Should landlords receive tax breaks..

ukcarper

Surely the reason they are doing this is because there isn't enough housing available for people on housing benefit.

As Graham said the best solution would be to build more social housing but as that would mean more borrowing the government wouldn't sanction it even though it would save a lot in the long term.

Cornucopia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Then wait.

For what? A brick - yes, I can see that. But what law is breached by this? Any more than any law being breached when the notice says: "No Schoolkids".

Cornucopia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I had a rather bizzare idea that instead of tax breaks, the money could be spent building state housing....

Rather stupid of me, but hey....

The thing is this:-

Why would Government spend 100% of the cost of a house to rent it out to a HB claimant, when it can spend 0% (or close to)? Not only that, but the 100% would be capital spending - contributing to public sector debt.

See also: Why would the Government spend 100% of the cost of a hospital, when it can get the private sector to build & run it and lease it back?

Graham_Devon

Cornucopia wrote: »

The thing is this:-

Why would Government spend 100% of the cost of a house to rent it out to a HB claimant, when it can spend 0% (or close to)? Not only that, but the 100% would be capital spending - contributing to public sector debt.

See also: Why would the Government spend 100% of the cost of a hospital, when it can get the private sector to build & run it and lease it back?

How is it spending 0% if it's shelling out on housing benefit each month?

Cornucopia

They would have to pay that anyway.

Graham_Devon

Cornucopia wrote: »

They would have to pay that anyway.

Well not really, you own the assets. Any rent money paid goes straight back to yourselves (or at least the government).

Theres an issue of maintanance. But not a huge issue.

Cornucopia

It's more complicated than that. If the business model make so much sense, why aren't we using it?

The reason is that our state borrowing is already way too high, and all of these PFI type schemes get borrowing off the Government's books.

Graham_Devon

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's more complicated than that. If the business model make so much sense, why aren't we using it?

Because the private sector would throw an absolute wobbly. It would make things worse for a period (though a relatively short period).

No government wants to make things worse for the short period they are elected, regardless of how much better it makes things over the long term.

It's going to take a seismic shift change in politics and public perception of politics to get those sorts of schemes started. Governments run in fear of losing votes whatever they do....hence you simply can't touch pensioners....in anything!

Cornucopia

Not sure any of that makes sense. Do you really think that the 1000s of individual private landlords have a political voice? Each person decides individually whether their investment makes sense for them, and either participates or doesn't.

The fact is that there would never be a period when Government was not holding assets that could be liquidated to repay public borrowing - and that would always be the imperative. IF we got to the stage of nearing/passing £0 deficit, THEN it might be worth cranking the figures to see what the benefit might be.

BTW: Did you work out what law was being broken when landlords say: "No DSS"?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well not really, you own the assets. Any rent money paid goes straight back to yourselves (or at least the government).

Theres an issue of maintanance. But not a huge issue.

Come Graham you know it makes sense lend to banks a 0.5% let them lent to BTL landlord at 5% then pay that 5% much better than lending to yourself at 0.5% and building houses.