Should landlords receive tax breaks..

Cornucopia

Exactly.....

Cornucopia

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The interest would but so does the HB we are paying already.

The increased debt would be balanced by an asset and capital reduction element could be factored into the "notional rent payment".

Not all those needing housing want to buy and many don't take full HB.

I don't make the rules. I'm simply saying that this Government in this climate is not going to add to debt to build houses in the public sector.

TBH, it's not clear what the argument is, here. It started with subsidies to bridge the gap between market rents and HB payments, and now its trundled off onto some kind of social housing campaign.

grizzly1911

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't make the rules. I'm simply saying that this Government in this climate is not going to add to debt to build houses in the public sector.

TBH, it's not clear what the argument is, here. It started with subsidies to bridge the gap between market rents and HB payments, and now its trundled off onto some kind of social housing campaign.

I accept this government won't do it they are just plate spinning for the short term.

I guess the argument is do you keep trying to prop up the private sector, ever more, when it hasn't got the ability or commitment to deliver?

Perhaps they should just go buy some tents.

grizzly1911

michaels wrote: »

Going back to basics there are more households than houses.

Subsidising housing for one group of people surely just pushes the problem elsewhere?

In a normal market demand exceeding supply pushes up prices until demand is reduced and supply is inceased. Demand for housing is fairly price inelastic so why aren't rising prices resulting in more supply? Presumably the answer is a lack of capital because of the economy being overborrowed and in the throes of deleveraging.

Diamonds aren't released to depress prices either.

Thrugelmir

Own_My_Own wrote: »

And my landlord let to me because he couldn't sell the property for the amount he wanted.

That's a personal choice the LL made. Based on the perception that house prices only rise. (Something a certain age generation of owners have only ever experienced).

dryhat

So these clowns borrow a deposit to put down on a house, take out an IO mortgage (otherwise they couldn't afford the repayments) then when tenants can't afford the rent they want a tax break?

That's not a business.

It's subletting a property while taking a speculative punt on house price rises.

Jokers.

ILW

dryhat wrote: »

So these clowns borrow a deposit to put down on a house, take out an IO mortgage (otherwise they couldn't afford the repayments) then when tenants can't afford the rent they want a tax break?

That's not a business.

It's subletting a property while taking a speculative punt on house price rises.

Jokers.

It can be a very good business. People have mad fortunes when prices were rising and the tenants were paying the mortgage for them

Cornucopia

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I accept this government won't do it they are just plate spinning for the short term.

I suppose the question is: will any UK Government ever do it. The pattern of the past 20 years suggests that the answer is no.

I guess the argument is do you keep trying to prop up the private sector, ever more, when it hasn't got the ability or commitment to deliver?

Perhaps they should just go buy some tents.

This is what I don't understand about this thread. A partial solution has been suggested: subsidise landlords to make HB letting more attractive.

Ultimately, that feeds into the house purchase market, and builders build more until the market reaches a new balancing point.

grizzly1911

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is what I don't understand about this thread. A partial solution has been suggested: subsidise landlords to make HB letting more attractive.

They are in business, they take out profit if they are any good. Don't see there is a direct link between making them more profitable and getting more house s built which is the real issue.

Where do you stop?

The private sector has had more than enough assistance for now and we are all paying the price. Some more than others.

Cornucopia

grizzly1911 wrote: »

They are in business, they take out profit if they are any good. Don't see there is a direct link between making them more profitable and getting more house s built which is the real issue.

I think you may be missing the point of the thread. The suggestion is that some people are without suitable accommodation because HB rates are too low to enable them to get access to private rented properties. Presumably, at the same time, the public sector waiting lists are too long.

The suggestion is that some form of subsidy is paid to incentivise private landlords to take HB tenants. If that happens, there will be a need for more privately rented properties overall. Some of those will be purchased and some of those will be new build.

We have a housing shortage, the houses need to come from somewhere. At the same time, it's not just about building but also about funding.

The private sector has had more than enough assistance for now and we are all paying the price. Some more than others.

You mean the banks? I think that's a rather different issue.

Whether people like it or not, we live in a neo-conservative, capitalist world. The notion that a future UK government will adopt radical socialist policies is unfounded, I would say.