Generation Rent = Generation Homeless?

poppasmurf_bewdley

steampowered wrote: »

I can see why you think that. It is a common myth. But when you actually look at the facts it is not true.

Have a read of this blog which breaks down basic financial data since the end of the second world war.

As you will see, the Tories have borrowed on average £22.9 billion for each year they have been office. The figure for Labour is £17.4 billion. A similar pattern emerges when you adjust for inflation.

You will also see that the Conservatives ran a deficit 90.5% of the years they are in power and a surplus 9.5% of the time. Labour ran a deficit 75% of the time and a surplus 25% of the time.

This is not mentioned in the blog, but you should be aware that the current Tory government has borrowed far more in 7 years than the last Labour government did in 13.

The evidence seems overwhelming to me. While both Labour and the Tories have historically overspent, the Tories are more likely to borrow in any given year. When the Tories borrow (which they do more than 90% of the time) they also borrow higher amounts than Labour.

It's not a matter of which Party is better, but which is the least worst!

stueyhants

The Tories are by no means blameless, they have made some stupid decisions. However the financial mess they inherited post the financial crash (partly caused or at least fuelled by labour) is to blame for the debt now.

Crashy_Time

Cakeguts wrote: »

The only thing that might make landlords sell up is rent controls. If you need to find out how many rental properties are available when there are rent controls look it up. What happens is that all the quality homes tend to get sold off leaving only the ones that no one wants as rentals.

Landlords are already selling up, the Tories are going to tax them until the pips squeak. Many landlords will be able to cope with this, but the more leveraged they are the harder it will be to cling on. A hung parliament is when all bets are off for the economy and property IMO.

Crashy_Time

FBaby wrote: »

That's the problem with these policies. A certain part of society want to punish investors because they are big bad wolves making money of the back of the 'poor'. It's unfortunate that some 'poor' are quite happy to be 'exploited' by the 'rich' medium or long term and will lose out at the same time.

Of course, the alternative will be for them to just raise the rent, so some won't be able to either buy nor rent.

People 'rich' or 'poor' don't like to lose money and considering the pain and risk that comes with being a landlord, with the returns more and more squeezed, some don't see it worth it. Never mind, many of them who've sold off their asset will just have to claim their state pension when they retire rather than having an asset they could live off, leaving the state pension to someone who has a need for it.

Rents are dictated by wages and HB levels, HB and wages, and therefore rents, are going nowhere, they have peaked.

leslieknope

yeah yeah, everyone says this kind of thing around elections.

most of them end up going about their lives and forget.

andy5000

Okay, having done some googling I found that the landlord is right. I can't post links as this is a new account - forgot login details - but if you google evolve labour land tax it explains it and links to a labour plan and suggests the landlord is right. But this is only if labour win but I cant imagine people would let it happen as it would blow up the housing market - all the daily mail readers cant have that!
The house we rent is maybe 150-160k at current prices so he's right - 3% would be nearly 5 grand.
Wasn't intending this to get political as such, politicians are all as bad as each other, it was just a question - I shall stop worrying as it's pretty unlikely to happen!
Getting there with a deposit..just...need...more...time...:)

PasturesNew

A LL selling doesn't reduce the number of houses available to be lived in.
Many people say they'll do something, but then don't.
Not all LLs would be selling in any case.
Many people who are failing at things in life will like to put the blame for that on somebody else. It's supposed to be a business.... if he's not capable of running a business and make it future-proof then it's probably a good thing he's pulling out.

You're worrying about stuff that somebody else might choose to do at some future point that might affect your current life.

Fact: If you privately rent anything, you are at the mercy of the random whims of a LL anyway .... it's always just a question of time and luck.

Guest101

andy5000 wrote: »

Okay, having done some googling I found that the landlord is right. I can't post links as this is a new account - forgot login details - but if you google evolve labour land tax it explains it and links to a labour plan and suggests the landlord is right. But this is only if labour win but I cant imagine people would let it happen as it would blow up the housing market - all the daily mail readers cant have that!
The house we rent is maybe 150-160k at current prices so he's right - 3% would be nearly 5 grand.
Wasn't intending this to get political as such, politicians are all as bad as each other, it was just a question - I shall stop worrying as it's pretty unlikely to happen!
Getting there with a deposit..just...need...more...time...:)

The plan, even if it went through, would be based upon the rental value of the land, without any structures on it. So the value of the house isn't used to calculate the amount.


Honestly everyone is panicking for no reason

Crashy_Time

andy5000 wrote: »

Okay, having done some googling I found that the landlord is right. I can't post links as this is a new account - forgot login details - but if you google evolve labour land tax it explains it and links to a labour plan and suggests the landlord is right. But this is only if labour win but I cant imagine people would let it happen as it would blow up the housing market - all the daily mail readers cant have that!
The house we rent is maybe 150-160k at current prices so he's right - 3% would be nearly 5 grand.
Wasn't intending this to get political as such, politicians are all as bad as each other, it was just a question - I shall stop worrying as it's pretty unlikely to happen!
Getting there with a deposit..just...need...more...time...:)

The problem with allowing a massive property bubble to get out of hand is that eventually the political mood turns against people being in debt all their life for basic shelter, the PTB know this full well, hence the Tories starting to make BTL less appealing. Labour will do well this time IMO.

Pupnik

andy5000 wrote: »

Okay, having done some googling I found that the landlord is right. I can't post links as this is a new account - forgot login details - but if you google evolve labour land tax it explains it and links to a labour plan and suggests the landlord is right. But this is only if labour win but I cant imagine people would let it happen as it would blow up the housing market - all the daily mail readers cant have that!
The house we rent is maybe 150-160k at current prices so he's right - 3% would be nearly 5 grand.
Wasn't intending this to get political as such, politicians are all as bad as each other, it was just a question - I shall stop worrying as it's pretty unlikely to happen!
Getting there with a deposit..just...need...more...time...:)

I hope you also read their follow-up to that story where they say they got it completely wrong?
http://evolvepolitics.com/made-mistake-land-value-tax-much-better-ordinary-homeowners-even-thought/