Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

mark55man

Green_Bear wrote: »

That's if such a socialist govt stays in power long enough.

What is being suggested here is a wealth transfer. These happen in most countries from time to time. The most recent example probably being asset value inflation, due to ZIRP.

But successful wealth transfers are usually ''smash and grab'' - and hard to reverse. For example, Thatcher's council RTB.

I think that the last 10 years have seen the global 1% wealth increase by $750bn - honestly how much excess profit must their be before people draw a line at what is acceptable

Arklight

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.

I'm all too aware of that. It is one of the many things I'm not especially fond of Tony Blair for.

Nevertheless at least while New Labour were handing giant debt funded windfalls at people in the zeroes, they were also funding education, health and support for the poorest (not thanks to Blair, he didn't care about any of that).

Green_Bear

RealElement47 wrote: »

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.

This made me laugh. I think of all people, the Chinese know this. That's why they buy here!

Green_Bear

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.

True.
Both Tories and Labour want renters' votes.

The other factor I don't often see mentioned, is that once political policies start reducing the number of landlords, the votes of landlords become less important, so the whole thing can snowball.

Green_Bear

mark88man wrote: »

I think that the last 10 years have seen the global 1% wealth increase by $750bn - honestly how much excess profit must their be before people draw a line at what is acceptable

Mostly due to asset price inflation

Crashy_Time

RealElement47 wrote: »

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.

China is ahead of the game ..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/capital-controls-weigh-on-chinese-overseas-property-investors-survey.html

It is all downward pressure on property prices.

Kohoutek

Arklight wrote: »

I'm all too aware of that. It is one of the many things I'm not especially fond of Tony Blair for.

Nevertheless at least while New Labour were handing giant debt funded windfalls at people in the zeroes, they were also funding education, health and support for the poorest (not thanks to Blair, he didn't care about any of that).

If Labour had won the 2010 or 2015 elections, there would have still very big cuts in public spending, leading to increased inequality. The 2015 manifesto said they would "cut the deficit every year" and committed them to not raising income tax except changing the 45% rate back to 50%. The 2010 manifesto also committed them to no income tax rises and said they wanted to keep businesses taxes "as low as possible".

So based on Labour's own promises at the time (and the real need to improve the UK fiscal position, particularly in 2010-2012), the overwhelming likelihood is that even there had been a Labour government, inequality would have increased significantly during the UK in the post financial crisis period. Perhaps slightly less than under the Tories and with a minor difference in emphasis towards higher tax for very high earners.

Green_Bear

Arklight wrote: »

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!

Obviously renters form a spectrum.
40 years ago most private tenants were either students (see The Young Ones) or transient types (see Rising Damp) or otherwise marginalised (see Rachman).
Most families could get a council property or own their home.

Most private LLs inherited the houses or were very long term holders.
BTL was not ''a thing'' (as 'The Yoof' would say).

It's interesting how many people see these kinds of policies as 'new', when in fact it's just the pendulum swinging as ever.

Green_Bear

Kohoutek wrote: »

If Labour had won the 2010 or 2015 elections, there would have still very big cuts in public spending, leading to increased inequality. The 2015 manifesto said they would "cut the deficit every year" and committed them to not raising income tax except changing the 45% rate back to 50%. The 2010 manifesto also committed them to no income tax rises and said they wanted to keep businesses taxes "as low as possible".

So based on Labour's own promises at the time (and the real need to improve the UK fiscal position, particularly in 2010-2012), the overwhelming likelihood is that even there had been a Labour government, inequality would have increased significantly during the UK in the post financial crisis period. Perhaps slightly less than under the Tories and with a minor difference in emphasis towards higher tax for very high earners.

'Austerity' has probably increased poverty - but inequality is likely due to ZIRP causing asset price inflation.

Cakeguts

Its interesting isn't it that Labour can come up with stupid ideas to get at landlords but they don't seem to want to help people with credit card debt. The BBC says that there is £72billion outstanding credit card debt in the UK. I wonder how much of that is owed by people who have bought things that they don't need and can't afford?



Rather than getting at landlords wouldn't it make more sense for it to be more difficult for people to get any form of credit?