We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should landlords receive tax breaks..
Comments
-
Cornucopia wrote: »Yes. Not sure it makes a difference.
FWIW, one of my tenants is HB.
Ahh right - thanks. Was trying to make sense of your stance on this, and I thought I had come to the conclusion but didn't wan't to jump the gun!
Couldn't possibly see how someone would try and make out it's cheaper to spend on HB payments to landlords than it is to provide the houses and have the asset on the books.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Ahh right - thanks. Was trying to make sense of your stance on this, and I thought I had come to the conclusion but didn't wan't to jump the gun!
Couldn't possibly see how someone would try and make out it's cheaper to spend on HB payments to landlords than it is to provide the houses and have the asset on the books.
one would think that the answer lies is how expensive it for the state to build the properties, how much they spend in maintenance and how that compares with HB.
Given the poor track record of the state managing anything very well, the answer is not obvious.0 -
It isn't cheaper in "real person economics", but in terms of restricted Government borrowing, it makes absolute sense.0
-
Cornucopia wrote: »(And for some of those housing assets to need rebuilding after 30 years because they were so ill-conceived or badly built).
Paying HB to BTL is simply housing people on the never never. Yes it gets it off the balance sheet and hides the numbers for politicians and bean counters rather than tackling the problem.
Yes some housing schemes were ill conceived but vast swathes of are still doing well. Yes maintenance/renewals is an issue but it shouldn't be if is properly budgeted for."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Couldn't possibly see how someone would try and make out it's cheaper to spend on HB payments to landlords than it is to provide the houses and have the asset on the books.
Government should steer well away from providing housing directly. A recipe for disaster and will almost certainly be more costly than leaving it to the private sector as well as increasing risk to the taxpayer.
Government should concentrate on getting people off benefits.0 -
one would think that the answer lies is how expensive it for the state to build the properties, how much they spend in maintenance and how that compares with HB.
Given the poor track record of the state managing anything very well, the answer is not obvious.
Government inefficiency ~ private sector profit. Long term you have a reusable asset."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Government should steer well away from providing housing directly. A recipe for disaster and will almost certainly be more costly than leaving it to the private sector as well as increasing risk to the taxpayer.
Government should concentrate on getting people off benefits.
Thing is, it's always the same people saying the same thing (both ways).
BTL's want the taxpayer to channel money into private rentals.
HPI chasers don't want houses built.
It's the same thing over and over again. However, this argument, that it's better not to build and not to own the assets, and instead pump ever more money into the private sector each year is one that has me completely and uterly baffled.
I don't see how anyone can say it's a better system. The very same people state time after time that owning is better than renting. So why change when it comes to the country?
Answer is simple. VI.
Your answer being "get them off benefits" is the same as stating "give food to the starving". Great. Fantastic foresight. But implementation is a little more than problematic.0 -
Government should concentrate on getting people off benefits.
However you play it unless you stop paying it some form of housing assistance will always be needed. You will never empty the benefit pool. Canute had more chance."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Government inefficiency ~ private sector profit. Long term you have a reusable asset.
You have a somewhat irrational dislike of 'profit'.
Profit motive in a competitive market leads to benefits for all.
Government build lots of junk flats that wouldn't be sellable on the open market; sometime private enterprise does too but they quickly learn by making losses or go bankrupt; governments just continue on for years and then knock them down.0 -
Profit motive in a competitive market leads to benefits for all.
Can you explain the last 5 years then?
And can you explain how this profit motive being a benefit to all is a benefit to those people needing housing in the scenario in this thread?
Seems to me it's the total reverse and leads to benefits for less and less, hence the need for tax perks to benefit more people.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards