Taxpayer support

[999tigger 10]

fine, why should the state or anybody prop up private landlords?

 

an example is London. A million pound council house on the free market VS an affordable rent council house social.

 

private rents are way out of control.

 

So typically you are too lazy to answer other peoples questions or respond to their explanations to your points. You do this all the time.

 

In what way is the state propping up private landlords?

Private landlords offer property to use which the state needs because it doesnt have its own.

 

If you wnat more council houses in London then you will have to build them. that means spending tax money which either means borrowing or increasing taxes. The Cons are not going to increase taxes, so you are unrealistic.

 

private rents may be expensive, but its supply and demand. the only way to alter that is to lower demand or increase supply.

[TJC1 10]

So typically you are too lazy to answer other peoples questions or respond to their explanations to your points. You do this all the time.

 

In what way is the state propping up private landlords?

 

example:

 

Landlord gets mortgage from bank. Mortgage is £600. Rents an ex-council property out for £600 to Tenant A. Next door Tenant B rents the SAME comparable property owned by the council for £400 (private rents are typically 20-50% more for the SAME property).

 

Not only do we have 1 less affordable house on the market, The state is now paying that private landlord (and his privately owned bank) 50% more (money is circulated privately) thus contributing to inflated rents because the market now finds a level ABOVE what is organic, thus contributing to the deficit and cuts.

 

you get the picture now?

Edited October 23, 2015 by TJC1
..............

[truman 10]

So typically you are too lazy to answer other peoples questions or respond to their explanations to your points. You do this all the time.

 

In what way is the state propping up private landlords?

 

example:

 

Landlord gets mortgage from bank. Mortgage is £600. Rents an ex-council property out for £600 to Tenant A. Next door Tenant B rents the SAME comparable property owned by the council for £400 (private rents are typically 20-50% more for the SAME property).

 

Not only do we have 1 less affordable house on the market, The state is now paying that private landlord (and his privately owned bank) 50% more (money is circulated privately) thus contributing to inflated rents because the market now finds a level ABOVE what is organic, thus contributing to the deficit and cuts.

 

you get the picture now?

 

The Council will no longer be responsible for repairs/insurance for the property... and they will also have had the cash from the original sale..

[TJC1 10]

 

 

4 things will help the housing crisis:

 

1) Preventing private sector housing is not going to help the housing crisis.

Buidling more social housing, then someone has to pay for it.

 

2) The banks are already regulated. Why do you need more incetives for buyers to inflate the market further?

Banks are commercial enterprises, they lend when they feel they cna make money. You clearly dont understand how banks work.

 

3) Im sure employers will like the min wage increased even faster. It wont happen. All that will happen is you will get more inflation and more money chasing the same number of houses. It wont happen becayse the Cons are in power.

 

4) an extensive house building program both social and private. 250k per year+

Whilst you cna build more houses who is going to pay for them and where are you going to find the land? Its not impossible, but building houses costs money. Its not going to happen under the Cons and they will be on power for the next ten years at least.

 

 

1) I've never said stop building private sector housing.

 

2) the banks aren't regulated enough. You need incentives to help first time buyers and families buy homes.

 

3) employers don't want to increase the min wage faster. It's up to government to force the hand of big business especially. I agree, probably won't happen under conservatives.

 

4) there's loads of land. The gov is selling off 300 billion worth of land. There's 650k empty buildings too.

[999tigger 10]

So typically you are too lazy to answer other peoples questions or respond to their explanations to your points. You do this all the time.

 

In what way is the state propping up private landlords?

 

example:

 

Landlord gets mortgage from bank. Mortgage is £600. Rents an ex-council property out for £600 to Tenant A. Next door Tenant B rents the SAME comparable property owned by the council for £400 (private rents are typically 20-50% more for the SAME property).

 

Not only do we have 1 less affordable house on the market, The state is now paying that private landlord (and his privately owned bank) 50% more (money is circulated privately) thus contributing to inflated rents because the market now finds a level ABOVE what is organic, thus contributing to the deficit and cuts.

 

you get the picture now?

 

That would be the market rent and the state has to rent it because its no longer their property. Thats the way capitalism and the real world works.

