Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

Cakeguts

Green_Bear wrote: »

I think the idea is that those houses the LLs no longer wanted to BTL, would now become affordable to FTBs - hence the numbers forced to rent would become negligible.

They won't. There are too many people who won't get mortgages for anything because of the amount of personal debt they have.



https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49594160



It just shows that politicians who come up with these stupid ideas don't actually know anything about the personal finances of the people the ideas are aimed at. Pointless waste of time.

RealElement47

DannyGold wrote: »

The UK faces some of the largest changes ever since the world wars.

Momentum is a powerful and increasingly independent political force that is radically transforming the Labour party, with local groups challenging party orthodoxies, flouting national membership rules and fighting to get their activists selected.

Right to buy from private LLs is just one example of the big changes that could come and radically transform the environment.

Its the proposal alone that will light the fire of the long awaited correction to property prices.

It's only really been proposed a few days ago, there hasn't yet been the minstream articles and newsletter writers using the story as scare tactics and attention grabbers.

Once the story appears in the Chinease property news rounds etc you will see the realisation that governments can grab or force them to sell at way under market value.

There will be a flood of sellers and not many buyers. This is just the proposal even if it's not looking likely to ever become reality.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

They won't. There are too many people who won't get mortgages for anything because of the amount of personal debt they have.


It just shows that politicians who come up with these stupid ideas don't actually know anything about the personal finances of the people the ideas are aimed at. Pointless waste of time.

Someone will always buy a house, if the price falls low enough.
If it's not a landlord (including HA, charity etc) then by definition that only leaves owner occupiers.

Cakeguts

Green_Bear wrote: »

Someone will always buy a house, if the price falls low enough.
If it's not a landlord (including HA, charity etc) then by definition that only leaves owner occupiers.

Or they could be just left vacant as they were before the introduction of the assured shorthold tenancies.

Arklight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Are you bringing the traditional hard core Labour voters with you though. Many are now themselves Middle Class. Own more than one property, enjoy good public sector pensions, have regular foreign holidays. A far cry from Corbyn's heroes era of mine , steel, factory and print workers.

Will they bring themselves to trust JC and look after their interests too.

If by "Many" you mean, "small minority" then no, perhaps not.

1 in 10 adults own a second home. 4 in 10 can't afford a first one. One might imagine it's this latter group that are more likely to be interested in a Labour government than the former.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/19/second-home-ownership-up-30-since-2000-research-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

If Tory economics worked, there wouldn't be a Labour party.

DannyGold

Green_Bear wrote: »

You can only see real historical property price trends by looking at house prices measured in oz of gold or silver.

In the 1970s average property prices in most cities around the world was a few hundred ounces of silver. This is near to correct value.

Today it’s tens of thousands of ounces of silver, just shows how much property needs to correct to reach true value.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

They won't. There are too many people who won't get mortgages for anything because of the amount of personal debt they have.



https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49594160



It just shows that politicians who come up with these stupid ideas don't actually know anything about the personal finances of the people the ideas are aimed at. Pointless waste of time.

According to you on this thread, renters are all financially solvent and being a tenant is a glorious expression of freedom. Now they're all credit ruined spendthrifts.

Bit of an about face there!

Kohoutek

Arklight wrote: »

If by "Many" you mean, "small minority" then no, perhaps not.

1 in 10 adults own a second home. 4 in 10 can't afford a first one. One might imagine it's this latter group that are more likely to be interested in a Labour government than the former.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/19/second-home-ownership-up-30-since-2000-research-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

If Tory economics worked, there wouldn't be a Labour party.

I don't support the Tory party, but you are forgetting that the BTL boom started under Labour, not the Conservatives. BTL mortgages have only existed since 1996 (one year before Blair came to power).

And it's not like the Tories have done nothing to restrict BTL: the additional rate of stamp duty for second homes and Osborne's restriction on mortgage interest tax relief were very big changes.

chucknorris

Kohoutek wrote: »

I don't support the Tory party, but you are forgetting that the BTL boom started under Labour, not the Conservatives. BTL mortgages have only existed since 1996 (one year before Blair came to power).

And it's not like the Tories have done nothing to restrict BTL: the additional rate of stamp duty for second homes and Osborne's restriction on mortgage interest tax relief were very big changes.

Also the scrapping of the very generous 10% wear and tear allowance.

mark55man

Green_Bear wrote: »

True.
Via 'Cambridge Analytica' type focused social media advertising.
These days politicians can say different things to different people.

I think you have us mixed up with the Lib Dems