I'm not sure there is such a thing as "council houses" any more. Most social housing is owned by housing associations and I doubt councils subsidise them as they are mainly limited companies. They buy on the cheap from developers as part of a (council) deal to build, hence their rents can be below the market rate. These HAs will be forced to sell their assets at rock bottom prices to people rich enough to buy just looking to make a quick buck and reduce the supply of affordable housing to WORKING families.
Greenwich has thousands of Council houses.
OK but given the age of these as opposed to more recent HA properties, where is the subsidy? Tenants probably paid for cost and finance many times over.
The false "market rate" caused by failure to build anywhere near demand is a different subject.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as "council houses" any more. Most social housing is owned by housing associations and I doubt councils subsidise them as they are mainly limited companies. They buy on the cheap from developers as part of a (council) deal to build, hence their rents can be below the market rate. These HAs will be forced to sell their assets at rock bottom prices to people rich enough to buy just looking to make a quick buck and reduce the supply of affordable housing to WORKING families.
Greenwich has thousands of Council houses.
OK but given the age of these as opposed to more recent HA properties, where is the subsidy? Tenants probably paid for cost and finance many times over.
The false "market rate" caused by failure to build anywhere near demand is a different subject.
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
OK.
Sorted? Unless of course you don't qualify in some way for the armed forces. Anyway keep this concept in mind on Wednesday when George Osbourne announces his budget and refers to his housing tweaks and shifts, every time he uses the phrases regarding everybody being a home owner in the sunny Tory uplands, think about the 10,000 kids who leave care at 18 every year.
So to put some context into this debate, the average cost to rent a 2 bed property in Bexleyheat is £950 pcm as of April 2014, a 4 bed house £1500 pcm. How many of you in this debate feel they could afford these prices. I earn £24,000 a year before tax so no I could not.
Right now in my street there are several Council houses sitting empty - one of which belongs to a tenant who hasn't been there for six months, yet I imagine some form of welfare is paying the rent. That seems very wrong, and is a feature of particular Councils' let for life policy. There are loads of people in need of housing and Council housing gives many people a step up in life that they wouldn't otherwise have had, but it seems like the distribution of it is a lottery and a mess at the minute.
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
That's some gamble, would you be prepared to risk life and limbs to make a living. Hardly living free of charge.
Whilst those injured and killed whilst serving queen and country are rightly given decent coverage the numbers are pretty low when you look at the amount of actual fighting and operational regiments.
That career choice is absolutely not without risk but you weigh these things up. The benefits are there and more and more companies are gagging to take on ex forces people due to the attitudes and work ethics they bring. Finally organisations are being set up to help and assist with those leaving post-combat who encounter difficulties.
I can roll off a dozen people I know who have left the armed forces with healthy bank balances and a new career. I can only name 3 who have had trouble and one of them was troubles he had before he joined.
But back to the argument at hand here. Something should be done about people 'hoovering' properties up. Especially in lower income areas. At the very least rules need to be tightened up regarding landlords taking the absolute piss with the rents they charge.
I could say 'ain't my problem' I'm on the ladder. But what about any kids I may have? I don't want them living with me until they are 40. Or even 25. That's weird
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
OK.
Sorted? Unless of course you don't qualify in some way for the armed forces. Anyway keep this concept in mind on Wednesday when George Osbourne announces his budget and refers to his housing tweaks and shifts, every time he uses the phrases regarding everybody being a home owner in the sunny Tory uplands, think about the 10,000 kids who leave care at 18 every year.
You asked for an example - I gave you one. There are also plenty of jobs available that come with accommodation. Okay, you don't own it but it's still accommodation.
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
OK.
Sorted? Unless of course you don't qualify in some way for the armed forces. Anyway keep this concept in mind on Wednesday when George Osbourne announces his budget and refers to his housing tweaks and shifts, every time he uses the phrases regarding everybody being a home owner in the sunny Tory uplands, think about the 10,000 kids who leave care at 18 every year.
You asked for an example - I gave you one. There are also plenty of jobs available that come with accommodation. Okay, you don't own it but it's still accommodation.
