Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

[Tim Lewis]

22 hours ago, Athy said:

The two do often go together. I disagree, so I say so, which you could call contradicting. It's not uncommon.

Is this the right room for an argument...

 

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Tim Lewis

[Athy]

Just now, Tim Lewis said:

Is this the right room for an argument...

To avoid arguing about it, yes.

[rusty69]

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

 Splendid!

Come to think of it, in recent years I've noticed an increase in parents rolling their children to school in the mornings.

It's the "school roll call" 

[Athy]

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

It's the "school roll call" 

Tee-hee.

Parents should try to get more exercise by bouncing them to school.

[doratheexplorer]

23 hours ago, Athy said:

Very good.

I made it clear that I was not interested in being drawn into a bad-tempered fight, and I am not. Hence I kept my replies succinct.

But since you ask, it is certainly not my experience that rent rises have far outstripped pay rises. I speak from some experience, but you can speak from far more: what do you think?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/design/uk-housing-market-generation-rent-tenants-wages-home-ownership-buyers-crisis-a8296116.html#r3z-addoor

[Athy]

An interesting article, whose author sure knows the journalistic tricks of using weighted and emotive language: a rent rise of 9% in five years is scarcely a "jump". 

[Cheese]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

Where on earth did you find that statistic? The figures I found on the internet suggest about half that - in round figures, 1978 Britih population 56 million, 2018 population 66 million.

Agreed.  And over the same period UK housing stock* has increased from around 20.5m in mid-1978 to 27.7m at the end of 2016.  Given that most dwellings provide a home for more than one person the 7m increase in housing might have been expected to be sufficient to meet the 10m increase in population.

 

But the fact that demand has led to increasing real rents, in at least some parts of the country, suggests that the problem is more to do with changing lifestyles: more older people living alone; relationship breakdowns leading to more single parent families; more young people wanting their own (rental/owned) property rather than "bedsits", more people wanting to live in London etc.

 

As the current age-bulge in the population of people around 55-65 dies off (admittedly over perhaps 25-30 years), releasing a lot of single-occupancy houses onto the market, there might even be a surplus of housing at some point, leading to falling prices and rents.

 

*boats not included  (except perhaps houseboats)

[Athy]

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

more older people living alone; 

Good point. When my Nana found it hard to look after herself any longer, she came to live with us for about the last two years of her life (thus freeing up her former house for, I assume, family occupation). This was considered normal in those days of 50+ years ago, but I suspect that it happens less nowadays.

[nicknorman]

12 minutes ago, Athy said:

Good point. When my Nana found it hard to look after herself any longer, she came to live with us for about the last two years of her life (thus freeing up her former house for, I assume, family occupation). This was considered normal in those days of 50+ years ago, but I suspect that it happens less nowadays.

Yes. Presumably because fewer of your parents and grandparents remain alive.

 

 

?

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Yes. Presumably because fewer of your parents and grandparents remain alive.

 

 

?

Sometimes it isdifficult to be serious on here. I meant (as a man of your intellectual capacity must have realised) that lots of families took in older relatives, especially if those relatives had been widowed, whereas these days I would think that a higher proportion of those older relatives go and live in sheltered (usually single-occupation) housing.

[nicknorman]

27 minutes ago, Athy said:

Sometimes it isdifficult to be serious on here. I meant (as a man of your intellectual capacity must have realised) that lots of families took in older relatives, especially if those relatives had been widowed, whereas these days I would think that a higher proportion of those older relatives go and live in sheltered (usually single-occupation) housing.

I know. Perhaps my smiley evaded you!

 

So I got one gold star for my new word a couple of days ago, and now a black mark for sarcasm! Such is life! Ying and yang.

[Athy]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I know. Perhaps my smiley evaded you!

 

 

Not at all. Perhaps my jocular tone evaded you - it's easily done in print.

 

(Thinks: Jocular Tone sounds like a bloke who's the life and soul of the Public Bar).

[Victor Vectis]

22 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This explains why it is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone whose family do not already own property, to get on the housing ladder, you could look on it as the new 'Landed Gentry' if you like.

This is my thinking too.

 

Before the industrial revolution wealth was with those who owned land.

Then wealth passed to those who owned factories, mills, mines etc.

In these post industrial times wealth now seems vested in those who own brick and mortar.

 

I'm fully aware that this might not be a popular opinion but, IMHO, buy to let is just pure evil.

[Athy]

21 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

.

 

I'm fully aware that this might not be a popular opinion but, IMHO, buy to let is just pure evil.

I'm sure that several of us on here, who have bought properties to rent out, would be interested in learning why their actions are so heinous.

