Should landlords receive tax breaks..

Graham_Devon

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

That's a problem, but it's not the problem in this thread.

The problem outlined here is that the landlord won't let the house to someone on benefits, regardless of whether they can afford the monthly rent.

The landlord won't let the house to them becuase they are on benefits and there is a stigma attached to that, especially now that, even though benefits still cover the rent, claimants will have to pay the rent to their landlord. Landlords fear that they won't pay and will use the money elsewhere.

grizzly1911

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.


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.

I haven't missed the point.

The real issue is insufficient housing stock.

Everything else is merely a fudge.

If HB is too low then simply providing relief to LLs is no different to increasing HB. Book keeping entries that is all.

HB claimants aren't simply going to dry up and disappear (unless there is some draconian policy shift).

You are probably correct in saying that no future party is going to sort it out. The drain in HB will just continue escalating in the meantime with nothing to show for it. We are merely funding property off balance sheet.

wotsthat

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?

Pilots have taken place in 5 or 6 areas to test out the theory that paying housing costs directly to benefits claimants and then relying on them to pay their rent leads gives them a sense of responsibility.

Anyway, arrears rates increased massively. Tenants who demonstrably, for whatever reason, don't pay their rent aren't generally sought after by landlords.

Maybe landlords should be compensated for housing, on behalf the government, people who can't or won't take responsibility for themselves. Direct payments to the landlord, and backdated if necessary, will deal with the arrears issue. There's still a problem because I imagine that people who receive their rent from the taxpayer and then chose to spend it on something else are likely to be more expensive in the 'wear and tear' department.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Pilots have taken place in 5 or 6 areas to test out the theory that paying housing costs directly to benefits claimants and then relying on them to pay their rent leads gives them a sense of responsibility.

Anyway, arrears rates increased massively.

You mean 2-11%?

chucknorris

Not sure where I stand on this one. I don't see the justification in paying over the market rent, but on the other hand if there is a problem finding decent accommodation for those on HB then it needs looking at. We don't (initially) rent to HB tenants, although we do have existing tenants who later claimed HB. In the past I got fed up with being always owed money from some good tenants on HB (it wasn't their fault they were always hard up, and they always eventually paid), but I would be resistant to move from my current position of selecting the best tenants rather than the highest rent offer (we quite often turn down higher offers after we have made our tenant choice and turned down the others).

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You mean 2-11%?

Yes - arrears rates increased 5-6x. I think 'massive' was a fair adjective.

If landlords can find private tenants who are significantly more likely to pay the rent then why take benefit claimants?

Who's meant to take responsibility for housing people who can't/ won't take responsibility for themselves - that's the question.

Cornucopia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's a problem, but it's not the problem in this thread.

Sorry, I thought that the OP (you) started it saying: "Should landlords receive tax breaks.....to let to people on housing benefits?"

The problem outlined here is that the landlord won't let the house to someone on benefits, regardless of whether they can afford the monthly rent.

The landlord won't let the house to them becuase they are on benefits and there is a stigma attached to that, especially now that, even though benefits still cover the rent, claimants will have to pay the rent to their landlord. Landlords fear that they won't pay and will use the money elsewhere.

I think that the existing HB payments direct to LLs works quite well in terms of keeping tenants in their homes.

Private LLs mostly are individuals with a small number of properties and cannot afford the cost, the time or the hassle of non-payment of rent or damage to the property. So they use their best judgement to determine who to let *their* property to.

Not sure I see a problem with that.

If it does not serve the needs of the country, change the way we do it. Provide those incentives that counter-act the fears (valid or not) that private LLs have.

Cornucopia

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I haven't missed the point.

The real issue is insufficient housing stock.

Everything else is merely a fudge.

I'd say it was policy - perhaps that is the same thing?

If HB is too low then simply providing relief to LLs is no different to increasing HB. Book keeping entries that is all.

It depends. Providing some marginal relief to LLs may cost less in absolute terms than increasing HB. (HB being 100% of the amount in question, and tax relief coming in at 20%-50%)

HB claimants aren't simply going to dry up and disappear (unless there is some draconian policy shift).

I think we're all agreed on that.

You are probably correct in saying that no future party is going to sort it out. The drain in HB will just continue escalating in the meantime with nothing to show for it. We are merely funding property off balance sheet.

What we have to show for it is people being housed in suitable properties. That would be a good thing in my book.

We are funding property off balance sheet - yes, but that avoids the need for Government to hold vast amounts of debt/housing assets. (And for some of those housing assets to need rebuilding after 30 years because they were so ill-conceived or badly built).

Graham_Devon

You a landlord cornu?

Cornucopia

Yes. Not sure it makes a difference.

FWIW, one of my tenants is HB.