118 Landlords Panic and try lobbying MP's yet again

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Of course. Graham was suggesting it wouldn't be a problem if BTL was banned

Eh? Was I? Who mentioned banning BTL landlords!?

because the council could easily sort the problem of a million renters. through methods, as yet, unspecified.

You are over analysing stuff here, presumably as you are having too after making so much stuff up.

There is absolutely nothing (physical) stopping councils from switching up a few gears and building more houses. This can be done alongside BTL.

Although I'm not sure why banning BTL would have much of a material net effect on prices. Maybe we should ban all renting as a solution to high prices?

You are focusing on the banning thing again, something which you've decided to make up to support your earlier "nationalise" claim which you completely made up too.

wotsthat

Maybe you could clarify exactly what councils would find easy to do and under what circumstances.

It would save having to second guess what the bloody hell you're on about and having to put up with your faux outrage.

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you are going to be a multiple property owning buy to let landlord in a housing crisis, you perhaps need to be rather more resilient to opprobrium than certain people on this thread.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Buy To Let ; the fact is that a Tory government has decided that the UK has seen enough of it.

Good.

Its hard to reach that conclusion

the wear and tear allowance was too generous

the mortgage interest thing was definitely unexpected but I see it as no more than a tax increasing measure

was the advent if air passanger duty the government wanting to see the end of airports or was it perhaps cashing in?

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

Its hard to reach that conclusion

the wear and tear allowance was too generous

the mortgage interest thing was definitely unexpected but I see it as no more than a tax increasing measure

was the advent if air passanger duty the government wanting to see the end of airports or was it perhaps cashing in?

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I think that there was also politics involved with the reduction of mortgage interest as a business expense. IMO not to get rid of landlords (the Gov needs a healthy private rented sector), probably to appease first time buyers concerns over competing with landlords to buy property. A high percentage of landlords will tend to vote Tory anyway, probably more so than your typical FTB.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe you could clarify exactly what councils would find easy to do and under what circumstances.

It would save having to second guess what the bloody hell you're on about and having to put up with your faux outrage.

Ok, just for you as you seem very confused by everything I say, though others seem to get it....presumably as they simply read it, instead of wondering how to spin it....

You don't need BTL landlords to "house" everyone.

There are other solutions, such as council building which could be done alongside the currentlt BTL system.

People speak as if the BTL scenario is all we have and there is nothing else.

It's as simple as that. No banning. No turfing people out of their rentals. The current houses don't simply vanish. It's just very simple....unless you wish to make a great mountain out of a molehill.

cells

chucknorris wrote: »

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I think that there was also politics involved with the reduction of mortgage interest as a business expense. IMO not to get rid of landlords (the Gov needs a healthy private rented sector), probably to appease first time buyers concerns over competing with landlords to buy property. A high percentage of landlords will tend to vote Tory anyway, probably more so than your typical FTB.

Im not so sure. How many first time buyers or recent buyers when they go into cast their vote in 2020 are going to think....this time im voting for George he increased my landlords cost 4 years ago and im thankful.

I reckon they were just looking at ways to find extra tax

They should also target people who rent out homes and don't declare it and also people who sell homes and don't pay the CGT. I have no idea of the scale of that problem but I suspect and its only a guess that it could be as much as a million+ such BTLs (mostly small landlords maybe with just a single BTL) who really should be contributing

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, just for you as you seem very confused by everything I say, though others seem to get it....presumably as they simply read it, instead of wondering how to spin it....

You don't need BTL landlords to "house" everyone.

There are other solutions, such as council building which could be done alongside the currentlt BTL system.

People speak as if the BTL scenario is all we have and there is nothing else.

It's as simple as that. No banning. No turfing people out of their rentals. The current houses don't simply vanish. It's just very simple....unless you wish to make a great mountain out of a molehill.

Well quite - the market would decide - I knew that.

However that's a different answer to a different question.

Here you go - here's the original question and answer.

CLAPTON wrote: »

without landlords, how would you propose to meet the needs of the 1 million or so people who have to find rented accommodation each year?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In direct response to your question to the poster - could quite easily be councils.

You see I think councils would find it extremely difficult to house another million or so renters each year and therefore whatever views people might have about BTL or private landlords they'll continue to be part of the landscape for the future as they have in the past.

Maybe you could clarify what it is you think councils would find easy in the absence of landlords. You've ruled out compulsory purchase as 'made up', you've misunderstood what 'without landlords' means and you've applied a thick layer of muddle by trying to backtrack and answering a different question to the one you directly responded to.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe you could clarify what it is you think councils would find easy in the absence of landlords. You've ruled out compulsory purchase as 'made up', you've misunderstood what 'without landlords' means and you've applied a thick layer of muddle by trying to backtrack and answering a different question to the one you directly responded to.

I've already answered this above.

it would be quite easy to create legislation to order more houses be built and run by councils. As I said above, there is nothing physical stopping this.

The only thing we are left with is politics and funding.

Though funding isn't too big an issue if they can throw £50bn at a train track.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've already answered this above.

it would be quite easy to create legislation to order more houses be built and run by councils. As I said above, there is nothing physical stopping this.

The only thing we are left with is politics and funding.

Though funding isn't too big an issue if they can throw £50bn at a train track.

Equally there is nothing to stop more housing by the private sector if council were ordered to make sufficient land available
and it would cost the tax payer nothing at all.

There is nothing physical stopping this.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've already answered this above.

You didn't and won't but it's a little early for pantomime season so I'll leave it.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

it would be quite easy to create legislation to order more houses be built and run by councils. As I said above, there is nothing physical stopping this.

The only thing we are left with is politics and funding.

Though funding isn't too big an issue if they can throw £50bn at a train track.

At least I've worked out your definition of easy. It's something that would be easy if the government really wanted to do this, had the money, and the idea could be sold to the taxpayer but, in reality, lives somewhere between very hard and impossibly hard.

Funding would be an issue of course. Just because they're willing to spend £50bn on one thing doesn't mean they're actively looking for other projects to spend £50bn on.