[X Alan W]

On 20/08/2018 at 17:39, Athy said:

Really? I had always thought that housing benefit was one of the things, alongside the dole, which could be claimed by the unemployed. As you suggest, some people who are in work are not prosperous, but they surely earn more money than people on the dole do? That being so, why do more working people than non-working people get this hand-out?

In some cases NO At 59years & 364days I was fully capable of assembling aircraft components& the like At 60 years one day later I had become incompetent & had to take retirement I obtained a job as a mini bus driver at a holiday resort which was seasonal from chaffer at the Job Centre I earned less than a no skilled never had a job guy with 2 children received some £20 a week benifits more than I earned  working 48 hrs a week this was before the minimum wage came into force so it could be different now the big laugh was some 5 months later I was asked by the aero firm to return & take charge of the dept i had previously worked in  They set 2 young guys on to do my job as  the guy who replaced me couldn't cope on his own

[nicknorman]

47 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

 

I'm fully aware that this might not be a popular opinion but, IMHO, buy to let is just pure evil.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it does seem to lack any logic. A sort of religion perhaps?

 

I am a buy to let landlord, I bought a flat in 2014.

 

In the first year I rented it out to an oil worker who had a 1 year contract in Aberdeen before continuing his career elsewhere in the world. He didn’t want the expense and hassle of buying a property to live in for just a year.

 

In the second year I rented it to an Italian  hospital registrar. He left after a year to go to a consultant’s job in Glasgow. He didn’t want the expense and hassle of buying a property to live in for just a year.

 

In the third year I rented it to a mature Finnish student. After a year he graduated and went back to Finland. He didn’t want the expense and hassle of buying a property to live in for just a year.

 

In the fourth year I’m renting it to a Saudi PhD student. He doesn’t want to buy a property in the U.K.

 

i struggle to see anything evil in my provision of medium term accommodation for these people. What would be evil would be to deny them the ability to rent a flat, forcing them instead to live in a hotel or be homeless, on the grounds of some fanatical political belief.

Edited August 22, 2018 by nicknorman

[Gareth E]

41 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

This is my thinking too.

 

Before the industrial revolution wealth was with those who owned land.

Then wealth passed to those who owned factories, mills, mines etc.

In these post industrial times wealth now seems vested in those who own brick and mortar.

 

I'm fully aware that this might not be a popular opinion but, IMHO, buy to let is just pure evil.

If you think buy to let is so bad please don't uproot and head for Europe where the majority of houses are owned and rented by private landlords. Not like here, where it's very much the minority. Also, if making profit from the essentials of life is so bad why is it allowable for privately owned supermarkets to dominate the food supply market? Would it not be more equitable to have all food supplied by charities, worker's co operatives or perhaps government owned businesses, all operating not for profit?

 

Unless we really want to regress to being like the old Soviet Union we should accept that for profit businesses are the best way. Too much governmental control not only stifles innovation, it also reduces human beings to a state of misery because, by and large, we thrive on being free, and suffer if freedoms don't exist. 

 

I'd understand the hatred of buy to let if those so disposed had similar loathing of making profit on food which, at the end of the day, is more essential than housing.    

[Victor Vectis]

OK, I'll bite.

 

BTL landlords get an income from sitting on their arses and doing sweet FA.

 

Having lit the blue touch paper I will now retire to play with my avatar at and leave the field of play open to BTL people complaining about rogue tenants, poor return on capital invested etc.

[Gareth E]

3 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

OK, I'll bite.

 

BTL landlords get an income from sitting on their arses and doing sweet FA.

 

Having lit the blue touch paper I will now retire to play with my avatar at and leave the field of play open to BTL people complaining about rogue tenants, poor return on capital invested etc.

As do the shareholders of all the businesses out there that supply us with most of our needs and wants.

[nicknorman]

4 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

OK, I'll bite.

 

BTL landlords get an income from sitting on their arses and doing sweet FA.

 

Having lit the blue touch paper I will now retire to play with my avatar at and leave the field of play open to BTL people complaining about rogue tenants, poor return on capital invested etc.

Do you have any saving? If so, aren’t you doing the same thing? But actually you are quite wrong, these days there are a lot of hoops to jump through to be a BtL landlord. And even if there weren’t, why is getting an income from doing sweet FA other than investing one’s previously-hard-earned saving in property so evil? If you had your way and it was banned, where would all those tenants live?

[Athy]

22 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

OK, I'll bite.

 

BTL landlords get an income from sitting on their arses and doing sweet FA.

 

 

 

Or "investing their hard-earned money where it will generate a reasonable profit" as it's better known.

Remember the parable of the talents.

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

Or "investing their hard-earned money where it will generate a reasonable profit" as it's better known.

Remember the parable of the talents.

It’s hard not to think his opinion is born out of envy. Of course he would have been in a position to be a BTL landlord himself had he not spent a good proportion of his teacher’s salary on boats and beer!

Edited August 22, 2018 by nicknorman

[Athy]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

It’s hard not to think his opinion is born out of envy. Of course he would have been in a position to be a BTL landlord himself had he not spent a good proportion of his teacher’s salary on boats and beer!

Er, I did exactly that and Mrs. Athy and I still managed to acquire a couple of rental properties!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

16 hours ago, Gareth E said:

Talking of 1978, the population has increased by 35% since then. That should give a fair clue as to why rents have become more expensive. There again, you can still rent a house in the vast majority of the country for around £600 a month, less in many areas. Good luck trying to find a house to rent in the likes of Germany, France, Holland, Belgium etc. for a similar figure.

 

I guess the other relatively rich countries in Europe must have sold off all of their council housing too.   

Ignoring the fictitious population increase, already pointed out by another poster (I assume it was off the top of your head rather that actually looking it up) you then compound it by not bothering to look up home rental costs, you'll find houses are quite cheap both to buy and rent in France. These two links might help (  https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Germany ) where the average cost of rent in Germany is 10.55% lower than the UK and (  https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=France  ) where the average cost of rent in France is 12.75% lower than the UK. You also seem to consider £600 per month a reasonable rent; for someone on the so-called national living wage, that is over half of their monthly income (after paying NI) going on rent, hardly 'affordable' is it. If rents had merely risen in line with inflation it would be only about £150 or so, I'd call that affordable.

 

Historically the reason for the ridiculous house prices and rentals in the UK has nothing to do with population and everything to do with control of the market by the big 4 house builders. When you hand a cartel to someone it is naive to believe that they are not going to abuse it. The policy of the big 4 has been to maintain a housing shortage to support house prices, why flood the market and cause the price to fall when you can build half as many houses and get just as much profit? The nice man in charge of one of the big 4, Persimmon was going to be paid a £110 million bonus!!!!!! well I bet he grafted hard for that little gift......not!

 

Where the housing market fails is that those who can least afford to do so (those who are not creditworthy) are press ganged into paying the mortgages of those who already have money using the Buy to Let mortgages. Taking on a Buy to Let mortgage you already have an advantage over someone who actually wants to buy the property to live in,since you only need to pay the interest on the capital loan (and you are getting your tenants to do that on your behalf, plus a little profit), someone buying the property to live in has to demonstrate how they will pay off the loan at the end of the mortgage, a BTL will sell the property and recoup the money, plus profit so can bid higher for it.

 

Anecdotally, in the past, (or at least with my parents, their siblings, my grandparents and the same for the OH) people who rented often did so from the house-builder himself. They would obviously carry out commissioned builds for people want to buy, but if there was a lull they would keep their workers employed building properties for rent. The rents from these properties kept the builders afloat during poor weather when building may have been difficult, or during lulls in the market, they always had an income stream since most of their tenants were extremely long term (we are talking decades here). That has now been completely replaced by moneymaking chancers.

 

A quote from a New Zealand economist, Shamubeel Eaqub, (where they have an identical problem of properties being too expensive to native New Zealanders to buy or rent) which pretty much sums the whole 'market' up,"...There is never a market for poor people, it is not profitable to build houses for poor people. That's the challenge....". So provided we are happy that 'poor people' have nowhere to live, and we don't complain about rough sleepers, let's keep the status quo

Edited August 22, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Tacet]

On 21/08/2018 at 12:56, Arthur Marshall said:

Interesting. My month's rent in 1978 was £27 for a privately rented four room flat. My daughter's is currently £500 with one more bedroom in social housing. Anyone work that out with the inflation rates? That's on the Wirral. 

In 1978, you mother's tenancy was quite probably protected by the Rent Act 1977.  This limited the rent to "fair rent" which made the unreal assumption that there was no scarcity of accommodation to rent in the locality.  It is questionable whether, even with that important assumption, the tone of established for fair rents met its definition. 

 

Whilst a fair rent seems very laudable, the effect was that landlords were unwilling to grant tenancies and the market shrank.  Any property that was subject to a regulated tenancy was worth, as a rule of thumb, one third of its vacant possession value as there was significant security of tenure.  So only those wished who wished to lose two thirds of the value would let a flat or house.

 

Housing is a very important issue.  Come the revolution it will be different, but In a broadly capitalist society expecting one sector (property owners) to bear the responsibility for housing the less-wealthy at non-market rates isn't going to work for long, if at all.  It makes no more sense than requiring car owners to provide a cheap public transport system or expecting doctors to work for minimum wage. 

 

Income to landlords should (as it is) be subject to tax on broadly the same principles as income from other types of investments.   And responsibility for providing for the housing, health, public transport, pensions, benefits and hand-outs of the less-fortunate is a shared responsibility via the government.