Should landlords receive tax breaks..

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can you explain the last 5 years then?

as you know the state spends about 50% of our GDP

which half are you referring to?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

You seem to be offering two choices

a) The taxpayer makes BTL sufficiently attractive so that existing landlords and new entrants compete to house benefit claimants and expand supply or..

b) The taxpayer funds the building of new houses to house benefit claimants.

You and I pay for the first option but option b is completely different because...oh hang on.

That's the main VI - the taxpayer isn't interested in paying more tax.

I think option a would be cheaper and more efficient but that's by the by; I'd prefer the government to cut benefits and let people 'choose' to increase their income and pay for themselves or get used to sharing with more people.

I'm feeling slightly uncharitable because I've just seen two fat, lazy and entitled women on the news complaining about benefit cuts. A direct quote 'well if we have to move where are they going to put us?'

Graham, the 'they' they're referring to is you and me. They're taking us for mugs.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Loads of ex council housing going strong, they didn't just build concrete blocks.

In a competitive market place you are right. One where the consumer can effectively choose not to purchase.

In a competitive market place why would they need state subsidy?

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

You seem to be offering two choices

a) The taxpayer makes BTL sufficiently attractive so that existing landlords and new entrants compete to house benefit claimants and expand supply or..

b) The taxpayer funds the building of new houses to house benefit claimants.

You and I pay for the first option but option b is completely different because...oh hang on.

That's the main VI - the taxpayer isn't interested in paying more tax.

I think option a would be cheaper and more efficient but that's by the by; I'd prefer the government to cut benefits and let people 'choose' to increase their income and pay for themselves or get used to sharing with more people.

I'm feeling slightly uncharitable because I've just seen two fat, lazy and entitled women on the news complaining about benefit cuts. A direct quote 'well if we have to move where are they going to put us?'

Graham, the 'they' they're referring to is you and me. They're taking us for mugs.

Why do you think A would be cheaper when council and housing association rents are much cheaper than private rentals.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You seem to be offering two choices

a) The taxpayer makes BTL sufficiently attractive so that existing landlords and new entrants compete to house benefit claimants and expand supply or..

We have had both of your scenarios.

Can you tell me how A above has saved money?

Or indeed, expanded housing supply?

History SHOWS council housing massively increased housing supply. History shows council housing can still be run at reduced rents.

History doesn't show what you claim A will do.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Why do you think A would be cheaper when council and housing association rents are much cheaper than private rentals.

Council and housing social association rents aren't set at a true market value. The gap between market rent and that charged by a council is a tax on inefficient allocation of capital i.e. the rents are subsidised.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Council and housing social association rents aren't set at a true market value. The gap between market rent and that charged by a council is a tax on inefficient allocation of capital i.e. the rents are subsidised.

Yer - because they can be. It's running itself....showing exactly what most have been stating.

Your problem appears to be that the max amount of money isn't being extracted.

If anything, "market value" is subsidised by housing benefit, pushing the value up.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We have had both of your scenarios.

Can you tell me how A above has saved money?

Or indeed, expanded housing supply?

History SHOWS council housing massively increased housing supply. History shows council housing can still be run at reduced rents.

History doesn't show what you claim A will do.

Money has been saved IMO because if private landlords weren't making profits we'd have an even greater shortage of housing.

Yes, council housing would increase supply - how much has been added to supply in the last 3 or 4 decades?

I think you're somewhat missing the point. Either option a or b will be more expensive but the taxpayer pays in both cases. i.e. which foot would you like to be amputated? One will probably hurt more than the other but you'll still be short of a foot.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Council and housing social association rents aren't set at a true market value. The gap between market rent and that charged by a council is a tax on inefficient allocation of capital i.e. the rents are subsidised.

Subsidised in that they could be rented out at a higher rate but that rate would still be paid by the government/us.

If BTL landlords can make it work with interest rates of 5% why can't the government make it work a interest rate of 0.5%.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Money has been saved IMO because if private landlords weren't making profits we'd have an even greater shortage of housing.

From another site.

Lee, a professional Landlord asks, “help! I have just received a letter from the Bank of Ireland stating they want to increase the differential on my tracker rates.

I have 12 mortgages with the Bank of Ireland previously Bristol and West. I have been on a base rate tracker of 1.75% above base, but now Bank of Ireland are using some fine print claiming they have to recapitalise and saying the ‘new differential will be 4.49%.

Professional landlord?

Professional certainly doesn't mean what it used to.....