Good Old Fergus!

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

From Wikipedia - "However, that fortune related to the value of their properties at the peak and did not take account of any mortgage debt"

Do you know how much his mortgages are, how much he actually is worth? You would need to know this before bowing down at the altar of his "wealth" IMO, and if his lifestyle is what wealth brings I think most people would pass TBH. Of course these types of programmes are just distraction, the main problem is that banks and politicians deliberately turned on the credit taps to get lending going and hide the lack of wage growth in this country, of course lots of people fell for it and we are reaping the rewards now, Brexit is one result that would never have happened if house prices were allowed to correct sooner IMO.

First of all I'm not bowing down to him, I actually think that he is a total (insert swear word), the way that he acts, he might actually have some mental issues and the fact that he is wealthy doesn't change that in any way. I'm merely acknowledging that he is very wealthy, but that doesn't actually mean anything, not to me anyway, it might to some who may be jealous, but that's their problem.

Discussions about his wealth have been done to death, we may have even been through this between ourselves in the past. I'm convinced that he is extremely wealthy, but as I said that is just a statement of fact, it isn't a reason to admire him (or anyone else). I'm pretty far away from admiring him.

James_Green_1982

Crashy_Time wrote: »

From Wikipedia - "However, that fortune related to the value of their properties at the peak and did not take account of any mortgage debt"

Do you know how much his mortgages are, how much he actually is worth? You would need to know this before bowing down at the altar of his "wealth" IMO, and if his lifestyle is what wealth brings I think most people would pass TBH. Of course these types of programmes are just distraction, the main problem is that banks and politicians deliberately turned on the credit taps to get lending going and hide the lack of wage growth in this country, of course lots of people fell for it and we are reaping the rewards now, Brexit is one result that would never have happened if house prices were allowed to correct sooner IMO.

Is he getting hit by Section 24?
I'm presuming his properties are all held by him personally, rather than in a limited company?
The cost of him selling and buying back inside a limited company could be quite high...

lisyloo

MobileSaver wrote: »

the judge commented that Mrs Wilson was "not as wealthy as people think" and only pays herself £23k a year ...

Hmm.....judge not accountant

I only take a fraction of my salary to avoid tax.
I’m sure they would have taken advice and the judge may not understand accountancy and doesn’t appear to understand that a low income does reflect overall wealth.

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t have any issue with people making themselves wealthy through their own efforts (even fergus).

What I have an issue with is people living in slums or without heating etc.
There needs to be a lot more enforcement of the bad uns and if that means all landlords have to cross-subsidise this enforcement then so be it.
There should be prison sentences where the neglect has led to human suffering. Money isn’t sufficient to stop wealthy people doing whatever they want.

But what’s wrong with making money? Surely that’s what we want people to do.

Private landlords like Wilson don't really create wealth. They just extract it from the tenants and/or the council (via LHA). The money in his bank account would otherwise have been spent by the tenants in other areas of the economy. Maybe local shops, their own houses etc.

It's what John Bogle would call a ''zero sum game''.

It's different to a large building company who buy a patch of waste ground and build houses on it. That is creating a more useful (and hence valuable) asset and paying people (builders) for their labour.

lisyloo

He is providing a service that LAs no longer provide.
Yes it doesn’t create wealth but people need to live somewhere no? And if they can’t buy and can’t get social housing then they need an alternative.

I am not saying landlords create wealth, but they do provide a service and there is no reason they shouldn’t be rewarded for that.

If we don’t want them, then we need an alternative for approx 1/3rd of the population who can’t own or want to be economically mobile.

It doesn’t make sense to just hate landlords without a viable alternative for the service of housing people that either have to or want to rent.

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

He is providing a service that LAs no longer provide.
Yes it doesn’t create wealth but people need to live somewhere no? And if they can’t buy and can’t get social housing then they need an alternative.

I am not saying landlords create wealth, but they do provide a service and there is no reason they shouldn’t be rewarded for that.

If we don’t want them, then we need an alternative for approx 1/3rd of the population who can’t own or want to be economically mobile.

It doesn’t make sense to just hate landlords without a viable alternative for the service of housing people that either have to or want to rent.

There is an argument that private landlords are inserting themselves as middle men between the existing housing stock and would-be buyers. So landlords are in effect forcing tenants to rent from them, when they could buy the houses themselves, if landlords were unable to out bid them for the house.

This was the argument used by that well known socialist chancellor - George Osborne.

I agree that landlords are needed for those who wish to rent. The problem arises when that extends to those who wish to buy, but are forced to rent.

lisyloo

There are a great many who can’t afford to buy whether they want to not (about 1/3rd).
This includes people on benefits, low incomes, those in the gig economy with insecure employment and some self-employed doing well but not enough books.

It’s not landlords stopping those people from buying.

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

There are a great many who can’t afford to buy whether they want to not (about 1/3rd).
This includes people on benefits, low incomes, those in the gig economy with insecure employment and some self-employed doing well but not enough books.

It’s not landlords stopping those people from buying.

That's true.
But just above them is a level of would be buyers, who are presently tenants. They pay the same (or more) in rent than a mortgage would cost. Those are the people who are bringing this to the politicians' agenda. These are the tenants who want to replace their current landlords as the owners of the properties they live in.

I think the government also want to achieve this. But the government don't want to see house prices drop. Hence the HTB stuff going on.

Now what would happen if all those landlords sold these properties to the tenants I described? I don't think prices would really be affected. Because supply / demand has not really altered. You still have the same number of households in the same number of houses.

The insecure tenants you describe, would only really benefit from a massive drop in house prices. eg down to £20k for a house would probably be required.

lisyloo

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

That's true.
But just above them is a level of would be buyers, who are presently tenants. They pay the same (or more) in rent than a mortgage would cost. Those are the people who are bringing this to the politicians' agenda. These are the tenants who want to replace their current landlords as the owners of the properties they live in.

I think the government also want to achieve this. But the government don't want to see house prices drop. Hence the HTB stuff going on.

Now what would happen if all those landlords sold these properties to the tenants I described? I don't think prices would really be affected. Because supply / demand has not really altered. You still have the same number of households in the same number of houses.

The insecure tenants you describe, would only really benefit from a massive drop in house prices. eg down to £20k for a house would probably be required.

I don’t have any issue with the potential buyers being owners instead of landlords. In fact I think that is what is happening with btl being less attractive but it will take time for some to sell up (a cliff edge isn’t really in anyone’s interest).

You haven’t addressed the bottom 3rd though who will never own e.g. elderly on state benefits.

How will you cater for those if we don’t have enough social housing stock and don’t have private landlords?

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t have any issue with the potential buyers being owners instead of landlords. In fact I think that is what is happening with btl being less attractive but it will take time for some to sell up (a cliff edge isn’t really in anyone’s interest).

You haven’t addressed the bottom 3rd though who will never own e.g. elderly on state benefits.

How will you cater for those if we don’t have enough social housing stock and don’t have private landlords?

Well I'm not in charge - i'm just describing the policies I see happening!

I suppose there would be landlords remaining to provide for the tenants who cannot buy.