One of the real issue with demand for housing - particularly the smaller accommodation, is that very few people now feel inclined to take on a lodger. A massive number of single people used to 'lodge' but now feel it's necessary to find their own accommodation.
Lodging should be encouraged and the Government should raise the current £4,250 tax free theshold for this - a win win situation for landlord and lodger as far as I can see and a reduction in the demand for housing.
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
OK.
Sorted? Unless of course you don't qualify in some way for the armed forces. Anyway keep this concept in mind on Wednesday when George Osbourne announces his budget and refers to his housing tweaks and shifts, every time he uses the phrases regarding everybody being a home owner in the sunny Tory uplands, think about the 10,000 kids who leave care at 18 every year.
You asked for an example - I gave you one. There are also plenty of jobs available that come with accommodation. Okay, you don't own it but it's still accommodation.
Drat. I forgot about Downton Abbey.
I'm sure Mrs Patmore would keep you warm at night.
I used the example of an 18 year old leaving care in Lewisham getting a decent honest job but on the minimum wage. Can any sane person on here tell me what such a person would have to do to become a member of the Tory home owning democracy?
Well, I'm not necessarily sane but your 18-year old could join the armed forces for a stint. Live totally free of charge, save pretty much everything you earn - sorted. Of course you could end up dead but it's an option and one I might have considered in that individual's situation.
OK.
Sorted? Unless of course you don't qualify in some way for the armed forces. Anyway keep this concept in mind on Wednesday when George Osbourne announces his budget and refers to his housing tweaks and shifts, every time he uses the phrases regarding everybody being a home owner in the sunny Tory uplands, think about the 10,000 kids who leave care at 18 every year.
You asked for an example - I gave you one. There are also plenty of jobs available that come with accommodation. Okay, you don't own it but it's still accommodation.
Drat. I forgot about Downton Abbey.
Now you're being silly. In any event, what precisely is wrong with a career as a butler? There are opportunities everywhere if individuals would only bother to look!
The buggers ought to get on their bikes and look, so as to become members of the home owning society....of Narnia.
No, let's hand them everything on a plate, that will help them better themselves.
Everyone has the chance of an education in the UK, which, if they work hard can lead to a job, we should be encouraging people to better themselves rather tram constantly finding excuses as to why we should just give people what they need.
Disappointing that a government attack on less well off working families is perceived by many on here as a justified clamp down on scroungers. The tories will be coming after you soon.
The buggers ought to get on their bikes and look, so as to become members of the home owning society....of Narnia.
No, let's hand them everything on a plate, that will help them better themselves.
Everyone has the chance of an education in the UK, which, if they work hard can lead to a job, we should be encouraging people to better themselves rather tram constantly finding excuses as to why we should just give people what they need.
If you read back I laid emphasis on the 10,000 18 year olds who leave care every year in the UK. Probably had everything on a plate being in the care system? If you can tell me how a hard working youngster in SE London, leaving care at 18, modestly educated, getting a low paid job in something like retail, can ever be a member of the Home Owning class locally then enlighten me. I know some people can do it, can 'better themselves', I was in care myself and have managed it, but in very different circumstances to now. Nothing to do with people constantly finding excuses, a lot to do with the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude of free market Conservative philosophy.
One of the real issue with demand for housing - particularly the smaller accommodation, is that very few people now feel inclined to take on a lodger. A massive number of single people used to 'lodge' but now feel it's necessary to find their own accommodation.
Lodging should be encouraged and the Government should raise the current £4,250 tax free theshold for this - a win win situation for landlord and lodger as far as I can see and a reduction in the demand for housing.
Nice idea in theory but as society becomes ever more warped and twisted the traditional widowed landlady for lodgers may feel vulnerable allowing strangers into her home.
One of the real issue with demand for housing - particularly the smaller accommodation, is that very few people now feel inclined to take on a lodger. A massive number of single people used to 'lodge' but now feel it's necessary to find their own accommodation.
Lodging should be encouraged and the Government should raise the current £4,250 tax free theshold for this - a win win situation for landlord and lodger as far as I can see and a reduction in the demand for housing.
