chem1st Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 If somebody bought food with debt, food that could be consumed again and again and again and still remain, and that person could rent that food to another, with the consumption being paid for by the state via 'food benefit', food benefit that could only be spent on said food, a food benefit which set a minimum price for said food, and that person didn't have to grow the food in the first place, and could just milk the taxpayer, via food benefit, by renting the food to another without food. Another who is restricted from growing food in the first place. Then food would be the same as housing. As it stands. People are restricted from building housing. And forced to rent. Rent is kept high, and landlords are subsidised. It's blatant exploitation. But people can grow their own food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 food that could be consumed again and again and again and still remain What food would that be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 What food would that be ? There isn't any. But a house yields rent again and again and again. Hence it is different to food. Hence housing benefit being a subsidy for landlords and not tenants. Council housing on the other hand, is a subsidy for tenants (even though it makes profit for the council over the long term). Buy to let exploits the subsidy for landlords that is housing benefit. Housing benefit sets a minimum price for housing. Somebody using debt to buy a house, and rent it out to make a profit, can do so, because of housing benefit. They don't produce anything, the house was already built. They just exploit the system and extract wealth from it. They are parasites. If somebody built to let it'd be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Buy to let exploits the subsidy for landlords that is housing benefit. Only if they rent to people on benefits, which the vast majority of landlords (I guess) dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbirdone Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 So its ok for the council to make a profit over the long term but not a private individual. I dabble in the world of Photography and i get paid for it. Its a bit of extra income on top of my main job. Now the service i provide creates zero wealth as far as i can see. I provide a service and people pay me there hard earned cash for it, a bit like a B2L landlord. I guess i must be scum as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 Only if they rent to people on benefits, which the vast majority of landlords (I guess) dont. A person working must pay more for their housing than the level housing benefit is. Housing benefit sets a minimum price. A person with a buy to let mortgage gets tax relief. He has an advantage over a person wishing to buy their first home. A person renting, is effectively trapped in the rental market, the private rental market, due to the lack of council housing (after it was sold off, transferred to HA's which charge higher rent, and demolished via pathfinder). The generation before this one had access to council housing, it was cheaper to rent in real terms than it is today too (rent has been rising above RPI, which is much more than wage shave increased), so even if a person is lucky enough to access council housing, they are still getting a raw deal. But most can't access council housing. The generation before were allowed to buy their council houses got a discount, and on top of that, they got tax relief - MIRAS. Today there is no such subsidy for people to own their own home. They are forced to rent, and they are forced to pay inflated rents. People investing in B2L exploit this situation. Some have become very rich, without producing anything, just by extracting rent and taking advantage of the tax relief given to landlords.. There used to be a subsided house for tenants, and for people purchasing their first homes. Today there is no such subsidy. The subsidy in the housing market is to prop up prices (keep it unaffordable), and to keep rents high. It benefits only homeowners and landlord. People are been priced out of work. Workers housed in the private rental market are having the fruits of their labour unfairly taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 So its ok for the council to make a profit over the long term but not a private individual. I dabble in the world of Photography and i get paid for it. Its a bit of extra income on top of my main job. Now the service i provide creates zero wealth as far as i can see. I provide a service and people pay me there hard earned cash for it, a bit like a B2L landlord. I guess i must be scum as well. Somebody presumably chooses to pay you to take photos? You actually produce photos. People aren't forced to purchase your photos. Everybody needs housing thogh, you don't choose to need a roof over your head. Somebody buying a house (with debt), a house that already exists, and then rents it out. They produce nothing. If somebody builds a house, and sells it. That's very different to buying one which already exists, to rent out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 A person renting, is effectively trapped in the rental market, the private rental market Perhaps I shouldn't be enjoying myself so much as I am then, being as I'm trapped in a hopeless position with no chance of achieving the Nirvana of home ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbirdone Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Somebody presumably chooses to pay you to take photos? You actually produce photos. People aren't forced to purchase your photos. Everybody needs housing thogh, you don't choose to need a roof over your head. Somebody buying a house (with debt), a house that already exists, and then rents it out. They produce nothing. If somebody builds a house, and sells it. That's very different to buying one which already exists, to rent out. Yes but im still creating zero wealth it's all take take take on my part for the service i provide. Nobody is forced to pay the price some B2L landlords charge. I would guess people would think Mmmm i can't afford that i'll look for somewhere a little cheaper. If someone decides to pay 50% of there income in private rent thats there choice, nobody is forceing them to hand over that amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 Perhaps I shouldn't be enjoying myself so much as I am then, being as I'm trapped in a hopeless position with no chance of achieving the Nirvana of home ownership. There is nothing wrong with renting, but if your forced to rent in a private housing market, with rents inflated by housing benefit. Something is wrong. Housing benefit is a subsidy for landlords. They should get rid of it, and provide council housing instead. A subisdy for tenants, on the basis that everybody needs a roof over their head. And if everyone has access to affordable housing, then they have more money to spend in the productive economy, on leisure, on consumer goods. Housing benefit is paid for by the taxpayer. And it forces up the price people have to pay for housing. In an economic downturn, rents and houseprices should fall quickly, and only rise when the workers become employed again and are being paid higher wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.