Rents, debts and the cost of living...

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Well, that was pretty much what governments did in the 1950s and 1960s.



Well, the British government has (in the past) succeeded in winning a number of wars which could be regarded as pretty 'large projects'.

On the other hand, I do know that some councils were really carp at running their portfolios. Well at least, that's what I've been told by people who've run HAs that took em over. But then a lot of BTL landlords appear to be carp at running their portfolios.



Depends on what you think the monopoly supplier would do with their monopoly, I imagine.

indeed so

it all depends upon whether you think a monopoly in the rented sector is a good thing
and whether you think a state monopoly is even better
or not

olly300

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed so

it all depends upon whether you think a monopoly in the rented sector is a good thing
and whether you think a state monopoly is even better
or not

The state rental housing monopoly was and is fragmented just like rail and water privatisation is. So like some private rail companies can run their transport properly and Welsh water doesn't rip their customers off, some local councils were/are efficient in running their social housing.

I personally would prefer it if more businesses like pension funds rather than just various trusts and housing associations ran social housing. That way in an area there would be more choice in providers.

CLAPTON

olly300 wrote: »

The state rental housing monopoly was and is fragmented just like rail and water privatisation is. So like some private rail companies can run their transport properly and Welsh water doesn't rip their customers off, some local councils were/are efficient in running their social housing.

I personally would prefer it if more businesses like pension funds rather than just various trusts and housing associations ran social housing. That way in an area there would be more choice in providers.

I don't understand what you are saying


We don't have, nor have we ever had, a state monopoly on rented housing.


Whilst there may be reasons why water or electricity or rail transport are 'natural' monopolies in their geographical boundaries, there is no natural reason why rental property needs to be a natural monopoly.

I've also confused why you think pension funds would be 'good' landlords given their long history of corrupt practices, mis-selling and high charges for their 'natural' products.

And the discussion isn't about 'social housing' but about providing rented property for anyone that wants it (including people earning e.g. 100,000 pa.)

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand what you are saying


We don't have, nor have we ever had, a state monopoly on rented housing.


Whilst there may be reasons why water or electricity or rail transport are 'natural' monopolies in their geographical boundaries, there is no natural reason why rental property needs to be a natural monopoly.

I've also confused why you think pension funds would be 'good' landlords given their long history of corrupt practices, mis-selling and high charges for their 'natural' products.

And the discussion isn't about 'social housing' but about providing rented property for anyone that wants it (including people earning e.g. 100,000 pa.)

Why shouldn't it be available and why should someones income be a factor?

Are you suggesting everyone with such an income should be a homeowner and not be allowed to rent?

If not, why is it acceptable to rent in the private sector with such a salary, lining the pockets/paying the mortgages/funding the pensions of individual investors, but not acceptable to be putting money back into the local community by paying rent to the local authority?

Would your opinion be the same if council rents were equal to or above those charged in the private sector, or is it just the fact that social housing rents are more realistic the reason why those with larger incomes should be prevented from renting in social housing?

There are many, many economists who agree that one very easy way to kickstart the economy is to kickstart the building trade by way of building anything from 2m - 5m social housing homes, available to anyone who cannot/does not want to buy and would prefer to rent.

This is one of the very few circumstances where a households income is completely and utterly irrelevant.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be available and why should someones income be a factor?

Are you suggesting everyone with such an income should be a homeowner and not be allowed to rent?

If not, why is it acceptable to rent in the private sector with such a salary, lining the pockets/paying the mortgages/funding the pensions of individual investors, but not acceptable to be putting money back into the local community by paying rent to the local authority?

Would your opinion be the same if council rents were equal to or above those charged in the private sector, or is it just the fact that social housing rents are more realistic the reason why those with larger incomes should be prevented from renting in social housing?

There are many, many economists who agree that one very easy way to kickstart the economy is to kickstart the building trade by way of building anything from 2m - 5m social housing homes, available to anyone who cannot/does not want to buy and would prefer to rent.

This is one of the very few circumstances where a households income is completely and utterly irrelevant.

I guess the reasons why I don't think it a good idea for the state to provide all rented housing is the same reason I don't think it's a good idea for the state to provide all food or provide all clothing or all TVs or all cars or all entertainment or all sport facilities or all mobile phones.

