Regulations, government interference: Do rents in the UK have to be controlled?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dave2002
    Full Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 18035

    #46
    Perhaps Jean thinks that if the government and local authorities raise taxes using their political will and stand firm against the naysayers, they will then be able to manage a property portfolio, either by government agencies, or by privately commissioned organisations. That ignores the fairly obvious problem that since we are a democracy (ha) any proposals to raise revenue to make such activity feasible would almost immediately cause problems with the electorate as a whole, who would effectively vote against it at the earliest opportunity.

    Comment

    • jean
      Late member
      • Nov 2010
      • 7100

      #47
      Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
      We could view that as malicious, but perhaps she was merely misguided, and didn't realise how things would turn out.
      You're joking, yes?

      Comment

      • Dave2002
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 18035

        #48
        Originally posted by jean View Post
        You're joking, yes?
        Not particularly. I really disliked mrs t, and thought we endured many years of misery because of her, but I have no great insight into her thought processes and beliefs.

        Comment

        • jean
          Late member
          • Nov 2010
          • 7100

          #49
          Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
          Perhaps Jean thinks that if the government and local authorities raise taxes using their political will and stand firm against the naysayers, they will then be able to manage a property portfolio, either by government agencies, or by privately commissioned organisations. That ignores the fairly obvious problem that since we are a democracy (ha) any proposals to raise revenue to make such activity feasible would almost immediately cause problems with the electorate as a whole, who would effectively vote against it at the earliest opportunity.
          Well, siince so many young people now cannot dream of owning their own homes, and yet may find themselves paying more in rent than they would on the mortgage they can't get, you may find there aren't as many naysayers as you fear.

          Besides, it should not be too difficult to set the increased borrowing required to replenish and develop the existing publicly-owned housing stock against the saving of the millions of public funds currently diverted (in the form of housing benefit) into the pockets of private landlords who charge 'market' rents.

          Comment

          • ardcarp
            Late member
            • Nov 2010
            • 11102

            #50
            As it happens we have a flat which we are trying to sell, and have looked at the rental options. There are so many obligations towards potential tenants that for the time being we are going to continue with the sale process. We were further put off when we talked to a letting agency about the need for registration, and the risks, both to the property, and also to actually getting the rental income.
            Don't be put off by letting agencies. Far be it from me to suggest what you ought to do, but letting is not that difficult. Yes you have certain obligations to tenants...quite right and proper.... but these are clearly laid out in a tenancy agreement. Choosing the right tenants is important. To some extent you have to go with your gut feeling about them. I suppose also your own attitude to risk is a factor. If you want a quiet, untroublrd life then perhaps being a landlord is not for you.

            Comment

            • ahinton
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 16123

              #51
              Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
              Perhaps Jean thinks that if the government and local authorities raise taxes using their political will and stand firm against the naysayers, they will then be able to manage a property portfolio, either by government agencies, or by privately commissioned organisations. That ignores the fairly obvious problem that since we are a democracy (ha) any proposals to raise revenue to make such activity feasible would almost immediately cause problems with the electorate as a whole, who would effectively vote against it at the earliest opportunity.
              Perhaps so, but never mind the mere naysayers and who would vote against what, the money would simply not be there to provide most of the nation's rented housing needs in the form of social housing because the investment (not to mention time) required to accomplish so vast an acquisition project would simply be way beyond the affordability of taxpayers.

              Comment

              • ahinton
                Full Member
                • Nov 2010
                • 16123

                #52
                Originally posted by jean View Post
                Well, siince so many young people now cannot dream of owning their own homes, and yet may find themselves paying more in rent than they would on the mortgage they can't get, you may find there aren't as many naysayers as you fear.
                I think that part of the reason why so many rents are less affordable than the mortgages that you no doubt rightly observe that so many young people cannot get is that interest rates have been at an all-time low for years whereas obviously rents, social or private, do not fluctuate in line with interest rates.

                Originally posted by jean View Post
                Besides, it should not be too difficult to set the increased borrowing required to replenish and develop the existing publicly-owned housing stock against the saving of the millions of public funds currently diverted (in the form of housing benefit) into the pockets of private landlords who charge 'market' rents.
                Shouldn't it? I don't know what you consider would be an acceptable proportion of social housing as against private rented housing (other than presumably a much higher one than currently pertains) - and it would be interesting to hear - but "increased borrowing" on so vast a scale in the present economic climate?! Mon Dieu! It would not surprise me if banks would be wary of lending out such colossal sums to local authorities for such massive and massively long-term projects in any case; interest rates are indeed low right now, but there's no guarantee that they won't rise - and who'd have to fund the cost of such borrowings? We're not in any case talking mainly of replenishing and developing existing social housing stock here but acquiring a vast amount of new stock; social housing provision cannot be increased without massive invetment in the expansion of local authority property portfolios.

