Private landlords gain £26.7bn from UK taxpayer, says campaign group

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

When I worked in USA, Korea, China, Taiwan, I would have been laughed out of court had I requested a passport, let alone any free health, education for kids, or benefits of any kind. But they want their tax!

You can add Aus to that list.

No welfare benefits at all for the first 2 years excluding healthcare if you come over, as I did, as a family member of an Aussie.

If you come over as a skilled migrant then if you're out of work for 28 days your visa is revoked. At no point do you have any recourse to welfare. That includes having the state paying for the education of your kids or their healthcare.

If you don't have Australian citizenship then it is basically impossible to get work with the Federal Government too.

Thrugelmir

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

1. It will put severe upward pressure on rents until significantly more houses are built.

Markets always win. Rents rising too high will simply result in financial distress for LL's. BTL will only remain attractive while interest rates remain so low.

antrobus

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Karl Marx?....

I'd disagree.

A culture of dependency is not tolerated in the worker's state. Those who refuse to work shall be deemed social parasites and sentenced to internal exile in some suitably unhospitable location.

The Soviets had Siberia for that sort of thing. I suppose Scotland is the best we could do.

cepheus

The idea of course is to increase council house availability which will reduce demand on the private rental sector, decreasing rents and property prices. The latter will also make them cheaper to buy for people who want to live in them.

Of course you all know that, but just hope it doesn't happen because property has been easy money for the rich landlords, and a nightmare for tenants.

PS It seems the party who is most bankrolled by property moguls is the very same party whose supporters have a greater than average proportion of tenants. Good thing Kippers are thick. Doesn't it make you feel slightly guilty taking advantage of such stupidity though?

CLAPTON

Increase in housing will reduce the price or at least moderate the increase due to rising demand.

council housing will have indeed have that effect too.

if the planning restrictions etc amended suitably then more house could be built at no cost to the tax payer and would provide a better social community as well

cells

private dairy farmers gain £223M from taxpayers as jobseekers allowance diverted to milk industry....

gazter

cepheus wrote: »

The idea of course is to increase council house availability which will reduce demand on the private rental sector, decreasing rents and property prices. The latter will also make them cheaper to buy for people who want to live in them.

Of course you all know that, but just hope it doesn't happen because property has been easy money for the rich landlords, and a nightmare for tenants.

PS It seems the party who is most bankrolled by property moguls is the very same party whose supporters have a greater than average proportion of tenants. Good thing Kippers are thick. Doesn't it make you feel slightly guilty taking advantage of such stupidity though?

Whatever the range of solutions, more council housing isnt one of them.

cepheus

gazter wrote: »

Whatever the range of solutions, more council housing isnt one of them.

Bloody awful solution for private Landlords yeah!

Carl31

CLAPTON wrote: »

Increase in housing will reduce the price or at least moderate the increase due to rising demand.

council housing will have indeed have that effect too.

if the planning restrictions etc amended suitably then more house could be built at no cost to the tax payer and would provide a better social community as well

depends who buys the increased housing

If its purchased for capital investment purposes, such as the 75% of london new builds by overseas investors, it will not have any, or little, effect on the market

Hence why council housing is the only real solution to the current housing problem, that way its out of the hands or private investors, and removes a revenue stream from them too, also making BTL a less attractive investment

cells

Carl31 wrote: »

depends who buys the increased housing

If its purchased for capital investment purposes, such as the 75% of london new builds by overseas investors, it will not have any, or little, effect on the market

Hence why council housing is the only real solution to the current housing problem, that way its out of the hands or private investors, and removes a revenue stream from them too, also making BTL a less attractive investment

why not have the state buy homes off the open market, maybe 500k a year, and convert them to social homes?