Housing benefit?

[Ange]

Dare I post this? Gulp - here goes.

 

We own two properties that we rent out. One was the house we were living in before we bought the boat and is let to private tenants, it's our "if this doesn't work out we can go back to where we were" failsafe.

 

The other we bought when we some money to invest, which gave us enough for a 30% deposit on an investment property. We looked at lots of different ways of investing this money, saw that share prices and therefore pensions were in freefall (besides which I can never get my head around the fact that you plough your money into pension plans and are so restricted as to when and how much you can have back. We decided our best bet would be to buy a fairly cheap property and rent it out, the idea being that the rent would cover the mortgage and we'd hopefully have a fairly decent capital gain when we sell it in 20 years.

 

The house made a little bit of money in the first couple of years when it was let to private tenants, but was then empty for quite a while. We accepted that we'd have to let it to housing benefit tenants if we wanted some income from it. Since then we had a huge loss in the first year when we renovated it to the standard expected, and just about paid it's way since then. We try to be responsible landlords and make sure that any problems are fixed straight away with no fuss.

 

If HB were abolished and we couldn't let the house we'd have to sell it. We've calculated that we'd get our money back with a small capital gain so wouldn't be out of pocket considering how dire interest rates have been in the past few years for savers.

 

I'm not saying whether we were right or wrong - just trying to inject a human element to the "greedy landlord" stereotype

 

BTW we get a significantly higher rental for our private let than we do for the HB let and they both cost the same to buy.

[Tuscan]

I think the problem started when a) we started selling off council houss but did not reinvest the proceeds in building more and when siblings who did not live in the council house were able to "inherit" the house thus often depriving someone n greater need.

 

I have little issue in HB as a support mechanism it's more the system and how it is apples. I don't want to create ghettos but if someone is genuine in need of support. Rather than pay greedy landlords city prices when we could relocate to cheaper areas of the country and maybe provide more for less.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Tuscan

[Susanne]

Right. Ok. Cheers for that!

[Grace and Favour]

Right. Ok. Cheers for that!

 

What are you on??

[Guest wanted]

Dare I post this? Gulp - here goes.

 

We own two properties that we rent out. One was the house we were living in before we bought the boat and is let to private tenants, it's our "if this doesn't work out we can go back to where we were" failsafe.

 

The other we bought when we some money to invest, which gave us enough for a 30% deposit on an investment property. We looked at lots of different ways of investing this money, saw that share prices and therefore pensions were in freefall (besides which I can never get my head around the fact that you plough your money into pension plans and are so restricted as to when and how much you can have back. We decided our best bet would be to buy a fairly cheap property and rent it out, the idea being that the rent would cover the mortgage and we'd hopefully have a fairly decent capital gain when we sell it in 20 years.

 

The house made a little bit of money in the first couple of years when it was let to private tenants, but was then empty for quite a while. We accepted that we'd have to let it to housing benefit tenants if we wanted some income from it. Since then we had a huge loss in the first year when we renovated it to the standard expected, and just about paid it's way since then. We try to be responsible landlords and make sure that any problems are fixed straight away with no fuss.

 

If HB were abolished and we couldn't let the house we'd have to sell it. We've calculated that we'd get our money back with a small capital gain so wouldn't be out of pocket considering how dire interest rates have been in the past few years for savers.

 

I'm not saying whether we were right or wrong - just trying to inject a human element to the "greedy landlord" stereotype

 

BTW we get a significantly higher rental for our private let than we do for the HB let and they both cost the same to buy.

 

Sounds fair to me, an example of somebody ensuring they won't need to claim later on.

 

I think the problem started when a) we started selling off council houss but did not reinvest the proceeds in building more and when siblings who did not live in the council house were able to "inherit" the house thus often depriving someone n greater need.

 

I have little issue in HB as a support mechanism it's more the system and how it is apples. I don't want to create ghettos but if someone is genuine in need of support. Rather than pay greedy landlords city prices when we could relocate to cheaper areas of the country and maybe provide more for less.