Nice idea in theory but as society becomes ever more warped and twisted the traditional widowed landlady for lodgers may feel vulnerable allowing strangers into her home.
I lodged once. Whilst studying down in Guildford. I hated every minute of it. He was high up in Hampshire Police, she was a Negligence solicitor. Not that their occupations have got anything to do with it, but the only DVD they owned was 'Cold Feet'. Cold Feet ffs. I also had a room on the 1st floor with an en-suite bathroom adjoining it. They had their own shower attached to their bedroom but one night decided to share a bath together, whilst I was in my room
They also decided that the bed sheets they gave me weren't being washed often enough so one Sunday upon my return I arrived back to a stripped bed and a mattress. He text me to tell me this but I was already on the train on the way down. I appreciate they were his bed sheets but I'm the one sleeping in them. It's not going to make a blind bit of difference if they don't get washed till I leave, and they probably weren't ever going to use them again anyway.
In conclusion I thought they were both tossers and I can honestly say it was a shit year in a house where the occupants owned a 'Cold Feet' DVD. I couldn't advocate lodging in anyway after that
You can rent a two-bedroomed bungalow round here for £400 pcm. You'll get a garden too.
The whole thing is pumped up in London and the south east but we are no more than 200 miles away from there. Balance needs addressing. But if it was easy they'd deal with it wouldn't they?
The buggers ought to get on their bikes and look, so as to become members of the home owning society....of Narnia.
No, let's hand them everything on a plate, that will help them better themselves.
Everyone has the chance of an education in the UK, which, if they work hard can lead to a job, we should be encouraging people to better themselves rather tram constantly finding excuses as to why we should just give people what they need.
If you read back I laid emphasis on the 10,000 18 year olds who leave care every year in the UK. Probably had everything on a plate being in the care system? If you can tell me how a hard working youngster in SE London, leaving care at 18, modestly educated, getting a low paid job in something like retail, can ever be a member of the Home Owning class locally then enlighten me. I know some people can do it, can 'better themselves', I was in care myself and have managed it, but in very different circumstances to now. Nothing to do with people constantly finding excuses, a lot to do with the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude of free market Conservative philosophy.
They probably can't ever own a home locally, they could leave London though, that would be a great first step they could take to better their lives.
I work pretty hard running a school here, I live in a massive, brand new apartment, have a great standard of living and still put about a Grand a month in the bank. Could I do any of those things living in London? Almost certainly not, so I live on the other side of the world and have the life I want.
Sometimes we have to make tough choices to get what we want in life.
I'm also not against those at the bottom of the system receiving help, however as income increases, assistance should fall.
Stu I accept that people can work hard to improve themselves, and most people try to. But as you alluded to there will be people in London in humble circumstances, who frankly could never be able to both live and work here. Without social housing there can hardly be the range of people to make a decent community function and this is my issue. The Tory policies don't address the problem but seem to be deliberately structured to make the situation worse. But it won't be worse for private property owners or private landlords and the people who grow rich from exploiting the shortage of homes. Is it not a shame that a born and bred Londoner has to move away from their hometown?
Stu I accept that people can work hard to improve themselves, and most people try to. But as you alluded to there will be people in London in humble circumstances, who frankly could never be able to both live and work here. Without social housing there can hardly be the range of people to make a decent community function and this is my issue. The Tory policies don't address the problem but seem to be deliberately structured to make the situation worse. But it won't be worse for private property owners or private landlords and the people who grow rich from exploiting the shortage of homes. Is it not a shame that a born and bred Londoner has to move away from their hometown?
It is if they move from South Bermondsey to Bexley.
Stu I accept that people can work hard to improve themselves, and most people try to. But as you alluded to there will be people in London in humble circumstances, who frankly could never be able to both live and work here. Without social housing there can hardly be the range of people to make a decent community function and this is my issue. The Tory policies don't address the problem but seem to be deliberately structured to make the situation worse. But it won't be worse for private property owners or private landlords and the people who grow rich from exploiting the shortage of homes. Is it not a shame that a born and bred Londoner has to move away from their hometown?
