got a lot of sympathy with his point that rents are huge, but £600 a month would be a guarenteed loss* for most landlords in London. So why should any individual do that? Would some of those in thsi thread fancy losing hundreds plus per month?
The only answer is a massive programme of social house building, run by the government on a not for profit basis (cut the big house building companies out of it)
*from what I gather that would be about the same or less than council rent. |
So perhaps private rents should be capped at a similar rate to the council houses in that area?
If a couple of bods who invested in housing to rent don't make as as much as they intended so be it.
Housing for all is more important then their private wealth | | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:53 - May 9 with 776 views | giant_stow |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:48 - May 9 by leitrimblue |
So perhaps private rents should be capped at a similar rate to the council houses in that area?
If a couple of bods who invested in housing to rent don't make as as much as they intended so be it.
Housing for all is more important then their private wealth |
The only trouble is that capping ends (or even this new tenants right act) drives landlords away and reduces supply. The only answer is to move away from private landlords and head back to social provision, where profit doesn't matter. [Post edited 9 May 11:53]
| |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:55 - May 9 with 768 views | bartyg |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:31 - May 9 by BigManBlue |
It's a nice idea and all but if there's no profit, why is a landlord going to offer their property for rent. As much as privately rented accommodation is portrayed as the devil incarnate (not without fault - I lived in some awful places with greedy, uncontactable landlords) it still serves an important function in the housing market, particularly in a more mobile and transient society.
I think some of the provisions in the renters rights act are going to go some way to making the market more equitable, although the issue remains is that the cohort most in need of protection - ie people who struggle to maintain accommodation and regularly find themselves homeless or threatened with homelessness - will actually be negatively impacted (history of arrears, evictions, ASB etc) since landlords simply won't take them in the first place, shutting them out of yet another route into housing. But maybe that's a different issue.
I'm probably also in a minority here but I don't think that simply saying "more social housing" is the answer either. Having worked in local authority housing it strikes me that areas with high levels of stock generally have higher levels of deprivation and concentrate inequality, leading to it becoming entrenched and persistent.
Edit to clarify my thoughts - it's a bit "student politics" to blame the lack of affordable housing all on landlords, fundamentally house prices in the UK are too high relative to wages and this exacerbates the issue of unaffordable housing across all types of tenure, although absolutely bad landlords need to be held to account and profiteering on housing (I'd imagine I'm fortunate not to live in a big city where this kind of extortion is more prevalent) need to be clamped down on. [Post edited 9 May 11:36]
|
House prices are too high because they are viewed by too many as an investment. The solution we should be working towards is to restrict the ownership of residential property to individuals only.
And of course to be building more houses. |  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:55 - May 9 with 766 views | leitrimblue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:53 - May 9 by giant_stow |
The only trouble is that capping ends (or even this new tenants right act) drives landlords away and reduces supply. The only answer is to move away from private landlords and head back to social provision, where profit doesn't matter. [Post edited 9 May 11:53]
|
Exactly. | | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 12:04 - May 9 with 705 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:10 - May 9 by chicoazul |
Profit margins on food are very thin. Margins on letting houses are often enormous. We have a mostly successful food chain in this country; housing is completely broken. It’s deranged that people are charged 1.5k for rent and told they can’t afford a mortgage, it’s massively unfair they can be kicked out of the places they rent at the landlord’s whim (I appreciate this is changing slowly now). |
So profit is ok so long as it is not excessive? | |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 12:39 - May 9 with 656 views | chicoazul |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 12:04 - May 9 by GlasgowBlue |
So profit is ok so long as it is not excessive? |
I don’t think anyone should be making profit on rentier capitalism. The change from council houses to private equity owning and renting the same stock has been a disaster like so many stupid useless Thatcherite policies. We don’t need to build more houses, there are already plenty, and at least 70% have at least one empty bedroom, but everyone acts like there aren’t enough and want ever more built as if that is any sort of solution. The market is entirely broken.
I think all these homes should be seized and placed in council control but obviously this won’t happen because it’s a straight forward simple and good solution, so in the absence of that there needs to be much more rent control and enforcement.
Nobody should make a profit from owning houses. |  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 12:54 - May 9 with 620 views | Sarge |
I don’t think landlords should ever make so much profit that it becomes a business. Enough to cover the mortgage and a bit more yes, but fleecing renters out of everything so that they’ll never buy their own, which leaves more for the landlords to hoover up absolutely not.
I’m hoping for a work transfer abroad in the next couple of years which means I’d rent out my house when I go. I’d like at least to cover the mortgage and a little extra for eventual repairs but that’s all. People that have a ‘portfolio’ can go to hell. |  | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 13:43 - May 9 with 586 views | eireblue |
Is it still the case that people on low incomes, will get UC, some of which will be going to help with rent.
So is it the case that, tax payer money is going into private landlords pockets. |  | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 13:47 - May 9 with 579 views | NthQldITFC |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 12:39 - May 9 by chicoazul |
I don’t think anyone should be making profit on rentier capitalism. The change from council houses to private equity owning and renting the same stock has been a disaster like so many stupid useless Thatcherite policies. We don’t need to build more houses, there are already plenty, and at least 70% have at least one empty bedroom, but everyone acts like there aren’t enough and want ever more built as if that is any sort of solution. The market is entirely broken.
I think all these homes should be seized and placed in council control but obviously this won’t happen because it’s a straight forward simple and good solution, so in the absence of that there needs to be much more rent control and enforcement.