 

Hmmmm, displacement of community comes with its own issues.

[Gibbo]

Would you suggest that the grateful couple who live in your house could go and rent another property with their hard earned and allow an unemployed teenager who has experienced violence to live there instead?

 

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that property should not be owned for a profit. It should be illegal. I actually find it quite repugnant and morally wrong. The only reason anyone owns land to start with is because it was originally stolen by force and murder (go back a few hundred years).

 

Our tenants probaby cost as much in manintenance as we get in rental income. But otherwise the house would be empty so someone might as well live in it. At least they stop it falling apart.

 

If HB were abolished and we couldn't let the house we'd have to sell it.

 

Diddumms doos.

 

Houses are so poeple don't get snowed on in winter. They are not there so you can make a fat greedy profit off the less fortnuate.

[Guest wanted]

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that property should not be owned for a profit. It should be illegal. I actually find it quite repugnant and morally wrong. The only reason anyone owns land to start with is because it was originally stolen by force and murder (go back a few hundred years).

 

Our tenants probaby cost as much in manintenance as we get in rental income. But otherwise the house would be empty so someone might as well live in it. At least they stop it falling apart.

 

I so agree with you on lot of this, history tells us how land came into ownerhip in some horrific ways, maybe in another world I would consider your angle as a start point, as with such radical reform there would be so many at risk that it would be unworkable now. Greater regulation over unscrupulous landlords is now our opinion.

 

Off to bed, these hoodies don't hug themselves you know

 

Enjoyable debate though, no doubt I'll be back!

[Ange]

 

Diddumms doos.

 

Houses are so poeple don't get snowed on in winter. They are not there so you can make a fat greedy profit off the less fortnuate.

 

You disappoint me Gibbo - you're obviously unable to enter into a rational debate on this subject. I thought you were better than that!!!

 

I spent a long time typing up my post to try to put across another side of the argument - your response is worthy of my 5 year old niece!

[Tuscan]

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that property should not be owned for a profit. It should be illegal. I actually find it quite repugnant and morally wrong. The only reason anyone owns land to start with is because it was originally stolen by force and murder (go back a few hundred years).

 

Our tenants probaby cost as much in manintenance as we get in rental income. But otherwise the house would be empty so someone might as well live in it. At least they stop it falling apart.

 

 

 

Diddumms doos.

 

Houses are so poeple don't get snowed on in winter. They are not there so you can make a fat greedy profit off the less fortnuate.

 

 

 

 

That's just rubbish or rather needs a definition of profit, have no problem with a local authority making a profit on renting its council houses if that profit is calculated to enable them to modernise and maintain the housing stock. You seem to be advocating an eastern European solution of building large blocks of flat and removing any other choice. Guess we should also remove most canal boats as they are in effect second homes so should be handed over to the homeless.

 

Agree there is inequality in housing availability , the best way to drive down rental and house prices is fairly simple build more social housing as a condition of all new office and private developments. If all this new property was sat set at 60% of current market rentals this would drive down prices for all. But is his th answer with so much debt and assets of many tied up in he property market.

[Smelly]

I think the problem started when a) we started selling off council houss but did not reinvest the proceeds in building more and when siblings who did not live in the council house were able to "inherit" the house thus often depriving someone n greater need.

 

I have little issue in HB as a support mechanism it's more the system and how it is apples. I don't want to create ghettos but if someone is genuine in need of support. Rather than pay greedy landlords city prices when we could relocate to cheaper areas of the country and maybe provide more for less.

 

Current succession rules would have the successor having lived in the property... When did it change?

[Bobbybass]

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that property should not be owned for a profit. It should be illegal. I actually find it quite repugnant and morally wrong. The only reason anyone owns land to start with is because it was originally stolen by force and murder (go back a few hundred years).

 

 

Diddumms doos....

 

 

Sell a few more Smart Gauges..you may be able to afford one..

 

Oh..you're back after you fell out of your pram then..?

