Landlords' Lament, the end of Section 21

triathlon

Rich2808 wrote: »

Yes - HOUSEHOLDS not people.

An elderly lady living on her own in a 4 bed house which she owns is one household. The four twenty somethings renting the house next door are also one household.

So that's 50% of households who own in this sample but only 20% of voters. Renters are more likely to be young, live in homes of multiple occupation, have kids etc. Owners are most likely to be elderly - and thus be in smaller households (e.g. a single or couple).

It would be interesting to see a stat on what proportion of the population 'own' a home - not the proportion of households. I expect it is a lot lower and will keep falling amongst those under 45. In 1996 54% of households led by someone aged 18-34 were owner occupied - its now barely 30%.

If the Tories don't do something to help private renters and get them into home ownership - and frankly that means making becoming a buy to let landlord less attractive (thus freeing up more homes for FTB ownership) they are finished as a party of government. In the end BTL are unlikely to vote for Corbyn - the millions of young renters probably will.

The Tories rely on people getting older, accumulating assets and not wanting to change the system - and thus moving towards voting Conservative. If you have nothing and nothing to lose you are unlikely to back them!

And why don't the renters "help" themselves and put in the sacrifice, hard work and grit that is need to own your own home, and besides is it even possible to make it more easier for them to get on the property ladder. Historical low interest rates, HTB, inheritance, record employment., just give up the mobile phones and holidays and just maybe their dreams might come true and easier than in my day

chucknorris

Arklight wrote: »

Tuition fees tripled

Tuition fees have not actually gone up significantly, it is just that the person who actually benefits from the tuition now pays all of the fee, rather than the tax payer paying for most of it. Personally I think that the education system worked better when far less students went to university and students received free education. But when virtually any Tom, !!!! and Harriet goes to university, it isn't right that the tax payer pays for most of it.

Arklight

chucknorris wrote: »

Tuition fees have not actually gone up significantly, it is just that the person who actually benefits from the tuition now pays all of the fee, rather than the tax payer paying for most of it. Personally I think that the education system worked better when far less students went to university and students received free education. But when virtually any Tom, !!!! and Harriet goes to university, it isn't right that the tax payer pays for most of it.

A tuition fee is a fee levied to the student for tuition, and they most certainly have gone up, by more than 300%. The additional funding from the LEAs has mostly gone, as you are well aware. A service that was funded is now not, among the many that this government has taken a crow bar to.

I am not convinced that the majority of students benefit that much from the tens of thousands of pounds of debt their universities stack on top of them but that is another issue.

Arklight

triathlon wrote: »

And why don't the renters "help" themselves and put in the sacrifice, hard work and grit that is need to own your own home, and besides is it even possible to make it more easier for them to get on the property ladder. Historical low interest rates, HTB, inheritance, record employment., just give up the mobile phones and holidays and just maybe their dreams might come true and easier than in my day

Are you volunteering to help with that one?

chucknorris

Arklight wrote: »

A tuition fee is a fee levied to the student for tuition, and they most certainly have gone up, by more than 300%. The additional funding from the LEAs has mostly gone, as you are well aware. A service that was funded is now not, among the many that this government has taken a crow bar to.

I am not convinced that the majority of students benefit that much from the tens of thousands of pounds of debt their universities stack on top of them but that is another issue.

You are just repeating what I previously said about students now paying the full amount. As I said IMO the system was much better when fewer students went to university, but it was free. But it wouldn't be fair to the tax payer to provide free education for the current high numbers of university students.

Herzlos

Jackmydad wrote: »

But then you have a friend of mine who rents his single occupancy flat, and then owner households who have several people living there, so I suspect the whole thing may well tend to balance out.

I was always under the impression that renters tended to have a higher occupancy : rooms ratio. Partly due to demographics - students and young adults are likely to be in HMO's, with a lounge treated as a bedroom and no spare. Families will be about 1:1 until the kids leave home where there'll be spare rooms in most houses owned by those who are about 40+.


A quick think about the housing situation for my peers (30's) Vs when we were in our 20's and where our parents are show that the peers are almost all 1-1.5/room (couple + kid/s), but their parents are almost all 0.6/room (couple with 2 spare rooms).

zagubov

chucknorris wrote: »

You are just repeating what I previously said about students now paying the full amount. As I said IMO the system was much better when fewer students went to university, but it was free. But it wouldn't be fair to the tax payer to provide free education for the current high numbers of university students.

We've decided that we'll charge our students the third-highest fees in the world.

And we're so obsessed with letting everyone take advantage of a low tax opportunities that instead of openly charging a graduate tax, we disguise the repayments as a "loan".

We're being led by philistines who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. :mad:

chucknorris

zagubov wrote: »

We've decided that we'll charge our students the third-highest fees in the world.

And we're so obsessed with letting everyone take advantage of a low tax opportunities that instead of openly charging a graduate tax, we disguise the repayments as a "loan".

We're being led by philistines who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. :mad:

My preferred system would be to have less students with either free or heavily subsidised fees. What I thought was particularly unfair, was to increase the fees in one year, they could have easily phased the high fees in over a number of years. Imagine how the students in the first year of higher fees felt.

Arklight

chucknorris wrote: »

You are just repeating what I previously said about students now paying the full amount. As I said IMO the system was much better when fewer students went to university, but it was free. But it wouldn't be fair to the tax payer to provide free education for the current high numbers of university students.

According to who? Have you asked all taxpayers?

I find it interesting that (if i recall correctly) you are a university lecturer who doesn't seem to see any point in the majority of people going to university.

AG47

AG47 wrote: »

Who will they sell to?

If they sell to owners who want to live there instead of Btlers then who is going to live in the homes they moved out from?

We keep coming back t o the same point that the homes are still there. It's a mute point to say there will be less rental properties on the market now becaus the prices are going down.

The homes are still there, what else can be done with them apart from rent them out for lower rents.

Yes many landlords may want to sell now, but then what will happen to the homes? Think about it.

All the permanent prob bulls who say there will be not enough rental properties for all the renters in the future, the question remains where will all the properties go?

Will they remain empty rather than lowering the rents?