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!
Private landlords gain £26.7bn from UK taxpayer, says campaign group
Comments
-
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
can you validate the statistic that 75% of new builds in London are bought by overseas investors?
and what percentage of these are let out rather than lie empty?0 -
can you validate the statistic that 75% of new builds in London are bought by overseas investors?
and what percentage of these are let out rather than lie empty?
It's hard to get the statistics as many of these overseas "investors" have complicated shell compainies and don't really declare the occupancy rates.
Foreigners buying houses in London is not new, many parts of Kensington, Chelsea and Regents part have been in private ownership for decades. What has happenned recently is the British govenrments relaxing rules to "open up the UK to Foriegn investment" which is political speak to look the other way whilst money of dubious origin floods into this country from people looking to shield their money from tax authorities or turbulent political situations back home.
For these people, having these homes occupied or receiving a rental income is of a secondary concern and so much of this happenning that even properties where regular Londoners live are now being snapped up.
There isn't a lack of Housing in London, it is the lack of affordable housing that is the issue and it will only be addressed by the local govenrment building the houses and renting to the most financially vulnerable and not lining the pockets of private landlords.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Was discussed on 5 live earlier.
The concensus from landlords was that they would increase the rent by around 30% to cover any such increases in taxation.
The government would have to fund this increase through benefits, otherwise they would have thousands of people suddenly homeless to re-home.
Infact, rent contorls were discussed to...and again, it would appear the first answer would be for landlords to increase rents to cover any loss in profits. The answer, for everything, it seems, is to simply increase the rents....and it really did appear that incredibly simple.
The overarching point was "meddle with the system to take anything back, and we'll pass the costs onto those you are trying to protect...therefore, don't mess".
Just shows, protection really is needed if this is the mindset. (Not saying it's the mindset of all landlords).
This notion that landlords can just whack up rents whenever they want is just false. If they could increase by 30% and get the government to cough up they would already have done it. Rents are set by the supply/demand in the market. If the rental yield changes due to government meddling that will affect the price of the asset downwards to make the yield attractive again.Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.0 -
lackingwedge wrote: »It's hard to get the statistics as many of these overseas "investors" have complicated shell compainies and don't really declare the occupancy rates.
Foreigners buying houses in London is not new, many parts of Kensington, Chelsea and Regents part have been in private ownership for decades. What has happenned recently is the British govenrments relaxing rules to "open up the UK to Foriegn investment" which is political speak to look the other way whilst money of dubious origin floods into this country from people looking to shield their money from tax authorities or turbulent political situations back home.
For these people, having these homes occupied or receiving a rental income is of a secondary concern and so much of this happenning that even properties where regular Londoners live are now being snapped up.
There isn't a lack of Housing in London, it is the lack of affordable housing that is the issue and it will only be addressed by the local govenrment building the houses and renting to the most financially vulnerable and not lining the pockets of private landlords.
the 75% figure is clearly nonsense : it may be true for parts of 'central ' London but not London over all.
The problem is the lack of housing : if there were enough houses for peoples wants then the price would reflect the supply - demand balance.
How will building houses for the 'most' vulnerable help provide for normal people like utility workers, teachers, nurses, shop workers etc?
What do you mean 'most vulnerable '? poor?, young? mental health problems?0 -
This notion that landlords can just whack up rents whenever they want is just false. If they could increase by 30% and get the government to cough up they would already have done it. Rents are set by the supply/demand in the market. If the rental yield changes due to government meddling that will affect the price of the asset downwards to make the yield attractive again.
Supply / demand in the market isn't static.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »So Tesco's has the mindset of "jack up prices, it's OK, if people can't eat, it will be up to the government to give them vouchers to spend in Tesco".
Tesco passes VAT on to customers. So, yes.
If landlords stop housing people, and they can't get a mortgage, who will house them instead?0 -
Whatever the range of solutions, more council housing isnt one of them.
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. There is probably no single act that will do more to address the housing crisis in this country than a large scale programme of social housebuilding. It's no conincidence that the only time in Post war history when we've built anything like the number of new houses we currently need is when we were doing just that.0 -
The problem is the lack of housing : if there were enough houses for peoples wants then the price would reflect the supply - demand balance.
there isnt actually a lack of housing though, if there was, there would be families sitting in the streets, or pitched up in tents in parks around the country. A part from a few people, almost everyone in this country has a house to live in. There is even loads of empty ones, so there's plenty of houses
The problem is the ownership, there's not enough for people to owner occupy, and to use as rental properties, and even if more are built, they will just get snapped up by investors and used as rental, or sat empty
More council houses will reduce demand for private rentals and buying, but of course, no one wants that0 -
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. There is probably no single act that will do more to address the housing crisis in this country than a large scale programme of social housebuilding. It's no conincidence that the only time in Post war history when we've built anything like the number of new houses we currently need is when we were doing just that.
The post war council building boom was largely fueled by demolishing large sections of our bomb damaged slums.
I'm not sure which parts of London currently mirror this situation.
Much of the actual building was carried out by the private sector.
If councils can provide large areas of empty land then they could release this right now for building by the private sector: no need for the state to own the property.0 -
there isnt actually a lack of housing though, if there was, there would be families sitting in the streets, or pitched up in tents in parks around the country. A part from a few people, almost everyone in this country has a house to live in. There is even loads of empty ones, so there's plenty of houses
The problem is the ownership, there's not enough for people to owner occupy, and to use as rental properties, and even if more are built, they will just get snapped up by investors and used as rental, or sat empty
More council houses will reduce demand for private rentals and buying, but of course, no one wants that
It is universally recognised that housing in the UK is largely about peoples WANTS and not absolute NEED.
Do you have evidence of large numbers of long term empty properties?
Do you have evidence of large numbers of new builds that are left empty?
Why would new council housing reduce the demand for rentals but new private sector new builds won't?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