Housing benefit to private landlords

Garethgrew

Electrum wrote: »

If housing benefit were to stop tomorrow then rents would fall over 50% in London and STILL all min wage jobs would have to double their rate of pay.

Lets face it, housing benefit has caused the bubble.

I strongly disagree

If housing benefit stopped, then even if rents halved and min wage doubled, most families could still not afford to live in London.

There would be nobody to do the min wages jobs even at double min wage.

Housing benefit is subsidising all the low paid workers in London which in turn is subsiding London.

You can't pull the plug on all that, not in this fragile economic situation

Garethgrew

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

The entire benefits and tax credits system is (inadvertently) designed to ensure that business does not pay above the minimum wage.

A business employs 5 people on minimum wage and is doing well, so it wants to invest 20% more on its staff costs. It can:

a) Raise each wage by 20%. But, as a result of the impact on housing benefit, tax credit, etc, each member of staff sees their take home pay rise by only 5%. At best a 5% increase in productivity?

b) Hire 1 more member of staff at minimum wage, increasing productivity by 20%

Which is it going to choose?

Exactly, it's all about keeping the unemployment numbers lower

mwpt

Garethgrew wrote: »

I strongly disagree

If housing benefit stopped, then even if rents halved and min wage doubled, most families could still not afford to live in London.

There would be nobody to do the min wages jobs even at double min wage.

Housing benefit is subsidising all the low paid workers in London which in turn is subsiding London.

You can't pull the plug on all that, not in this fragile economic situation

No, you can't, because we haven't had price discovery and the distortions are now embedded in.

But it would be nice of housing benefit had never been a thing and we'd had proper price discovery.

Tahlullah

kinger101 wrote: »

They are in it for the money. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a sin. But please don't make them out to be something special.

Your mistake is attempting to stereotype every landlord into what you believe they should be, into the little box that fits your beliefs. Part of the problem with this country. We have forgotten that we are all individual and do not conform to the expected norms and so abuse and destroy all who do not fit our own moulds and expectations. People who don't think like us and look like us. Especially look like us and wear the same clothes and go to the same golf clubs and shop in Waitrose, with the kids at the same superior schools wearing the same designer outfits.

I am a landlord. Guess what, I have a social conscience and rent out to people on HB because that is the sector I also work in. They need homes just as much as those who work, but they find it harder to find quality accommodation because of people like you who see them as somehow sub human and not worthy of your grace and favour.

It's a shame that you believe your own tripe.

kinger101

Tahlullah wrote: »

Your mistake is attempting to stereotype every landlord into what you believe they should be, into the little box that fits your beliefs. Part of the problem with this country. We have forgotten that we are all individual and do not conform to the expected norms and so abuse and destroy all who do not fit our own moulds and expectations. People who don't think like us and look like us. Especially look like us and wear the same clothes and go to the same golf clubs and shop in Waitrose, with the kids at the same superior schools wearing the same designer outfits.

I am a landlord. Guess what, I have a social conscience and rent out to people on HB because that is the sector I also work in. They need homes just as much as those who work, but they find it harder to find quality accommodation because of people like you who see them as somehow sub human and not worthy of your grace and favour.

It's a shame that you believe your own tripe.

Great. Personal abuse. Well done. Where have I stated or implied people a HB are subhuman? I'm not even a landlord !!!!!!.

You might want to read you own post again before before you dish out any more holier than thou cr*p. It's stereotype bingo.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

No, you can't, because we haven't had price discovery and the distortions are now embedded in.

But it would be nice of housing benefit had never been a thing and we'd had proper price discovery.

What do you think should happen to those unable to afford housing?

Do you think instead of having a housing benefit which is based on local areas there should be a national 'dole money' which also covers housing.

So for instance if its currently £100pw living money and x per week housing money (where x is £100pw to £400pw depending on local rents) have a flat £250pw living money for all areas. (Also this living money would depend on size of household)

Then poor people have the choice to spend that £250pw to live in London or move out to stoke.

I think that would be a reasonable idea however the unintended consequences are

1. People move within London to the cheaper areas
2. People rent smaller to afford. Eg instead of renting a 3 bed for £1500pm they rent a 2 bed for £1000pm
3. People share/cram perhaps two households to a unit.

cells

Housing benefits is a basic need for poor people. Economically the only problem I can see is that the rate is set locally rather than nationally. We don't do that for other benefits or calculations.

The problem with a national housing benefit is that it would have to be set at a level where its high enough that all the poor people can afford housing what that will mean is that in a significant number of local areas people get the new combined (living + housing allowance) which is higher than today.

So while London benefit receivers would be hit hard (maybe to the point of having to move out of London) the good folk in stoke-on-trent would get more in benefits than they do now.

That makes sense its a forcing function to cheaper areas from more expensive areas.


Talk of HB as lining the pockets of landlords is BS though just as BS as claiming or thinking benefits line the pockets of fag and alcohol manufacturers

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Talk of HB as lining the pockets of landlords is BS though just as BS as claiming or thinking benefits line the pockets of fag and alcohol manufacturers

benefits do line the pockets of fag and alcohol manufacturers

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No direct money. Totally the reverse. The air is being very slowly engineered out of the balloon.

I agree, I think shares are now a better investment than London property. Due to the current high price of London property (lower yield and less scope for real term capital gain) and the recent changes (loss of the wear and tear allowance, mortgage interest as an expense capped at 20%, the additional 3% stamp duty, the higher CGT rate (which is difficult to avoid, unlike shares) and the much better income tax treatment of dividend income compared to rental income. If I was starting out now, I wouldn't be aiming to own a property portfolio, maybe just one investment property for overall portfolio diversity, but definitely not a property heavy portfolio.

Electrum

mwpt wrote: »

No, you can't, because we haven't had price discovery and the distortions are now embedded in.

But it would be nice of housing benefit had never been a thing and we'd had proper price discovery.

you may get your wish, the government has no choice but to cut back on these things, they cnt keep propping up the property bubble forever.