Milliband promises rent controls

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

It's probably true that if one makes letting less attractive some landlords will sell and so there will be an increase in owner occupation.

However, most owner occupiers tend to have lower number of people per property than renters (most owners don't go in for multiple occupancies whilst rental businesses do).

That would mean people without anywhere to live at all and not market forces to find a solution.
Presumably one would expect the state to step in and stop the people sleeping on the street.

I know that, its a simple math equation

the homeless on the streets is probably what is needed to address the absurdity of the chronic shortage of planning stamps.

Cyberman60

antrobus wrote: »

That would certainly be my experience.



Whilst Labour say they want 3 year tenancies to be the 'norm', it is not clear what they mean by that. They might mean giving tenants that statutory right to a 3 year tenancy, but with lots of break clauses. As in, it might be 3 years one way, but not the other.

Under Labour you must stay for three years !!

You know it makes sense. It is good for global warming because people will not move so much.... :T

michaels

ukcarper wrote: »

It's difficult for both parents to work if the second person is on a low wage as childcare cost are prohibitive lots of people earn less than £25k. Yes they would get housing benefit do you think it's right that a person on average earnings needs housing benefit.

Or could it be that housing benefit shifts the demand line on the graph pushing up rents rather than the other way around?

thequant

ukcarper wrote: »

It's difficult for both parents to work if the second person is on a low wage as childcare cost are prohibitive lots of people earn less than £25k. Yes they would get housing benefit do you think it's right that a person on average earnings needs housing benefit.

Why are they having children that they can't afford to bring up ?


Another personal choice that brings self imflicted misery, which is then blamed on others.


People need to take responsibility for their actions, because others aren't listening and more importantly don't care.

cells

Generali wrote: »

When rent caps were removed effectively via the AST, the quality of rental properties went up markedly. If they are reinstated then by far the most likely outcome is quality goes back down.

I don't disagree with that

but what I think would happen is....

lots of landlords would sell up and more renters would become owners
The conversion of higher occupancy rented homes to lower occupancy owner homes will push lots and lots of people into the states lap

for a time the temporary housing structures will cope, hotels hostels bed and breakfast and friends sofas....and then they wont.

at that point the state will have to build tent cities and soon after a true 500,000 a year hoise building program will come to life

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

It's difficult for both parents to work if the second person is on a low wage as childcare cost are prohibitive lots of people earn less than £25k. Yes they would get housing benefit do you think it's right that a person on average earnings needs housing benefit.

I don't really know if god would approve or not so I can't comment on what is 'right'.


However, the housing issue is a solvable problem the solution of which is build more houses and reduce the demand.

ukcarper

thequant wrote: »

Why are they having children that they can't afford to bring up ?


Another personal choice that brings self implicated misery, which is then blamed on others.


People need to take responsibility for their actions, because others aren't listening and more importantly don't care.

People's circumstances change. You said people can live in London and pay less than 50% of their earnings on rent I have shown they can't .

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't really know if god would approve or not so I can't comment on what is 'right'.


However, the housing issue is a solvable problem the solution of which is build more houses and reduce the demand.

Talking rubbish again.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

we need to build more housing: rent controls won't achieve that.

But they almost certainly would a short time after coming into effect

thequant

ukcarper wrote: »

People's circumstances change. You said people can live in London and pay less than 50% of their earnings on rent I have shown they can't .

You've shown, that people who rent properties that are bigger than their needs will struggle.


As it should be.