Should landlords receive tax breaks..

Graham_Devon

...to let to people on housing benefits?

That's the question posed by the Guardian as a committe of london council leaders suggest proposing tax breaks to landlords if they take on those on housing benefits.

So....yes or no?

Does housing benefit itself go far enough? Or should we now pay the rent AND provide a tax break for the landlord receiving said rent money?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/poll/2013/mar/13/landlords-tax-breaks-housing-benefit?commentpage=1

Thrugelmir

Why should a BTL receive a better tax status than a real business. Which actually creates wealth and employs people.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why should a BTL receive a better tax status than a real business. Which actually creates wealth and employs people.

I really don't know. I was putting it up to try and get answers as to how or why this may be beneficial. I understand that they may then take on housing benefits claimants...but only for a short while. Housing benefits was enough of a draw before now. There will quickly become a point where housing benefits and tax incentives aren't enough and were back to the same point.

All seems pretty simple in my mind if they have an issue with this. Just bring an equality law in. In my line of business, we wouldn't be able to descriminate against people on benefits. It would lead to a conviction.

Cornucopia

Ultimately, if the country needs more rented accommodation then it, and more importantly the capital to pay for it needs to come from somewhere.

I think that what is possibly more important to private landlords is some kind of rental/deposit guarantee when renting to social housing tenants.

It's not an issue of equality. If you are trying to rent a flat, you either have direct access to the funds or you don't. If you don't, then a landlord doesn't rent to you. If you offer them Housing Benefit instead, then that's an alternative that they might rightly deem to be not good enough.

I'm struggling to imagine what line of business might be liable to prosecution for the (non-existent) offence of discriminating against people on benefits.

Thrugelmir

Suspect there may be issues once housing benefit is paid to tenants rather than directly to LL's. As data shows rent arrears are 5 times greater where this has been done previously.

CLAPTON

totally insane

LL will let to people
-who pay on time,
-look after the property and
-pay the going rate

why ever complicate things with tax breaks?
presumbaly because HB tenants fail one or more of the above tests

in any event it isn't going to happen

Thrugelmir

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think that what is possibly more important to private landlords is some kind of rental/deposit guarantee when renting to social housing tenants.

Like any business the "selling price" needs to allow for all costs etc. Subsidising of LL's benefits no one.

The sooner that interference stops, and markets are allowed to operate as they should. Then everything will fall back to its natural level. Also those that shouldn't be in the business will be driven out.

Own_My_Own

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...to let to people on housing benefits?

That's the question posed by the Guardian as a committe of london council leaders suggest proposing tax breaks to landlords if they take on those on housing benefits.

So....yes or no?

Does housing benefit itself go far enough? Or should we now pay the rent AND provide a tax break for the landlord receiving said rent money?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/poll/2013/mar/13/landlords-tax-breaks-housing-benefit?commentpage=1

I know I claim some housing benefit, as I don't earn enough to pay my £800 a month rent, but I have never thought of my self as being 'taken on'.

I am lucky that I have a nice landlord, but some landlords are nightmares. Not sure if they would diverse tax breaks.

Cornucopia

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Like any business the "selling price" needs to allow for all costs etc. Subsidising of LL's benefits no one.

The issue is that in many places, the market rents are too high for benefits claimants to be able to afford - that's why people are suggesting a subsidy of some kind.

The sooner that interference stops, and markets are allowed to operate as they should. Then everything will fall back to its natural level. Also those that shouldn't be in the business will be driven out.

The rental market is already operating as it should. The rents required are driven by competition in the rental market and the cost of funding mortgages for properties being let.

Unfortunately, the nature of the housing market is that a drop in the number of available rental properties helps no one. It would drive rents up because of scarcity, and the resulting properties released for sale are unlikely to make the vast drop in property prices required to make houses accessible to people on low incomes...

... and in the unlikely event that it did, it would be a catastrophe to the UK economy.

Graham_Devon

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm struggling to imagine what line of business might be liable to prosecution for the (non-existent) offence of discriminating against people on benefits.

Stick a notice stating "sorry, no benefit recipients allowed" on a shop window.

Then wait.

Thrugelmir

Cornucopia wrote: »

The issue is that in many places, the market rents are too high for benefits claimants to be able to afford - that's why people are suggesting a subsidy of some kind.

Housing benefit rules have contributed to the upward spiral. Breaking this. Will cause the market to react differently.

The rents required are driven by competition in the rental market and the cost of funding mortgages for properties being let.

Funding is cheap. There'll be real problems if interest rates were to rise. As would price tenants out (new HB rules). Without tenants then LL's would be in even further trouble.

An accident waiting to happen. As the financial squeeze is going to get get much tougher yet. To address the UK's structural deficit issues.