Of course this would mean 'putting money back into the local community' but is all sounds all a bad idea.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I guess the reasons why I don't think it a good idea for the state to provide all rented housing is the same reason I don't think it's a good idea for the state to provide all food or provide all clothing or all TVs or all cars or all entertainment or all sport facilities or all mobile phones.

Of course this would mean 'putting money back into the local community' but is all sounds all a bad idea.

Nobody is saying they should provide all rental housing just a a good sized chunk of it. The private sector hasn't made up the shortfall in demand since council house building tailed off and they are unlikely to do so going forward.

You are right that it isn't good for for the state to provide items where we have choice over what, where and whether we consume. I am not sure anybody was advocating that either.

Unfortunately placing items where near near monopolies with single products in the hands of the private sector isn't necessarily any more efficient either for the consumer.

You needn't worry the reds aren't coming to get us any more. The cold war is over.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Nobody is saying they should provide all rental housing just a a good sized chunk of it. The private sector hasn't made up the shortfall in demand since council house building tailed off and they are unlikely to do so going forward.

You are right that it isn't good for for the state to provide items where we have choice over what, where and whether we consume. I am not sure anybody was advocating that either.

Unfortunately placing items where near near monopolies with single products in the hands of the private sector isn't necessarily any more efficient either for the consumer.

You needn't worry the reds aren't coming to get us any more. The cold war is over.

This particular sub thread includes the idea that the state should provide rented housing for people irrespective of income e.g. £100,000 pa.

Now that the red thread has been eliminated, do you think that is a good idea?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

This particular sub thread includes the idea that the state should provide rented housing for people irrespective of income e.g. £100,000 pa.

Now that the red thread has been eliminated, do you think that is a good idea?

If there is sufficient stock and somebody wants to pay a fair rent to live in that stock, that is up to them. Better to accept a rent than leave it empty.

As a PP pointed out someone may strike lucky and get a high paid job whilst living in a "state" property at what point should they be shoe horned out? Perhaps they have a local job, children in education, family commitments. As long as the rent they pay is a fair rent then that should be up to them. Why should the state order them to leave.

Not everyone wants to join or be part of the house owning brigade or be at the mercy of private landlords.

The problem is we have insufficient social housing stock. Another problem is that we are paying high levels of HB to private landlords to pay for their assets rather than provide a re-usable housing stock.

Leasing/renting is great if you are business and can write it off against profits and haven't got capital.

If you have access to cheap capital don't make profits and want to keep costs down their are cheaper ways to provide assets.

MacMickster

If the private sector is not doing its job by providing sufficient housing at the right price, with security of tenure to provide a stable environment, then why on earth shouldn't the state step in to meet that need?

If high rental costs in the private sector are damaging the economy, with the high wages required to pay the rent making British businesses uncompetetive in the global market, then surely the state should act (whether by becoming landlords themselves or regulating rents) for the good of our nation.

I despair of those who seem to assume that anything that the private sector does is automatically better than anything the public sector does, or dogmatically subscribe to a political ideology. Have an open mind and the world may suddenly become a new place to you.

Lagoon

OP, you spend approximately £1,000 a month on food and debt? Wow!

Am I missing the point a little, though?

What I'm getting from your post is that you don't think that £1000 is enough to buy food and pay your debts with, and so you're looking to be placed in council accommodation (presumably for cheaper rates). Yet, when people have suggested that you move somewhere cheaper, you've argued that you won't because you need to live in certain areas for your comfort, and that there are neighbourhoods that you feel would be much too 'rough' (not your words) for your liking? Council properties WILL be those rough areas - you're not going to be housed in a council house that's away from all the people that REALLY need it, and is in the best part of York - your neighbours will probably end up being exactly the kind of people that you're trying to avoid.

I am on much lower take home pay - though I imagine that your debts must be being repaid at a rate of around £700-800 per month to stop you saving anything at all. I, too, require a certain level of comfort (which is what's stopping ME from saving for a deposit, with OH), but because of that I wouldn't dream of trying to get a place in a council house!

Your options, really, are to keep living in comfort and not be able to afford a house, which is the option that we're taking, or to go and live in one of those rougher, less appealing areas and have some additional money in your pocket. If you're choosing option two, why not see if there are some cheaper rental properties that would allow you to save a little money if you're not suitable for a council house?