chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Which will just get added onto the rent of the tennants. You say that, but only if the state guarantees the rent. In a free market, renters would tell the guy to FO, and he would be without income and liable to the tax, hew would sell his home at a loss to somebody more deserving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 In a free market, renters would tell the guy to FO No they wouldn't, they would just have to find more rent money, or get booted out and replaced with someone who would pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletin/planningdaily/article/1108041/homes-opposition-revealed-despite-housing-need-recognition/ New decent homes are desperately needed, yet only 11% of the UK is urbanised. We are such a selfish bunch of people and forget that many of the flats and houses we live in now will have been designated green belt at one time. Its not just MP's and bankers contributing to the demise of this country, its all these nimbys and fashionable eco freaks. I am not selfish. I think wildlife has just as much right to a home as we have. We should prevent population growth on our island! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I will watch the programme, but building on more would still be needed. Its more to do with the selfish attributes eco types and wealthy middle aged older people have towards others which will stop progress. Ignoring ecological issues isn't progress. Green belt is important, as important as cheap homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 No they wouldn't, they would just have to find more rent money, or get booted out and replaced with someone who would pay it. In a freemarket you wouldn't have an everlasting supply of tenants prepared to pay higher and higher rents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 In a freemarket you wouldn't have an everlasting supply of tenants prepared to pay higher and higher rents. but there is, especially in places like London. Rents now are the maximum the landlord can get someone to pay, that keeps rents at a level value across all properties, nobody will charge above that level, but if everyone puts their rents up together what choice do tenants have but to pay ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I'd say its more of a road infrastructure problem. I've nothing against new houses, when I lived in Warrington a new mini estate looked far nicer than an old wood factory which stood there, but it added at least one car from each new house and apartment (about 200 in all) all trying to get in and out of an already busy road. So the powers that be put up a roundabout, so all the people can get on and off their little estate. But that now means queueing slow traffic for half a mile back into Warrington, causing congestion and junction blocking in the town centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 So this guy who bought a home he could not afford He clearly could afford it, he was continuing to pay the mortgage. and has now moved into ANOTHER home Yes, with a new partner. , and could not sell it because he paid to much for it in the first place No, couldn't sell it because the housing market crashed. , gets bailed out by the taxpayer, get's tenants provided by the taxpayer, keeps his 2nd home and is guaranteed a return (along with his bank who should not have lent him the money in the first place). I don't think this scheme makes sense. What do you think makes sense, steal his home and give it to you? Mortgage me up scotty! I'll have myself a buy to let and condemn a households to rentier slavery, courtesy of the taxpayer! That guy should have been taxed more heavily, he could sell his home at a loss, it was his own fault for getting into more debt than he could afford. He could afford it, he wasn't prepared to sell at a loss, how would increase taxation help? He could go bankrupt, and be in the position of his tenants. He could, but why would he, he owns the house, he isn't obliged to sell it or do anything with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 You say that, but only if the state guarantees the rent. In a free market, renters would tell the guy to FO, and he would be without income and liable to the tax, hew would sell his home at a loss to somebody more deserving. And they'd live where after refusing to pay the market rate, under a bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 but there is, especially in places like London. If everyone puts their rents up what choice do tenants have but to pay ? Unionise, organise a rent strike. Launch a campaign of physical terror upon their landlords. Seize by force, campaign in elections. Refuse to pay the rent. There is a limit to how high the rent can rise, essentially the rent is a form of slavery anyhow. Hopefully in my lifetime this form of slavery can be abolished. If not you might aswell allow for people to be kept as private property again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.