London rents to be capped at £1250

julieq

Macaque, you poor deluded conspiracy theorist...

tax rules were already favourable to BTL because they're business taxation rules and designed around what you need to do to run a business successfully.

Mortgages were given with self certification because lenders decided that was how they wanted to run their business. It wasn't a government decision. And in fact there is no evidence of systematic fraud. Most people even if they took a mortgage which didn't run formal income checks work under the assumption there may be checks and don't overstate income. Average loan to salary throughout the boom was 3.5x. Banks were allowed to operate dangerous policies because no-one, even their own management, had a clue how dangerous securitised debt was, and they were lightly regulated because they were apparently effortlessly generating money for the treasury via taxation. Interest rates are low to bolster lending, and in fact a low currency value is basically a good thing anyway (and it meets your objective for a housing devaluation, because viewed from the outside we HAVE had 50% falls). The list indeed goes on, but it was c0ck up and business as usual, not government conspiracy. Do you really think a government would run the country into the ground to feather their nests? It's laughable.

There is simply no reason why MPs will change their views. Most will be homeowners living in rented or hotel accomodation while working away from home, many people do exactly the same. There is nothing wrong with property speculation, it's no difference really from cash speculation where you expect to become rich just from having money. There isn't a massive amount of hoarding empty properties, there isn't evidence of systematic anti social behaviour by BTL landlords (if there is bad behaviour it comes from slum landlords who have been around since the days of Hoogstraaten, not people buying a couple of houses and having them paid for by tenants as savings scheme.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Still harping on about it carolt.....

Your thread on the same subject already get locked and reported to abuse, after the previous thread on the same subject was moved to DT.

This will make no difference. MP's are a tiny percentage of sales.... maybe 8 or so a month out of 75,000 sales a month.

It's utterly irrelevant.

As for MP's suddenly becoming all sympathetic about rents..... No they won't. They'll just pick up a couple of hours a month of consulting work at 1K an hour to pay the difference.

Doubtless landlords will treat them with kid gloves, to prove how great they are too.

So instead of being independant, they will now become more dependant on corporate special interests. Way to go, great idea!!!!

Law of unintended consequences and all that....:rolleyes:

To be frank Hamish considering the multiple daily threads you create consisting largely of replicating boring repetitive tripe you have cut and pasted without properly reading; you're not really in a position to criticise carol for making this thread.

julieq

We know you don't like Hamish, Ruggedtoast, but you don't seem able to contradict any of his points. And obviously given repetitive replication is the bear staple I look forward to you having a crack at someone posting a link to a thisismoney article predicting the end of the world.

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

We know you don't like Hamish, Ruggedtoast, but you don't seem able to contradict any of his points. And obviously given repetitive replication is the bear staple I look forward to you having a crack at someone posting a link to a thisismoney article predicting the end of the world.

You're slightly attracted to me aren't you Julie?

Just a little bit.

Really2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

the multiple daily threads you create consisting largely of replicating boring repetitive tripe you have cut and pasted without properly reading;

I just had a flash back to last year.:)

julieq

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You're slightly attracted to me aren't you Julie?

Just a little bit.

So the next tactic is to behave like a 14 year old snickering schoolboy so you can attract a group of your mates to taunt the grownups.

It's so much easier than debating actual points isn't it?

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

So the next tactic is to behave like a 14 year old snickering schoolboy so you can attract a group of your mates to taunt the grownups.

It's so much easier than debating actual points isn't it?

Next he'll be calling you a sexist as you don't agree with him!

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Next he'll be calling you a sexist as you don't agree with him!

Oh look, a shiny thing....

chucknorris

I've just got back in and noticed this thread. I didn't feel threatened when I saw the headline of the thread, in fact I said 'b***ocks' as I opened it as I knew it would be a load of rubbish, and it was.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Maybe. IMO it depends on the reason for GDP falling.

Let's think about what has caused the fall in output this time around.

IMHO there are two things:

- Asset price bubble has caused investment to be misdirected towards housing leaving a lack of investment in more productive areas of the economy
- Banks not lending for investment

Normally, counter cyclical spending by Government to prop up employment is a good idea. Right now, when the UK economy needs more investment in productive capacity to repair the damage done by a huge house price bubble misdirecting investment funds the last thing the UK needs is for private borrowing to be crowded out by public borrowing.

so your economic policy at the moment would be
-increased taxes
-reduced government spending
hence freeing up investment funds for the private sector


and you think that will help the private sector.