I've never suggested the removal of social housing, quite the opposite. If those who earn more, contribute more, or take less, that leaves more for those who need it most.
As with all these things, I don't understand the bit about landlords offseting their mortgage interest payments against their income and that being reduced to the basic rate of 20%. But it seems according to the commentary that neither party is happy, ie the landlord with one property that they have bought as an investment for their children, or it would seem the hapless renter who might be hit with increased rents.........
hypothetically what would happen if a government tried to introduce legislation limiting to buy to let? Is this too simple a solution?
As with all these things, I don't understand the bit about landlords offseting their mortgage interest payments against their income and that being reduced to the basic rate of 20%. But it seems according to the commentary that neither party is happy, ie the landlord with one property that they have bought as an investment for their children, or it would seem the hapless renter who might be hit with increased rents.........
hypothetically what would happen if a government tried to introduce legislation limiting to buy to let? Is this too simple a solution?
MP's would have to sell off their property portfolios? Can't see any of them voting for it tbh.
As with all these things, I don't understand the bit about landlords offseting their mortgage interest payments against their income and that being reduced to the basic rate of 20%. But it seems according to the commentary that neither party is happy, ie the landlord with one property that they have bought as an investment for their children, or it would seem the hapless renter who might be hit with increased rents.........
hypothetically what would happen if a government tried to introduce legislation limiting to buy to let? Is this too simple a solution?
MP's would have to sell off their property portfolios? Can't see any of them voting for it tbh.
"The group found several examples of MPs owning more than one rental property. James Clappison, Tory MP for Hertsmere, topped the charts, having been found to own 26 homes he rented out across east Yorkshire."
Taken from that article. Wrong. No other word for it
As with all these things, I don't understand the bit about landlords offseting their mortgage interest payments against their income and that being reduced to the basic rate of 20%. But it seems according to the commentary that neither party is happy, ie the landlord with one property that they have bought as an investment for their children, or it would seem the hapless renter who might be hit with increased rents.........
hypothetically what would happen if a government tried to introduce legislation limiting to buy to let? Is this too simple a solution?
A restriction on buy-to-let is then itself a restriction in supply of rental accommodation. That would likely increase prices of rented accommodation. It would also reduce house prices as there would be less demand.
Depending on how strict you are about existing landlords (and lodgings), it could freeze would-be tenants and anyone who doesn't have a deposit or can't get a mortgage out of finding anywhere to live. And anyone who finds their rents going up because of the change might find it harder to save for a deposit anyway.
Whether you think the above is a good or bad thing depends on what you think the problem is, but this tinkering at the edges is a zero sum game. An increase in the housing stock would cool off the rental market and potentially the property bubble too. A longer term solution would be investing in infrastructure and encouraging companies (and therefore people) to move to areas with less congestion and less heated markets. The UK is far too centralised, in my opinion.
As with all these things, I don't understand the bit about landlords offseting their mortgage interest payments against their income and that being reduced to the basic rate of 20%. But it seems according to the commentary that neither party is happy, ie the landlord with one property that they have bought as an investment for their children, or it would seem the hapless renter who might be hit with increased rents.........
hypothetically what would happen if a government tried to introduce legislation limiting to buy to let? Is this too simple a solution?
It's a business being operated by a sole trader. So they are allowed to deduct legitimate expenses from their rental income. That would include stuff like gas boiler inspections for example and whatever the costs of their mortgage might be. I assume, at the moment they are allowed to get tax relief at their marginal rate of tax whether that's 40% or 20%. In future, the relief will be at 20% only. So, costs of owning a rental property will increase and I guess the landlords will attempt to get the shortfall back from tenants by increasing rents. Or some smart-arse accountants might advise all sole trader landlords to own the property through a limited company based in the Isle of Man which itself is a subsidiary of a British Virgin Islands company issuing bearer shares. Whether they'd then get a mortgage is another matter.
Comments
The false "market rate" caused by failure to build anywhere near demand is a different subject.
Sorted? Unless of course you don't qualify in some way for the armed forces.
