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

cells

antrobus wrote: »

Not really. The UK actually has very few empty homes compared to other European countries. And of course these homes are frequently empty for a very good reason; as in, the occupant has recently died, gone into a hospital or whatever.

We don't have enough houses. We need to build more.

Most people who discuss housing and the need for it simply have no clue about household size. They think that only the additional population needs additional housing which is of course completely wrong.

you can see this clearly when in the 1970s over a period of 4 years the population was completely flat yet some 1.2 million additional new homes were built. Those homes were not needed for an increasing population (as the population wasn't increasing) but so household size could fall

The same is needed now. Household size needs to fall else housing will get more expensive. Not only are we not meeting that need but we are in fact going in the opposite direction and household sizes are increasing due ti a massive under supply of additional homes

CLAPTON

lackingwedge wrote: »

How does planning limit supply?
Does it have something to do with the house builders not being willing to do anything to assist with the local infrastructure such as road improvements, expanding local schools and build a percentage of affordable housing etc?

planning controls can limit supply by

-refusing to designate the area for development
-determining the density of housing to be built
-determining the type / mix of housing to be build
-restricting the amount of space allocated to parking or garages
-determining how much the future owner occupiers must subsidise social tenants
-determining the amount of heavily subsidised social housing that must be included
-determining what infrastructure must or must not be included
-determining the levies etc that go into council coffers

all the above and many more, can either prevent develop completely or make it totally uneconomic

antrobus

lackingwedge wrote: »

How does planning limit supply?

The way it used to work was that;

- government set a house building target
- government share out target between RDAs
- RDA's share out target between LPAs
- LPAs set out local development plans

So in the 2000s, the government has annual target of 200,000 homes a year, and lo and behold, that's how many we got.

lackingwedge wrote: »

...Does it have something to do with the house builders not being willing to do anything to assist with the local infrastructure such as road improvements, expanding local schools and build a percentage of affordable housing etc?

No.

TickersPlaysPop

Does the housing market need a temporary period of house building that is not for profit?

I suppose the problem is.... most of the land in locations that are suitable and need housing are owned and land banked by companies? One example is my area where a company has been sitting on the land since before 2008... now the housing market has risen and there is obvious signs it will go only one way due to the severe shortage... surprise surprise they start building.

Not all of the new houses should not be put on the open market for BTL and owner occupiers to compete against each other.

Remember we have many different problems in the housing market, and many different things need to happen, some tempoary and some permanent to slowly bring it back to a healthy, sustainable and less socially devisive state.

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Does the housing market need a temporary period of house building that is not for profit?

I suppose the problem is.... most of the land in locations that are suitable and need housing are owned and land banked by companies? One example is my area where a company has been sitting on the land since before 2008... now the housing market has risen and there is obvious signs it will go only one way due to the severe shortage... surprise surprise they start building.

Not all of the new houses should not be put on the open market for BTL and owner occupiers to compete against each other.

Remember we have many different problems in the housing market, and many different things need to happen, some tempoary and some permanent to slowly bring it back to a healthy, sustainable and less socially devisive state.

Builders want to build: sitting on land is expensive and unprofitable.

They will have sat on the land as they can't sell the houses because FTBs can't get mortgages due to the crazy banking policies that have been agreed post-crash.

Banks would much rather lend to OOs than BTLers as OOs will move Heaven and Earth to keep 'their' home whereas BTLers are just investors and so are more likely to default from any given position. It's why BTL requires a bigger deposit and substantially tougher terms as well as a higher interest rate usually.

ruggedtoast

jjlandlord wrote: »

People don't have to listen or pay attention to every loonies in the country.

Their figure is made up and does not correspond to anything.



Assuming that these numbers are not 'estimates' plugged out of thin air:

Housing benefit is paid to tenants. If they think that this is costing too much why don't they propose to abolish HB?
If they suggest that the money be used to build social housing it would still be paid by the taxpayer.

The rest are just the standard expenses that any and all businesses in the country are allowed to offset their taxable profit with.

Are people that gullible?

I dont think people are gullible. Its just that of all the types of pseudo professions in the world, landlordism is right up there with estate agents and private wheel clampers in the affections of public consciousness. And therefore may well be an easy target for vote winning the 10 million renters who are sick of being treated like some kind of cash machine by people who are visibly much better off than them, so that they can access a basic human need.

Private wheel clampers aren't allowed to clamp anymore, by the way.

jjlandlord

ruggedtoast wrote: »

And therefore may well be an easy target for vote winning the 10 million renters who are sick of being treated like some kind of cash machine by people who are visibly much better off than them, so that they can access a basic human need.

I agree that the border between 'gullible' and 'thick' is fuzzy.

TickersPlaysPop

The difference between policies....

Private rental as it is now
Social housing where the government builds and owns property

One supports and helps the least fortunate and least wealthy
One supports the fortunate and the wealthy

With where the housing market is after years of poisonous mismanagement.... There is only one choice in my opinion and it is not more landlord'ism than we already have.

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes, if supermarkets knew that the government would be stupid enough to give vouchers for food then supermarkets could indeed allow prices to rise rather than have to reduce prices to improve sales.

that is why most government intervention, however, well intentioned, usually acts to the detriment of all.

compare food prices today without socialist intervention
with rents with massive and rising state intervention.

Whereas free markets benefit those at the top the most and those at the bottom suffer the most. But then, for the sake of capitalism, who cares!

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

Whereas free markets benefit those at the top the most and those at the bottom suffer the most. But then, for the sake of capitalism, who cares!

It depends upon your view of history and indeed of the current world.

I see a wonderful world that has largely been created by people going about their business and doing the best for themselves and their family.
This has resulted, in many mixed economy societies, being the enormously rich : such that the poorest has richest beyond all reasonable expectation of say 100 years ago.
Freedom from hunger, warm homes and clothes, entertainment, freedom to travel, to change jobs, to vote for who you like, rule of law etc.
Where as you long to return to the utopia of USSR: each according to their needs from from each according to abilities. Or maybe you long to return to the land where we are all equal starving as subsistence farmers.

Like democracy : it's not perfect but it probably a lot better than the alternatives.