Tenant Arrears... Plummeting, Tanking, Crashing even....

Graham_Devon

And Hamish ghosts out of the thread again....;)

Yawn.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, I don't think they should have support for longer. But some form of support would be a good start. Even if that support is rent control or regulations.

Why should there be rent controls?

That would only discourage the provision of rental units. Worsening the problem.

The only solution is more houses.

There are no quick fixes or short cuts.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Jeezus Hamish. What is wrong with you?

No, I don't think they should have support for longer. But some form of support would be a good start. Even if that support is rent control or regulations.

Why? If they can't afford to rent the place they're renting, why should they have any support at all? That was your argument against the far cheaper benefit covering mortgage interest.

You're incredibly inconsistent Graham.

For the record I have nothing particular against housing benefit, and I have nothing against mortgage interest payments as part of the social contract between taxpayers and government. I think people should by and large be supported in staying in their homes, bearing in mind most will have paid tax in the expectation of receiving benefits in times of trouble.

But Graham, you appear to favour government intervention when it works against landlords, and be against it when it works in favour of homeowners. I wonder why that is?

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish

Sometime you buy to let wallers make want to puke . Can just see you in feudal times . You and your serfs depending on you to let them have a roof over their head . It`s my pension you cry , great so others are paying it with little chance of those very same people able to provide for themselves in later years .

Maybe the tax payer is paying your rent because your tenants can`t or won`t work . This mess was started by that dreadful woman Thatcher and Creepy Blair kept it all rocking and rolling . If some of you lot had to pay even 5% interest , you wouldn`t be so smug .

I believe that certain things should remain or partly remain in state hands .Of course, if we could have decent and law abiding politicians . To me , decent affordable state housing was a terrific benefit to this country . A real step forward for society and general economic well being .

I read that the average rent in the UK is £700 a month . Not that it effects some posters here as they earn squillions but for Joe Dough , it is a lot of brass.

Tbh , I think a lot of bulls are cacking themselves with their BTLs . 0.5% is not a reflection on anything apart from a cry for help . Still it does provide some amusement in a dark way .
















-

blisk3

julieq wrote: »

Housing benefit is a hell of a lot more generous than mortgage interest payments anyway. Renters get a very good deal indeed.

But those with mortgages will eventually likely own the property and profit from any property price increase.

They're not the same, tenants paying rent to someone else & owner buying their own property.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

blisk3 wrote: »

But those with mortgages will eventually likely own the property and profit from any property price increase.

Quite.

Always good to have a reminder that buying is better than renting.;)

They're not the same, tenants paying rent to someone else & owner buying their own property.

They are the same.

Both pay National Insurance in order to have a safety net.

There's a reason it's called "insurance"..... You pay for it, it provides limited benefits in the event of a catastrophe. Why should owners pay NI and get worse benefits than renters paying the same NI???

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Quite.

Always good to have a reminder that buying is better than renting.;)



They are the same.

Both pay National Insurance in order to have a safety net.

There's a reason it's called "insurance"..... You pay for it, it provides limited benefits in the event of a catastrophe. Why should owners pay NI and get worse benefits than renters paying the same NI???

Owners and renters get the same benefit though. They can both get their rent paid by the state.

What the Government is saying through her policies is that the state will act to keep you in a home that you have bought in order to give you a chance to get back on your feet. If that doesn't work then the long term solution is for you to sell your asset and once you have run down some of the capital realised she will then pay your rent.

That seems pretty reasonable to me. The Government doesn't pay for you to retain any other asset.

mandi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Rents can only be increased at the end of a contract, if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to stay there. Find somewhere cheaper....

Lets face it Hamish . As a tennant I class my " rented home" as my own.

I have made loads of improvements to my house all of which will benefit my LL .

Your post is both selfish and simplistic .

peakoil_2

wow graham devon was flip flopping about like a fish in the bottom of a row boat!

basically what he is saying is that he wants home owners to be reposessed because he wants a cheap home. he doesnt like the state helping tax payers who find themselves temporarily down on their luck due to job loss or illness but he does want to help the shiftless who live in rented accomodation paid for by the tax payer from cradle to grave.

oh to have such skewed morals just to be able to afford a house. pathetic.

Percy1983

blisk3 wrote: »

But those with mortgages will eventually likely own the property and profit from any property price increase.

I am confused, I am buying a home so I am not at the mercy of a landlord, but how do I make a profit form my home? If I sell it I will need somewhere to live which will also be over priced.

Yes I can see there is more money in downsizing when house prices keep going up, but then I have to think is it more important I get an extra few grand or my children can afford housing?