Anyway keep this concept in mind on Wednesday when George Osbourne announces his budget and refers to his housing tweaks and shifts, every time he uses the phrases regarding everybody being a home owner in the sunny Tory uplands, think about the 10,000 kids who leave care at 18 every year.
That career choice is absolutely not without risk but you weigh these things up. The benefits are there and more and more companies are gagging to take on ex forces people due to the attitudes and work ethics they bring. Finally organisations are being set up to help and assist with those leaving post-combat who encounter difficulties.
I can roll off a dozen people I know who have left the armed forces with healthy bank balances and a new career. I can only name 3 who have had trouble and one of them was troubles he had before he joined.
But back to the argument at hand here. Something should be done about people 'hoovering' properties up. Especially in lower income areas. At the very least rules need to be tightened up regarding landlords taking the absolute piss with the rents they charge.
I could say 'ain't my problem' I'm on the ladder. But what about any kids I may have? I don't want them living with me until they are 40. Or even 25. That's weird
For those that think LA workers get off likely may have their eyes opened.
It's mainly Portsmouth City Council.
Lodging should be encouraged and the Government should raise the current £4,250 tax free theshold for this - a win win situation for landlord and lodger as far as I can see and a reduction in the demand for housing.
Everyone has the chance of an education in the UK, which, if they work hard can lead to a job, we should be encouraging people to better themselves rather tram constantly finding excuses as to why we should just give people what they need.
If you can tell me how a hard working youngster in SE London, leaving care at 18, modestly educated, getting a low paid job in something like retail, can ever be a member of the Home Owning class locally then enlighten me.
I know some people can do it, can 'better themselves', I was in care myself and have managed it, but in very different circumstances to now. Nothing to do with people constantly finding excuses, a lot to do with the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude of free market Conservative philosophy.
They also decided that the bed sheets they gave me weren't being washed often enough so one Sunday upon my return I arrived back to a stripped bed and a mattress. He text me to tell me this but I was already on the train on the way down. I appreciate they were his bed sheets but I'm the one sleeping in them. It's not going to make a blind bit of difference if they don't get washed till I leave, and they probably weren't ever going to use them again anyway.
In conclusion I thought they were both tossers and I can honestly say it was a shit year in a house where the occupants owned a 'Cold Feet' DVD. I couldn't advocate lodging in anyway after that
The whole thing is pumped up in London and the south east but we are no more than 200 miles away from there. Balance needs addressing. But if it was easy they'd deal with it wouldn't they?
I work pretty hard running a school here, I live in a massive, brand new apartment, have a great standard of living and still put about a Grand a month in the bank. Could I do any of those things living in London? Almost certainly not, so I live on the other side of the world and have the life I want.
Sometimes we have to make tough choices to get what we want in life.
I'm also not against those at the bottom of the system receiving help, however as income increases, assistance should fall.
Is it not a shame that a born and bred Londoner has to move away from their hometown?
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/personalfinance/budget-2015-landlords-and-tenants-hit-to-cool-overheated-buy-to-let-market/ar-AAcIg6e
hypothetically what would happen if a government tried to introduce legislation limiting to buy to let? Is this too simple a solution?
m.insidehousing.co.uk/6524104.article?mobilesite=enabled
Taken from that article. Wrong. No other word for it
Depending on how strict you are about existing landlords (and lodgings), it could freeze would-be tenants and anyone who doesn't have a deposit or can't get a mortgage out of finding anywhere to live. And anyone who finds their rents going up because of the change might find it harder to save for a deposit anyway.
Whether you think the above is a good or bad thing depends on what you think the problem is, but this tinkering at the edges is a zero sum game. An increase in the housing stock would cool off the rental market and potentially the property bubble too. A longer term solution would be investing in infrastructure and encouraging companies (and therefore people) to move to areas with less congestion and less heated markets. The UK is far too centralised, in my opinion.
Or some smart-arse accountants might advise all sole trader landlords to own the property through a limited company based in the Isle of Man which itself is a subsidiary of a British Virgin Islands company issuing bearer shares. Whether they'd then get a mortgage is another matter.