Someone said you had left..but I didn't notice.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Bobbybass

[kiki]

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that property should not be owned for a profit. It should be illegal. I actually find it quite repugnant and morally wrong. The only reason anyone owns land to start with is because it was originally stolen by force and murder (go back a few hundred years).

 

Our tenants probaby cost as much in manintenance as we get in rental income. But otherwise the house would be empty so someone might as well live in it. At least they stop it falling apart.

 

 

 

Diddumms doos.

 

Houses are so poeple don't get snowed on in winter. They are not there so you can make a fat greedy profit off the less fortnuate.

 

What an poorly thought out and knee jerk reaction - really would expect a more mature response to a very well written answer. I am in a similar situation and get very tired of people bleating on about "greedy landlords" or that those who own more than two homes should be taxed to the hilt. I came here with my husband 15 years ago bringing my 2 kids and a beaten up VW camper van and some odd bits of furniture, we had a total of £9,000 to our names (after selling everything else we owned in South Africa).

Thankful and grateful for the home I have been given here I realised that I would never be able to make up the difference in pension that I needed to retire and that the only way we could do it would be to work twice as hard. Using a deposit and credit cards, we did up 2 flats over weekends, Christmas in the freeze, our annual holidays (while working full time as well) etc and finally have managed to almost pay them off - by living frugally on the boat and investing the rent we get into the morgages. These are our hedge against poverty in old age, and would mean that we do not have to ask for help from the taxpayer. It is not a greedy money grubbing way of making money out of the less fortunate.

Some people will own property and others will rent it, its the reality of life as we know it/

Edited June 26, 2012 by kiki

[Tuscan]

Current succession rules would have the successor having lived in the property... When did it change?

 

 

I have no Idea - admittedly quite some years ago now I am aware of a friend who took over his grandmothers house when she died (I assume he was on the waiting list) lived in it for some years then sold at a nice profit. He did not live in the property at the time but maybe persuaded them that he did at the time I don't know. End result was one less council house available for those that need it, and someone else with a free deposit on a private house and off the housing list. I am lucky and over years have paid off my mortgage and so would lose out if property prices fell however the answer for the recession etc is a mass building programme of public sector housing this would reduce rental pricing and house prices, rents should be at a price that gives councils enough profit to maintain the properties, no right of sale and short term tenancy lets for the first three years so that anti social tenants could be moved on.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Tuscan

[Smelly]

As an aside, considering the principle elevator to rental rates is the unavailability of mortgages, is it a sustainable proposition that further limiting HB rates will affect rents?

[Tuscan]

As an aside, considering the principle elevator to rental rates is the unavailability of mortgages, is it a sustainable proposition that further limiting HB rates will affect rents?

 

 

It's not unavailability of mortgages it's the level of deposits that have returned to the level required some years ago before the flood of cheap credit . This following he current period of readjustment is probably a good thing.. Maybe the answer is to either adjust HB levels up and down to suit regional rent variations ?

[grahoom]

The whole housing market has been altered due to a factor of both Housing Benefit and Buy to Rent. The stock for people who wish to buy has reduced due to people owning multiple houses as a means to make money.

 

Selling off of Social Housing means the state has little control over it other than as a money pit.

 

This means that the state transfers money (tax money) into the private sector. So, we have several problems caused.

 

Those who wish to buy a house are trapped by high rental costs, find it difficult to save and also have inflated house prices due to the skewed market.

 

Those who are renting have very little legislation on their side.

 

Some of the private "social" housing are in terrible condition, but the landlords have no incentive to maintain them as they have a captive market - you either put up or shut up.

 

This is what happens when crony capitalism runs the show.

Edited June 26, 2012 by grahoom

[mayalld]

I do wish the first question on people's minds is "Do I need to take out of the pot?" rather than "Am I entitled to it?"

 

Have you (or your good lady) ever recieved child benefit?

 

If so, was that because it is a universal benefit that you were entitled to it, or because you needed it?

[Lady Muck]

Renting in London is expensive and depressing as you find you have to move all the time as landlords are always selling up.

