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!
Housing benefit reforms really this much of a problem?
Comments
-
vivatifosi wrote: »To be fair to the BBC, I've heard this discussed at length on R4. This is an issue for many landlords, not just the one in the article. If it isn't addressed, landlords will shy away from social renting options as too risky, which will mess up supply even more. Not good.
I agree.
And there appears to be two main solutions
A) We carry on paying private landlords more and more taxpayer money. The housing benefit bill however, is increasing at an alarming rate. It's increased over 30% in JUST the last 5 years. Looking forward, this solution appears to be unsustainable.
we start a programme to build state owned houses in order to place those people in need of cheaper or financially supported housing. We learn lessons from the past and do away with life long tenancies etc. Allocate on need. This should also have the knock on effect of recuding the rents private renters pay, freeing up money for the rest of the general economy. Provides jobs, growth etc.
There may be other solutions which I'd be interested to listen to.0 -
Not sure that universal benefits is there to keep businesses that have made poor choices in profit.
So renting to benefits claimants is a "poor choice"?
Or is it just expecting that the rent will be paid in general that is a "poor choice"?
Well, I suppose it could be if a new way of paying benefits has them spending their rent money on other things instead of paying rent.
But then we'll have loads of homeless benefits claimants, and a bigger problem for society.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Crikey.
Having a comprehension problem are you Dev?.
Me? Everyone else seems to be comprehending exactly what I'm saying. It only appears to be you with the issue.
On this note, theres some good discussion on this thread which is welcomed, so won't be ruining it playing ping pong like this.
I truly understand and respect your desire to back up housing investments and landlords. However, this particular landlord has and exercised something called free will. As a side note, he has bags more free will than his clients.
In exercising his free will he chose to buy houses in unemployment blackspots.
He chose to expand his empire extremely rapidly at more than two houses per month. There is no way he could have done this without severe leverage.
He chose to offer these properties to these clients he now insults.
He chose to expand that offering to 60% of his client base.
He's not the victim. Unless you class him as a victim of his own free will.0 -
The second expectation would be allowed for in most businesses. Basing your model on a never ending supply of taxpayers money should be discouraged.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »So renting to benefits claimants is a "poor choice"?
Or is it just expecting that the rent will be paid in general that is a "poor choice"?
Well, I suppose it could be if a new way of paying benefits has them spending their rent money on other things instead of paying rent.
But then we'll have loads of homeless benefits claimants, and a bigger problem for society.0 -
The second expectation would be allowed for in most businesses. Basing your model on a never ending supply of taxpayers money should be discouraged.
It should be discouraged but I doubt the number of potential claimants/residents will reduce, it is highly likely to continue to rise."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 -
PasturesNew wrote: »This is what being in business is about - taking risks and knowing how the maths works out and having Plan B etc.
If he's got a problem his maths must be wrong and instead of down-leveraging he's over-leveraged.
In business stuff changes and you have to react.
In Aus they've made a bunch of changes to the law to make it so that default choices for private pensions have to be much cheaper. That means we've had to spend a packet trying to put in a new product for which we can't charge as much!
This bloke is in a similar position. In the Government he has a dominant customer who has just changed the rules on him. He can see that as an opportunity (it'll drive low quality providers from the industry and allow him to raise prices) or a threat (risks go up, his business goes t!ts up). Either way he's lobbying for the status quo to remain under which he has apparently done very well.0 -
Going4TheDream wrote: »Of course not, he has modelled his business plan on being 'guaranteed' payments, and has very likely grown his portfolio based on this regular guaranteed (growing) income.
At a guess he's modelled his empire on ever growing debt. There'll be a tipping point when the tower will come crashing down.0 -
In business stuff changes and you have to react.
In Aus they've made a bunch of changes to the law to make it so that default choices for private pensions have to be much cheaper. That means we've had to spend a packet trying to put in a new product for which we can't charge as much!
Will this ultimately affect the quality and returns of the product or were you charging a premium?"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: »Kicking them out would lead to the very same conlusion, none payment of rent.
He'd then have to find someone else to rent the place. Which is OK for a handful, but not when you have 764 properties in a local area with 60% of them rented by welfare claimants.
Hence why I'm asking if this is a problem he has created for himself. If he's reliant on welfare payments for 452 of his 752 properties, surely he was always exposed and maybe always liable to fall over should the welfare system ever change? This is only exacerbated by the fact that many of his properties are in close proximity to one another. Finding private tenants to rent all these houses, or even just 20% of them wouldnt be a walk in the park.
Some on here talk of how private landlords have picked up the can in place of social housing. However, this isn't really true if you look at such a case. Social housing would not face this mess.
He will likely be absolutely fine. No ones going to let him go bust in reality, but at what cost to the rest of us considering so much tax payer money has been put into this already through housing benefit?
I don't think private landlords can ever take over social housing, due to the required profit element and, to put it bluntly, greed in these cases meaning every increasing leverage.
Umm so you are complaining that tax payers might end up bailing out a landlord when the housing benefit tenants don't bother to pay but are fine with tax payers taking the hit when social tenants don't pay the rent. To me I end up paying either way but for you the two are completely different?I think....0 -
Umm so you are complaining that tax payers might end up bailing out a landlord when the housing benefit tenants don't bother to pay but are fine with tax payers taking the hit when social tenants don't pay the rent.
Interesting point.To me I end up paying either way but for you the two are completely different?
Indeed.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”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
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards