Social housing tenants earning over £30K will have to pay up to the market rent

[BensGrandad]

The existing BTL would still be available but a number of people chasing those rentals would drop as more try for a 95% or 100% mortgages as the banks would need to re instigate them again to lend money.

 

[BensGrandad]

Indeed, and there should be a married couples tax allowance, but there isn't (unless your income is under £10,600).

May be sexist but when a couple marry or form a civil partnership the income should be dealt with as a couple until they become single again,and do not live in the same house, to over come manipulation of the rules by seperating.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The existing BTL would still be available but a number of people chasing those rentals would drop as more try for a 95% or 100% mortgages as the banks would need to re instigate them again to lend money.

So now you are saying you don't want to abolish btl mortgages ..If you try and stifle demand in the BTL area whats your suggestion to provide the supply of houses available for rent that you have just stifled.

 

[BensGrandad]

Stop BTL mortgages and reintroduce 95% and 100% mortgages and those houses would get bought for owner occupation so less demand for rentals. People with money could still use it to buy houses to let but it will be their money not the banks which would then free up more funds to lend for owner occupiers.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Stop BTL mortgages and reintroduce 95% and 100% mortgages and those houses would get bought for owner occupation so less demand for rentals. People with money could still use it to buy houses to let but it will be their money not the banks which would then free up more funds to lend for owner occupiers.

Who says those houses would be bought by owner occupiers? Who says those people actually want to buy..maybe they prefer the flexibility of renting...sorry but i think thats a bit simplistic. I go back to your original remark which really was an attack on landlords ..i don't think that solves the problem. Lets face it the market is in a mess....we have Housing Associations who are going to be told to sell off stock at a discount to market rate which is purely political dogma ..to play devils advocate you were complaining about people buying a house on the back of other peoples rent and yet the government is suggesting those who pay rent can have there housing cheaper..hmm

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not at all, I'm going to suggest though that you do enjoy the "going rate" in terms of the rent you collect and maybe, as I'm certain you don't rent it via B&HCC's excellent rental system you perhaps look into it and even chuck a rent cap as well?

That's lots of conclusions you're jumping to my friend. You know nothing, yet you're so certain? It wouldn't be fair to plaster the details of the people who are looking after my home on this site for a variety of reasons. Consequently I'll leave it here.

 

[Machiavelli]

It is a sensible approach in theory, and it works in Germany, but our unique (or at least the scale of the problem is unique) problem is the basic shortage of housing. This means that we are discussing various ideas for intervening in a market that simply cannot deliver. The only way forward is to build more houses and fast. If government is going to intervene in the housing market then it should do so to 1. Massively accelerate the planning process and 2. Manage new housing costs (eg limits to land sale values, building subsidies etc for the smaller 'first house' houses).

This shouldn't be a political party issue. We have to build more houses so that both property values and rents become more manageable due to supply and demand.

In the meantime, I would agree that temporary controls on rents etc is worth exploring.

I agree with what you say, but it is a political issue. The Conservatives always, and even New Labour, were keen to take care of their core constituency, and these are property owners, predominantly in the south and midlands, and especially in the south-east. These have done very well out of rising property prices especially as the economy has become more focused around finance and, therefore, London and its surrounding areas. One factor in rising property prices has been restricting supply of new housing over several decades, at precisely the point where there's more demand due to shifting demographic trends.
The Conservatives will do all they can to keep this particular show on the road. The question is whether Labour want to focus on a massive increase in supply, even to make this central to their policy framework. I have real doubts over whether they will.

 

[janee]

In fact so I'll housing works so well financially there is a case for extending it to all not restricting it.

One subsidy at the beginning but can be used over and over and still makes a surplus. Better condition than private renting.

 

[Nibble]

I'm sure even the risk of persecution in his home country is more appealing than living below you so no wonder he ****ed off back to the Congo. My only surprise is it's just 3 times a year

Christ! Can you imagine living underneath that Fruitloop. Even when he doesn't know someone he makes threatening calls and doorsteps them, imagine what it'd be like when he's a stone throw away!

 

[Chicken Run]

That's lots of conclusions you're jumping to my friend. You know nothing, yet you're so certain? It wouldn't be fair to plaster the details of the people who are looking after my home on this site for a variety of reasons. Consequently I'll leave it here.

Good old 5th amendment, ok

 

[beorhthelm]

In fact so I'll housing works so well financially there is a case for extending it to all not restricting it.

One subsidy at the beginning but can be used over and over and still makes a surplus. Better condition than private renting.

that's quite true. doesn't need to be through council/state provision though, not-for-profit, charity etc is the best way to deliver this. housing associations seem to have done pretty well at filling a gap, so should be expanded.

 

[synavm]

In principal, it's a fair move. It doesn't begin to tackle the housing crisis, though. More social housing is still badly needed, just hoping people are going to move to private housing is not enough. I'd also say, surely it's fairer to look at household income? You could end up penalising a single parent earning 31k, but continue subsidising a couple earning over 50k between them. If 30k is the household threshold, then that is far too low.

 

[Dandyman]

that's quite true. doesn't need to be through council/state provision though, not-for-profit, charity etc is the best way to deliver this. housing associations seem to have done pretty well at filling a gap, so should be expanded.

The problem is that there are snags.. One is that Local Authorities unlike most HAs are democratically accountable to their tenants (I appreciate not everyone cares about that). The second is that while there are some very good Housing Associations there are also others that are essentially property developers exploiting a tax break.

 

[jamie the seagull]

Never understood why it is the council's job to build houses to house people.