Nobody should make a profit from owning houses. |
Hear, hear. |  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 17:11 - May 9 with 507 views | StokieBlue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 02:57 - May 9 by flykickingbybgunn |
I would pay a lot of money not to live in Hackney. |
Why would that be?
SB |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 17:13 - May 9 with 504 views | StokieBlue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 07:54 - May 9 by GlasgowBlue |
So just to clarify, so I don’t misrepresent your view. Are you agreeing with him that private landlords should not make a profit? |
I haven't said anything like that anywhere in my post.
You're a capable reader so I can only assume you're once again trying to start an argument.
SB | |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 18:28 - May 9 with 454 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:42 - May 9 by giant_stow |
Ive got a lot of sympathy with his point that rents are huge, but £600 a month would be a guarenteed loss* for most landlords in London. So why should any individual do that? Would some of those in thsi thread fancy losing hundreds plus per month?
The only answer is a massive programme of social house building, run by the government on a not for profit basis (cut the big house building companies out of it)
*from what I gather that would be about the same or less than council rent. |
I think it's a bit more complex than that. Many landlords have inherited the properties they rent out (I know a couple in Harrow who inherited houses from both sets of parents and make a fortune renting them out).
Those who are BTL landlords are arguably pushing up house prices by creating more competition, so it's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy that they then need to have high rents to recover that inflated price. This feeds all the way down to land prices - land is valuable (in certain parts of the country) because the ultimate sale value of the property is valuable.
Cap rents, and property prices will likely fall as the BTL competition is removed and those making a loss will sell up and some people currently renting will be able to buy. At some point the market might correct itself, making it affordable again to buy to let at the capped rent price. |  | | |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 20:45 - May 9 with 410 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 11:02 - May 9 by Benters |
Not the people I know they are not Illegal immigrants no.
These people are playing the system.
Ashton in
Reform In. |
In what way are they playing the system and how do you know that they are doing so? Is it the tattoos or the iphones that give it away? I work with people who have both!
And, even if these people are somehow playing the system to be able to offend you by having tattoos and owning iphones, what do you think Nigel is going to do to stop it (were he ever to be given the power to try)? |  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 20:52 - May 9 with 392 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 20:45 - May 9 by Nthsuffolkblue |
In what way are they playing the system and how do you know that they are doing so? Is it the tattoos or the iphones that give it away? I work with people who have both!
And, even if these people are somehow playing the system to be able to offend you by having tattoos and owning iphones, what do you think Nigel is going to do to stop it (were he ever to be given the power to try)? |
I would further add that the one person I know and I can recall bragging about making money from benefits is someone I used to work with. He used to frequent the local pubs loudly proclaiming that he couldn't understand why people would work for a living when they could comfortably live off disability benefit like he had come to do.
The thing is, he ended up banned from all the pubs due to being unable to pay off his tabs, was in constant pain and is confined to a wheelchair. I am very confident his boasting was bravado to cover up his utter misery at the situation he found himself in. His wife certainly didn't share his loudly-proclaimed views as she worked hard to try to make ends meet. | |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 20:54 - May 9 with 389 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 10:23 - May 9 by GlasgowBlue |
No I’m not. I do sell food though, which is another basic human right. Are you advocating that people who sell food should not do so for profit?
You do remind me of a previous poster who was continually telling other posters to check their privilege. He thought he was taking the Michael but always ended up putting his foot in it. [Post edited 9 May 10:33]
|
Does your food appreciate in value every year if you don't sell it? |  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 10:16 - May 10 with 281 views | Ryorry |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 12:39 - May 9 by chicoazul |
I don’t think anyone should be making profit on rentier capitalism. The change from council houses to private equity owning and renting the same stock has been a disaster like so many stupid useless Thatcherite policies. We don’t need to build more houses, there are already plenty, and at least 70% have at least one empty bedroom, but everyone acts like there aren’t enough and want ever more built as if that is any sort of solution. The market is entirely broken.
I think all these homes should be seized and placed in council control but obviously this won’t happen because it’s a straight forward simple and good solution, so in the absence of that there needs to be much more rent control and enforcement.
Nobody should make a profit from owning houses. |
It’s nonsensical to say we don’t need to build more housing. I’m a big fan of reclaiming derelict buildings for social housing, but that would never be enough. The UK population has grown by about 10 million over the last past 25 years; added to which the increased number of divorces/family breakup has further increased demand.
One of the problems is that whilst some new builds are happening, a lot of it is from developers needing to make a profit, so 4-bed executive stuff for those already well up the ladder, not affordable to most first time buyers or young people without a bank of Mum/Dad. |  |
| |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 10:41 - May 10 with 240 views | chicoazul |
| Don't believe he has thought this one through on 10:16 - May 10 by Ryorry |
It’s nonsensical to say we don’t need to build more housing. I’m a big fan of reclaiming derelict buildings for social housing, but that would never be enough. The UK population has grown by about 10 million over the last past 25 years; added to which the increased number of divorces/family breakup has further increased demand.
One of the problems is that whilst some new builds are happening, a lot of it is from developers needing to make a profit, so 4-bed executive stuff for those already well up the ladder, not affordable to most first time buyers or young people without a bank of Mum/Dad. |
Wrong. The problem is under-occupation not a lack of houses. There are a million empty homes in England alone for eg. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