                Comment

                • teamsaint
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 25225

                  #53
                  Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
                  Perhaps Jean thinks that if the government and local authorities raise taxes using their political will and stand firm against the naysayers, they will then be able to manage a property portfolio, either by government agencies, or by privately commissioned organisations. That ignores the fairly obvious problem that since we are a democracy (ha) any proposals to raise revenue to make such activity feasible would almost immediately cause problems with the electorate as a whole, who would effectively vote against it at the earliest opportunity.
                  really? I'm not so sure. Many Young people , for instance, might view such a policy as the break they finally need to get decent housing.
                  I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                  I am not a number, I am a free man.

                  Comment

                  • Dave2002
                    Full Member
                    • Dec 2010
                    • 18035

                    #54
                    Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                    Perhaps so, but never mind the mere naysayers and who would vote against what, the money would simply not be there to provide most of the nation's rented housing needs in the form of social housing because the investment (not to mention time) required to accomplish so vast an acquisition project would simply be way beyond the affordability of taxpayers.
                    I don't think so. Taxpayers en masse could afford it surely, but en masse they would not wish to do so, as that would represent a serious transfer of wealth from the better off to the less well off - which doesn't seem to be what it's about these days.

                    Comment

                    • jean
                      Late member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 7100

                      #55
                      Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                      ... "increased borrowing" on so vast a scale in the present economic climate?! Mon Dieu! ...
                      We borrow hugely as it is; but we do it by proxy, and call it PFI. And it costs us far more in the long run.

                      But it's got you fooled, evidently!

                      Comment

                      • teamsaint
                        Full Member
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 25225

                        #56
                        Originally posted by jean View Post
                        We borrow hugely as it is; but we do it by proxy, and call it PFI. And it costs us far more in the long run.

                        But it's got you fooled, evidently!
                        Imagine all that QE money invested in housing.......
                        I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                        I am not a number, I am a free man.

                        Comment

                        • ahinton
                          Full Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 16123

                          #57
                          Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
                          I don't think so. Taxpayers en masse could afford it surely, but en masse they would not wish to do so, as that would represent a serious transfer of wealth from the better off to the less well off - which doesn't seem to be what it's about these days.
                          Given how much money would be involved (which would itself be subject to contrasting views as to how much of the rental market should be social housing), I don't believe that taxpayers en masse would be able to afford it.

                          Comment

                          • ahinton
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 16123

                            #58
                            Originally posted by jean View Post
                            We borrow hugely as it is; but we do it by proxy, and call it PFI. And it costs us far more in the long run.

                            But it's got you fooled, evidently!
                            Oh, no it hasn't! You should hear my MP inveighing against the perils of PFI (and he's a Conservative). But, as you rightly say, "we borrow hugely as it is", which is why I blanched at what I took to be your suggestion that vastly more borrowing could be a viable means to enable the acquisition and/or construction of far more property for use as social housing! How could such borrowing be funded and repaid, especially if interest rates rise?

                            Comment

                            • Flosshilde
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 7988

                              #59
                              Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                              For all the problems that have undoubtedly emerged from that policy, I don't think that it hs been the unmitigated and universal disaster as which you appear to portray it and has in some cases helped to ease local authorities' cashflows in some of their more cash-strapped times.
                              I think you are looking at the wrong solution to the wrong problem. You have to ask why local authorities are cash-strapped - mainly because of deliberate central government control of how much money they can raise, through local taxation and borrowing, by capping council tax and controlling business rates,and reducing grants, for example. The proportion of local government funds they raised directly used to be about 25% - I don't know what it is now, but quite possibly less. Selling off assets to the private sector, which then have to be replaced or leased back, is not the answer.

                              Comment

                              • Flosshilde
                                Full Member
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 7988

                                #60
                                Originally posted by ardcarp View Post
                                I dare say the 'small private landlord' manages things with a minimum of fuss and bureaucracy. Additional costs for a local authority trying to run the entire housing stock would be the armies of administrators (with sick pay, maternity leave, pensions, etc) and the banks of dodgy computer systems needing a whole other army to understand them.

                                Oh dear. I sound like an advocate for privatisation of everything which I certainly am not.
                                You do rather. Presumably you're in favour of the privatisation of 'social housing', though. Is it easier to pay housing benefit to a miriad of small landlords than to a few local authorities? The 'armies of administrators (with reasonable working conditions) are simply located in a different place - either in central government, or a private company (probably with less reasonable working conditions).

                                The truth is that a great many of the people who would have been housed in council housing are not now in nice new-build homes bought up by the 'buy-to-let' brigade, hoping they'll provide a nice investment for their pension & pushing up property prices while they're at it, but in grotty bed and breakfast, where children can't have a decent hot meal, or a quiet space to do their homework.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X