:labour: New Old Labour in trouble

Reasonably serious discussion
1821

Nowhere have I said don’t bring in rent controls or better BTL regulations (in fact I support it), but you can’t do it by reducing current rents. Again, I don’t have a problem with further regulations (not allowing buy to let mortgages on new properties for example). Also, Supply and Demand hasn’t really been tried that hard now has it? We all know there is a massive house shortage. This isn’t due to BTL, it’s due to not enough housing.

But we do have issues at the moment with the amount of Buy to Let properties on the market. Decreasing rent by x% is not going to decrease the current number massively, except for those that will now default on their mortgages. Unfortunately, there are big knock on effects to this, which includes a reduction of mortgages on the market, and the regulations becoming tougher again - hence you’re then making it more difficult for people to buy these places.

Let’s not also be naive here, a lot of people who can’t afford to buy also have poor credit scores, and that holds them back in purchasing property as much as anything else.

Also, with Brexit and the uncertainty that has caused, along with low interest rates, why would someone want to invest their retirement money in this way (and for many of them it’s far too late)?

1822

The BTL problem is born out of shite interest rates - the baby boomers and now gen X are looking for investments which actually give returns and rental income does just that. If interest rates rose then the appeal of rental properties would fall. However this is not going to happen anytime soon so

1 Increase captial gains on any second home to 50%

2 Eradicate any tax relief on buy to let mortgages

3 Stamp duty of +3% on second homes was a good idea so increase it to 5%. Increase it to 10% on third homes, 15% of the next one and so on

4 No cost offset against income for tax purposes

5 Ban house ownership through companies and LLPs (except for social housing programs)

6 Maybe a social housing levy - 5% of rental income to go towards social housing builds

1 Like
1823

Can’t and won’t disagree with any of this.

1824

There isn’t really any point in rent controls if you’re not using them to reduce rents.

Honestly, Cherts - I can get why you’re miffed. You expected things to stay the same forever, and why wouldn"t you? We all kind of hope that about things that benefit us positively. We all get a rude awakening from time to time, particularly when government introduces new legislation.

What makes landlords any more worthy of protection than public service workers?

2 Likes
1825

I’m not miffed at all, as I’ve said before none of this will affect me. I’m not BTL, I charge massively below what the flat is worth (and this money goes straight into my daughters bank account), it’s not owned by me so no capital gains issues etc, and it’s worth twice what we paid for it so property values won’t be an issue.

I realise you’re trying to denigrate my opinion by saying that I’m invested in it - when I’m really not. My argument is based on my opinion of the economic outlook if we’re looking at implementing controls which will take significant money out of the economy - and no-one has even come close to arguing that it won’t happen or even challenging the main points I’ve put across.

I would suggest that if you froze rental price for 10 years then people would start to see the benefits after 4 or 5 years, but you cannot just reduce everyones rent by 25% without a massive impact on the property market, the health of banks and ultimately the wider economy.

Can you come up with an example of rental controls being input into a Macro-economic situation where they immediately reduced everyones rents significantly?

1826

I’m very much enjoying reading the first couple of words of each post and then giving up. Keep it up!

4 Likes
1827

It is getting a bit boring, and off topic.

This thread is here so we can all laugh at JC and the Labour party!

1828

Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint

I’m not miffed at all, as I’ve said before none of this will affect me. I’m not BTL, I charge massively below what the flat is worth (and this money goes straight into my daughters bank account), it’s not owned by me so no capital gains issues etc, and it’s worth twice what we paid for it so property values won’t be an issue.

What happens if people get the right to buy their private home at a discount?

Doesn’t matter whose name you’ve put the investment in. That nest egg could easily become someone else’s home. I suspect that you’ll get market rate regardless, even if the house is being offered at a discounted rate.

Days of money for virtually nothing are over.

I realise you’re trying to denigrate my opinion by saying that I’m invested in it - when I’m really not. My argument is based on my opinion of the economic outlook if we’re looking at implementing controls which will take significant money out of the economy - and no-one has even come close to arguing that it won’t happen or even challenging the main points I’ve put across.

Nah, there is a degree of investment that is evident from your posts. You called it a nest egg yesterday. That suggests investment.

I would suggest that if you froze rental price for 10 years then people would start to see the benefits after 4 or 5 years, but you cannot just reduce everyones rent by 25% without a massive impact on the property market, the health of banks and ultimately the wider economy.

Except millions will be better off, have more disposable income, need less financial help from the government, can perhaps move to areas that they were priced out of before, such as near parents, etc,

Can you come up with an example of rental controls being input into a Macro-economic situation where they immediately reduced everyones rents significantly?

No, but just because it hasn’t been done before, doesn’t mean it can’t. We need those homes. We need not to pay through the nose for those homes. If it takes the death of the rentier class to do that, so be it.

1 Like
1829

Originally posted by @pap

Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint

I’m not miffed at all, as I’ve said before none of this will affect me. I’m not BTL, I charge massively below what the flat is worth (and this money goes straight into my daughters bank account), it’s not owned by me so no capital gains issues etc, and it’s worth twice what we paid for it so property values won’t be an issue.

What happens if people get the right to buy their private home at a discount?

Doesn’t matter whose name you’ve put the investment in. That nest egg could easily become someone else’s home. I suspect that you’ll get market rate regardless, even if the house is being offered at a discounted rate.

Days of money for virtually nothing are over.

If that happened then it’s pretty simple, I’d leave it empty.

I realise you’re trying to denigrate my opinion by saying that I’m invested in it - when I’m really not. My argument is based on my opinion of the economic outlook if we’re looking at implementing controls which will take significant money out of the economy - and no-one has even come close to arguing that it won’t happen or even challenging the main points I’ve put across.