 

You miss out the fact that the state has received the sale proceeds for the house, which is how the LL comes into possession and the LL has to pay the mortgage and bear any risk that something might happen.

 

If the state doesnt wnat to pay private LL's then it should build its own property. To do that it will either need to borrow more money which means increasing the deficit or tax people. The current Con govt is unlikely to do either of those and its likely to be in power for at least the next ten years. the amount of money needed to huild the amount of houses you suggest would be tens of billions.

 

Thats the first time youve answered a question.

[TJC1 10]

The Council will no longer be responsible for repairs/insurance for the property... and they will also have had the cash from the original sale..

 

the original sale at a heavily discounted price.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 16:25 ----------

 

meanwhile that social £400 is re-circulated into the economy for months and years.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 16:30 ----------

 

That would be the market rent and the state has to rent it because its no longer their property. Thats the way capitalism and the real world works.

 

You miss out the fact that the state has received the sale proceeds for the house, which is how the LL comes into possession and the LL has to pay the mortgage and bear any risk that something might happen.

 

If the state doesnt wnat to pay private LL's then it should build its own property. To do that it will either need to borrow more money which means increasing the deficit or tax people. The current Con govt is unlikely to do either of those and its likely to be in power for at least the next ten years. the amount of money needed to huild the amount of houses you suggest would be tens of billions.

 

Thats the first time youve answered a question.

 

sold off at a heavily discounted price.

Now that property is in private hands and the rental income is no longer in public circulatio. Which if the private sale is SOLELY for someone to live in, it's not such a terrible thing (although personally I don't think the government should sell off social housing).

 

But what's happening to compound the problem is landlords are illegally sub-letting, landlords are rent to buying at increased mortgage rates....clearly creates an imbalance and a bubble.

Edited October 23, 2015 by TJC1
.............

[truman 10]

the original sale at a heavily discounted price.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 16:25 ----------

 

meanwhile that social £400 is re-circulated into the economy for months and years.

 

As is the rent paid to the private landlord...and they are taxed on income from the rental...

[TJC1 10]

As is the rent paid to the private landlord...and they are taxed on income from the rental...

 

how is the private rent circulated into economy or public?

the rent (which might be subsidised by public money in the form of housing benefit) is going straight to a privately owned bank!

 

PUBLIC TAX MONEY - RENT PAID TO LANDLORD - MORTGAGE PAID TO BANK - ?????

[truman 10]

how is the private rent circulated into economy or public?

the rent (which might be subsidised by public money in the form of housing benefit) is going straight to a privately owned bank!

 

PUBLIC TAX MONEY - RENT PAID TO LANDLORD - MORTGAGE PAID TO BANK - ?????

 

You're assuming all/most private rental properties are mortgaged....

[999tigger 10]

how is the private rent circulated into economy or public?

the rent (which might be subsidised by public money in the form of housing benefit) is going straight to a privately owned bank!

 

PUBLIC TAX MONEY - RENT PAID TO LANDLORD - MORTGAGE PAID TO BANK - ?????

 

You are missing out the fact the State has received the sale proceeds in exchange for the property.

 

Rent is paid to the LL in return for the LL giving the state use of his property.

 

The rental money mau then be used to pay for the upkeep of the property, the mortgage and the amount left over the LL is free to spend or invest. That might go back into the economy.

 

The mortgage money to the bank is spent by the bank paying for its own costs including its employees who cna then go and spend their salaries after paying taxes.

 

The profits are released as dividends to the shareholders who may spend the moeny as they wish.

 

The fact a private LL is being paid is down to the govt nopt having enough of its own property and preferring to use the private sector. People vote for governments, so they are approving of this policy.

I dont see the problem although id have quite liked buy to let being made less attractive. I think that has contributed to the bubble. The bubble itself is still a matter of supply and demand.

[TJC1 10]

Clearly no clue. Why dont you come back when you get an education

[999tigger 10]

Clearly no clue. Why dont you come back when you get an education

 

Your response is hilarious. Ive just explained to you what happens to the money and once again you are too lazy and unable to provide a constructive response.

If I allegedly have no clue then it should be easy to explain where ive gone wrong.

Edited October 23, 2015 by 999tigger