Private landlords cash in on housing scandal

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Is that social property or any property in general?

On the basis Thatcher sold the silver and allowed the funds to be used in shoring up government (in the widest sense) spending, it isn't surprising the next administration had little to spare either whilst piddling in the wind.

Has their been a marked up turn in social, as opposed to affordable housing since the current administration came to power?

N1AK

JencParker wrote: »

What, like they did with the money they received from selling off council houses under right to buy, you mean?!!!

I have no idea what your point was as nothing you said seemed to contradict what I had said in the post you quoted.

It's easy, but naive, to try and pretend that you can look back at RTB in isolation (besides which it is a policy that I think was mishandled). The money raised by selling council properties was spent by the government of the time so what tax cut do you think they shouldn't have brought in, what area of government spending should they have cut violently to make the budget balance if they hadn't done RTB? If you can't answer that then your just spewing truisms and hoping it is mistaken for wisdom.

Every thing the government spends money on, including offering below market rate rents to higher earners, means they must tax more, borrow more or spend less on something else. Simples.

Loughton_Monkey

JencParker wrote: »

I have never said I agree with the existing policy regarding social housing. To start with, I don't agree that council houses should be passed down from generation to generation, nor do I agree with the right to buy selling at significant discount and neither have I said that I support that a significant subsidy for life should be maintained just because they once qualified for it.

JencParker wrote: »

Neither do I see why someone should have low rent when they achieve high salaries, or that they can pass this privilege from generation to generation.

Good!

Then we are in agreement on these points. So why jump on points made that also tend to support this.... and jump down everyone's throat?

So now will you agree with the points that the majority are making, and agree that the traditional provision of social housing is wrong, because it contravenes the principles of providing subsidies only to those who need them?

The exact mechanism for correcting this is up for debate.

JencParker wrote: »

While it may be a capitalist concept it is not a humanitarian or social one. It's a sad state of affairs that we live in a world where capitalism and profit take precedence over any other considerations. We may have made strides with technological progress but in humanitarian values, we are still very puny!

I really think you are missing the point here. Capitalism and Profit is one thing. Efficient use of scarce public resources is another.

There is no conflict whatsoever between humanitarianism and spending other people's money wisely. That's certainly what I am talking about, and what I perceive most others are talking about.

Local Councils, I am afraid, and the complexity of the country, have moved on. If you really believe that local councils should start recruiting hundreds and thousands of road menders, road builders, house builders, house maintenance people..... so that they can build roads and houses at "cost price" [i.e. say 10% below what the professional profit making road and construction companies charge] then you and I live on a different planet.

We don't have the money to do this anyway.

So in the real world, councils must pay a profit making company otherwise they would pay more. That's not 'capitalism', it's effective use of public money.

gazter

michaels wrote: »

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.

Council Tax cannot lawfully be used to subsidise social housing rents.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I believe it's more efficient to house a family in a state built and owned house, than it is to give ever increasing amounts of housing benefits to private landlords.

Couple of things: -

1) Yes, in the long term it is more efficient to build property, however the question is whether the government has sufficient funding to build at the moment.

Certainly when they are trying to cut the deficit, where is the funds to come from?

How many years funding rents would it take to meet the capital outlay and housing benefit over the years? i.e. What's the cross over threshold? My thoughts is that it is far longer than the elected period.

2) Not all Housing Benefit goes to Private LL's

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Couple of things: -

1) Yes, in the long term it is more efficient to build property, however the question is whether the government has sufficient funding to build at the moment.

Certainly when they are trying to cut the deficit, where is the funds to come from?

How many years funding rents would it take to meet the capital outlay and housing benefit over the years? i.e. What's the cross over threshold? My thoughts is that it is far longer than the elected period.

2) Not all Housing Benefit goes to Private LL's

Funds would come from borrowing. But in turn, that would create massive growth, jobs and income.

Which is a lot more than can be said for borrowing money to pay landlords.

It's not a quick fix, no. But it's a darn sight better than just hemorrhaging money on housing benefits for which we never get any return or any stake in the asset base.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Funds would come from borrowing.

So, in a time when the government is trying to reduce the deficit, you are advocating an increase in borrowing.

1. What would you envisage would be the required amount of borrowing? and how many properties would this create?
2. How long is the period before we see a benefit to this additional borrowing?
3. What would eb the cost of maintaining and managing the additional UK council stock?
4. Would there be any backlash from other departments where their budget is being cut i.e. police, nurses etc because funds are being diverted to rebuilding council housing stock

Remember, I am in agreement that building more housing is the answer, my questions are simply to start understanding the impact of such a decision.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Funds would come from borrowing. But in turn, that would create massive growth, jobs and income.

Wouldn't privately borrowed funds create the same massive growth, jobs and income?

What's the difference between your grand scheme where the taxpayer takes on the entire risk of building, renting and the eventual giveaway of new housing and help to buy where the taxpayer has a reduced risk and lower net cost?

Both reduce demand in the rental sector.

antrobus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Is that social property or any property in general?...

Both, as it happens. Do you want the stats?:)

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Wouldn't privately borrowed funds create the same massive growth, jobs and income?

What's the difference between your grand scheme where the taxpayer takes on the entire risk of building, renting and the eventual giveaway of new housing and help to buy where the taxpayer has a reduced risk and lower net cost?

Both reduce demand in the rental sector.

You've taken what I said, applied your own version of what I said and then come up with a problem....again.

Who said anything about giving the houses away?

The difference between what I am suggesting and private landlords is very simple and has been mentioned numerous times.

We own the asset, we don't have to therefore hand over ever increasing monthly amounts of housing benefits. We can run them at cost, or what you call a "subsidy". This will, over time, cost a lot less than spending ever increasing amounts of housing benefits.

I'm not talking about building a handful either., I'm talking 10's of thousands, hundreds of thousands. We face a shortage of a million homes. That sort of project would provide a massive amount of jobs and growth. This, is proven in history.

You can find numerous problems with this, but you have also stated lots of times than buying is better than renting. Apart from the fact this would reduce the value of your houses, why is it better for the government to rent houses in place of owning social housing?

I find many people are asking questions, but not many of you are comign forward to demonstrate why it would be worse for the nation to own social assets which can be put to use in place of handing over ever increasing amounts in housing benefits.

So mnaybe you could demonstrate how paying private landlords is a better solution.