Private landlords cash in on housing scandal

IveSeenTheLight

JencParker wrote: »

It's not necessarily a subsidy - what is the cost of that property that is rented at £121?

Renting or selling something at a price less than other similar items does not mean it is subsidised except to the narrow minded capitalists who are only concerned with making the maximum profit possible.

If that property costs £121 and is rented for £121 then how is that subsidising it? For a start, from reading this board, landlords expect a profit of around 7-8% on their property, so you can wipe that amount off the cost in the first place.

IIRC, part of the reason to sell off social housing stock was that the government did not have the funds to maintain the social housing, thus the rents received (and covering those not paying for council house from personal funds) was because the rents received were insufficient.

michaels

Have to agree with LM

Suppose the council had some IT kit to dispose off and sold it for half its market value to an 'insider' - that would be fraud. Yet renting at half market rates to a group of insiders who 'got lucky' historically is acceptable even though everyone else pays through higher council tax?

The right to buy discount is effectively rolling up this life time discount and giving it to the family in one hit and is probably therefore a saving overall. Selling off council housing also obviously has no impact on the supply/demand balance for housing.

There is obviously a severe lack of housing in many parts of the country (social or otherwise, perhaps social housing would be less oversubscribed if it wasn't subsidised?) demonstrated by the fact that prices are so much higher than build costs. That is the result of planning restrictions and could be solved by addressing those restrictions much more sensibly then by artificially increasing/restricting mortgage finanace, subsidising rents etc etc.

IveSeenTheLight

purch wrote: »

That opportunity only exists because the rental market has been interfered with by Governments selling off the stock of social housing and not replacing it as promised.

Of course, there will be little support for social housing on this board, because any increase in the supply of housing will force rents lower, which will in turn make the BTL model uneconomic and unsustainable.

On the contrary.
I have cited that in my mind, social housing should be offered on a small footprint as to not offend the green brigade whilst supplying basic accommodation at the lowest cost.

This provides a basic level of support, whilst making sure that those that can afford are incentivised to move out of the social housing when they can.

I'm also a BTL LL of 7 years, who has not rented to people requiring housing benefit.

It remains unproven that rents would reduce as a result of housing benefit changes.

antrobus

purch wrote: »

That opportunity only exists because the rental market has been interfered with by Governments selling off the stock of social housing and not replacing it as promised.....

I don't believe that there was any original promise to replace 'social housing' on a one-for-one basis, and it would be rather odd if there was. It's not as if houses disappear just because they're sold. The current shortage of social housing has more to with the failure of the Labour administrations of 1997-2010 to build sufficient property in the light of an increasing population and predictable social changes.

purch wrote: »

...Of course, there will be little support for social housing on this board, because any increase in the supply of housing will force rents lower, which will in turn make the BTL model uneconomic and unsustainable.

Oh, I don't know. Personally I'm quite in favour of the good old-fashioned Conservative policy of building houses for ordinary people to live in.

purch

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

On the contrary.
I have cited that in my mind, social housing should be offered on a small footprint as to not offend the green brigade whilst supplying basic accommodation at the lowest cost.

This provides a basic level of support, whilst making sure that those that can afford are incentivised to move out of the social housing when they can.

I'm also a BTL LL of 7 years, who has not rented to people requiring housing benefit.

It remains unproven that rents would reduce as a result of housing benefit changes.

If you are going to be contrary, you need to at least refer to the post you are being contrary about, not go rambling off at a tangent !!

IveSeenTheLight

michaels wrote: »

Selling off council housing also obviously has no impact on the supply/demand balance for housing.

Short term outlook maybe, however considering the longer term this is not the case.

My GM-I-L had her social housing property bought so it could be refurbished. At this time, there is no change to the balance.

A few years later, she moved into care and her home was sold off privately. [COLOR="rgb(160, 82, 45)"]In this instance, the property would have been available for the next generation of the local area who was looking for a council house, however this has been taken away from the council stock and therefore they are less able to support the social tenant [/COLOR]

So in my view, selling off social housing impacted the future social housing capabilities.
It's the typical short term political mindset that holds back the country from making great strides.

N1AK

JencParker wrote: »

If that property costs £121 and is rented for £121 then how is that subsidising it? For a start, from reading this board, landlords expect a profit of around 7-8% on their property, so you can wipe that amount off the cost in the first place.

However you look at it, and I agree that subsidy isn't technically correct in this case, it makes no sense. If the government stopped offering below market rents on council housing then the additional revenue from people who earn enough not to need housing benefit could be used to build more houses, pay for more A&E staff etc.

IveSeenTheLight

purch wrote: »

If you are going to be contrary, you need to at least refer to the post you are being contrary about, not go rambling off at a tangent !!

So you wish me to go and prove that I have backed social housing in this forum to disprove your post.

Give me 5 minutes or so

purch

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So you wish me to go and prove that I have backed social housing in this forum to disprove your post.

Disprove what post ?

IveSeenTheLight

purch wrote: »

Disprove what post ?

I was showing that as a BTL LL, I support affordable social housing.

I'm struggling to find the recent post I made referencing that social housing should be made on a small footprint i.e. skyscraper's to increase efficiency and promote those that can afford to move on.
I wonder if the thread was deleted.