Nah, there is a degree of investment that is evident from your posts. You called it a nest egg yesterday. That suggests investment.

I didn’t call mine a nest egg at all, as it’s not, it’s for my daughter.

I would suggest that if you froze rental price for 10 years then people would start to see the benefits after 4 or 5 years, but you cannot just reduce everyones rent by 25% without a massive impact on the property market, the health of banks and ultimately the wider economy.

Except millions will be better off, have more disposable income, need less financial help from the government, can perhaps move to areas that they were priced out of before, such as near parents, etc,

But far more people, or every house owner in this country would be worse off, and by far more than the people that are saving £200ppm.

Can you come up with an example of rental controls being input into a Macro-economic situation where they immediately reduced everyones rents significantly?

No, but just because it hasn’t been done before, doesn’t mean it can’t. We need those homes. We need not to pay through the nose for those homes. If it takes the death of the rentier class to do that, so be it.

I would suggest it’s never been tried because no ones been stupid enough to try it. It’s a type of Corbynomics, and it doesn’t work.

1830

Wait up a sec, there chief. You have referred to rental properties as nest eggs. Maybe not your own, but the point remains; you are invested.

Also, while I accept that property owners are going to take something of a battering, it’s only those that see their property as an investment that are going to be significantly affected. You’re also perhaps forgetting that home ownership is on the decline.

Universally setting low rents hasn’t been tried before because we had other mechanisms of keeping the rents down, such as adequate supply. We don’t have that anymore. The solutions are carrying on funneling money to landlords’ pockets at artificially inflated market rates, or look to interfere with the market.

The market had its go, and it fucked up. Time to repair the damage it has done.

1 Like
1831

Lack of housing is fault of State, not Market. Market would be building houses all over the fkn place, if State weren’t Interference.

1832

not true I’m afraid. The big construction companies own hundreds of thousands of hectares, that they already have permission to build on, but choose not too as they are worried prices might not keep going up if they did.

That said, the government can also take a large share of the blame.

Tory government/ big business=total cunts.

3 Likes
1833

What I don’t think you’re appreciating is that fact that you will be locking people who currently own with a mortgage into their current houses indefinitely, with no way out.

You can interfere with the market without causing the utter mayhem you’re proposing and that’s by dealing with the issue going forward and allowing inflation to make the market better value, or with a steady stream of new build housing.

Over the next few years we will see property prices fall as Brexit takes it’s hold on foreign investors in London, which will have knock on effects to property prices around the country.

This idea is poorly thought out and doesn’t have a grounding in any sort of rational economics.Honestly Pap, I expected better.

1834

Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint

What I don’t think you’re appreciating is that fact that you will be locking people who currently own with a mortgage into their current houses indefinitely, with no way out.

Only if you want to. The way I see it, we helped those banks out to the tune of 45bn. They have a slice of the pie of every life changing event.

Plus, the money never existed in the first place.

If your concern is that people will be left in negative equity, I say solve that too. Legislate to enable debt relief. It’s all fucking IOUs anyway.

You can interfere with the market without causing the utter mayhem you’re proposing and that’s by dealing with the issue going forward and allowing inflation to make the market better value, or with a steady stream of new build housing.

Not helping those that are living at home, homeless or in insecure accommodation, is it? Won’t stop the social cleansing in London.

If there is anyone blind to the issues, it’s yourself. What’s your plan for those that are acutely suffering from market rates now?

What’s your plan if interest rates ever have to go up again?

Over the next few years we will see property prices fall as Brexit takes it’s hold on foreign investors in London, which will have knock on effects to property prices around the country.

Yeah, those Russian and Middle Eastern oligarchs are going to clear straight out over Brexit. Countries like Qatar will just sell up all of their London property.

This idea is poorly thought out and doesn’t have a grounding in any sort of rational economics.Honestly Pap, I expected better.

Whoever said economics were rational?

People spend 25 years paying off money that never fucking existed.

1 Like
1835

Oh OK, so you’re grand solution is to get the banks to help everyone by writing off any money that’s owed. OK, nice one. I think that’s where this conversation ends then :lou_lol:

1836

I know bout that, but it’s State Legislation that created that Situation. If there was no planning permissions, every farmer would be building shanty towns on their green fields, and we’d all have rickety extensions tacked on the back of our houses. Problem Solved.

1837

Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint

Oh OK, so you’re grand solution is to get the banks to help everyone by writing off any money that’s owed. OK, nice one. I think that’s where this conversation ends then :lou_lol:

You’re incorrect.

I’m talking about writing off promises to pay.

Completely different concepts.

1 Like
1838

I don’t understand why the government aren’t buying land off Tesco to build on - they have hundreds of thousands of acres of land they’re desperate to flog to balance their books which is in good central locations, with excellent transport links. Think how many flats you could build on the same amount of land that a Tesco Extra occupies!

As somebody in their early 20s (well, 24, so maybe mid-20s now?) i’m resigned to not being able to buy my own place for some time. I’m in a very privileged position as I do have circa 10k to put towards a deposit for a property due to a family death earlier this year, but mortgage companies are reticent to lend despite interest rates being at rock bottom. Hundreds of thousands of chumps like me are stuck in the same situation and we’re all at the whim of landlords who have carte blanche. Something needs to be done, either in helping more people to purchase their own home (by building more affordable housing) or by placing stricter controls on the rental sector.

2 Likes
1839

I thought it was only me TMO - your “coming out” has given me the courage to say the same.

:lou_wink:

1840

Can I just ask why owning your own home is the be all and end all of everything?

As far as I can see everyone had been hoodwinked by the Govt and the mortgage and building industries.

Renting at appropriate and sustainable levels used to be the norm. Thatcher seems to have unleashed the beast and greed and avarice is now the new norm.