I think we need control of private rents and better protected tenancies like in Germany. Over here, in London you're lucky if you manage three years somewhere. In Berlin, 20 years is't uncommon.

Its not as simple to say to people, 'well move, then.' We're here because there is work here.

[KirraMisha]

Why? Who, exactly, benefits from housing benefit other than landlords?

 

I'm willing to learn here because it's not my field at all, but I really can't see how anyone gets anything out of it apart from the person who owns the (otherwise empty) property.

If you own a house in an area like we do where we could afford to buy no where else, then plan to move onto a boat for a better lifestyle your only rental market are families on benefits or low incomes supported by benefits.

We could sell the house or rent it out but if the rent dont get paid it gets sold or repossessed and in the current market a buyer round here is the kind of person who cant get a mortgage anyway.

I dare say there are many house owners who are not capitalist or greedy landlords but at some point buy a van or boat or caravan and do a Shirley Valentine because they are sick of scraping by!

[carlt]

If so, was that because it is a universal benefit that you were entitled to it, or because you needed it?

My two children qualify for and receive Child Benefit because they need it.

 

There are things that my children would go without,or things the family would have to sacrifice, if they didn't receive it, .

 

It is ring-fenced to fund their education and development, things that are necessary, in my opinion.

 

We do not regard it as a benefit that I (or the OH) receive.

 

I now await the nit-picking response from you....

Edited June 26, 2012 by carlt

[carlt]

I think the problem started when a) we started selling off council houss but did not reinvest the proceeds in building more

If that had happened Thatcher's budget deficit would have been bigger than Gordon Brown's.

 

Why do you think Cameron is reviving the "Right to Buy" scheme?

 

The monetarists disguise their economic incompetence by selling off Britain's assets.

Edited June 26, 2012 by carlt

[RLWP]

Right. Ok. Cheers for that!

 

 

What are you on??

 

She's 'on' being new to the forum and perhaps getting things wrong? Like replying to a post a few pages back, only to find your reply has slipped way out of context

 

Richard

[Tuscan]

If that had happened Thatcher's budget deficit would have been bigger than Gordon Brown's.

 

Why do you think Cameron is reviving the "Right to Buy" scheme?

 

The monetarists disguise their economic incompetence by selling off Britain's assets.

 

 

I think you will find the biggest culprit is Labour and the PFI. Schemes that are now coming back to bite us, just a dodge to not put the actual cost on he books.

[mayalld]

My two children qualify for and receive Child Benefit because they need it.

 

There are things that my children would go without,or things the family would have to sacrifice, if they didn't receive it, .

 

It is ring-fenced to fund their education and development, things that are necessary, in my opinion.

 

We do not regard it as a benefit that I (or the OH) receive.

 

I now await the nit-picking response from you....

 

They qualify for Child Benefit because it is (or rather has been up until recent buggering about) a universal benefit. The "need" for that sum of money has nothing to do with the entitlement to it.

 

If it were withdraw, they would either go without things, or you would go without something to ensure that they didn't. but I rather doubt that any member of your family would actually starve or become homeless.

 

Your definition of "need" seems somewhat elastic

[Machpoint005]

The whole housing market has been altered due to a factor of both Housing Benefit and Buy to Rent. The stock for people who wish to buy has reduced due to people owning multiple houses as a means to make money.

Somebody has to own the housing stock. The problem comes in making sure they charge a reasonable rent, which is the mechanism council housing used to provide.

 

The whole sorry state of affairs came about because houses are seen as a means of increasing capital, not as somewhere to live. It became ever more popular when mortgages were handed out to people who couldn't afford them, and to 'buy to rent' landlords, thus stoking the fires of property price inflation.

 

There is no justification, however, in blaming those individuals who took advantage of cheap credit and their own hard work to accumulate capital in this way. Traditional pensions vehicles didn't pay nearly as well, and are now even worse. Put the blame where it belongs - Thatcher and greedy irresponsible world bankers (in that order).