Rent controls - good or bad?

[Slikkwiver]

No, that isn't what they are proposing, they are proposing: (Guardian)

 

 

 

There is a significant difference. In a country where most rental stock is in private ownership, these proposals mean that investing in rental properties is going to be far less interesting, not just acquiring new property, but more importantly also bringing existing stock up to market conditions.

 

Also, what does the three year contract mean realistically? It can well be interpreted as a construction that binds tenants as much as it binds landlords. Not healthy at all. Finally, who says the landlords won't bring in extra charges before the contract is signed, the silly fees charged by estate agents are only going to get worse.

 

If this proposal gets through, nobody will win.

 

Bet you haven't got a vested interest in keeping the thieving parasite landlords in the luxury to which they've become accustomed since Thatcher perpetrated her Crime of the Century?

 

Most tenants would happily be bound by a contract - given that it provided them with a degree of security of tenure and protection against the Thatcher-like avarice which landlords are well known for.

 

Landlords can do what the hell they like before the contract is signed. It is then up to the potential tenants whether to accept or not.

 

And you're wrong - I have no vested interest either way - we payed off our mortgage a good while ago.

 

It's just that I remember how the 'Fair Rents Tribunal' helped - before Thatcher got rid of it - it was fantasic how they looked after we struggling students and those in rented accomodation. Well done Maggie. (Oh - sorry - you're dead and can't hear me can you)?

[loraward]

Bet you haven't got a vested interest in keeping the thieving parasite landlords in the luxury to which they've become accustomed since Thatcher perpetrated her Crime of the Century?

 

Most tenants would happily be bound by a contract - given that it provided them with a degree of security of tenure and protection against the Thatcher-like avarice which landlords are well known for.

 

Landlords can do what the hell they like before the contract is signed. It is then up to the potential tenants whether to accept or not.

 

And you're wrong - I have no vested interest either way - we payed off our mortgage a good while ago.

 

It's just that I remember how the 'Fair Rents Tribunal' helped - before Thatcher got rid of it - it was fantasic how they looked after we struggling students and those in rented accomodation. Well done Maggie. (Oh - sorry - you're dead and can't hear me can you)?

 

Why blame Thatcher, she gave tenants the right to buy their house at an affordable price which took them out of the rent trap, since she left office the population as expanded rapidly and government as failed to provide enough houses resulting in increased housing costs.

[BoroB]

Looking back to when we bought our first house in 1997, we were able to take advantage of MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief At Source), a scheme that subsidised the interest on the first £30,000 of a mortgage used to buy main residence.

 

In my eyes, the decision by Labour to abolish MIRAS and the subsequent drastic increase in Buy To Let are closely connected.

 

A scheme that assisted first time buyers to get a foot on the housing ladder disappeared, reducing peoples ability to obtain/afford mortgages, especially at a time when interest rates were a lot higher than what they are now.

 

Within a few years of MIRAS disappearing a whole new business called Buy To Let had been created.

[loraward]

Looking back to when we bought our first house in 1997, we were able to take advantage of MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief At Source), a scheme that subsidised the interest on the first £30,000 of a mortgage used to buy main residence.

 

In my eyes, the decision by Labour to abolish MIRAS and the subsequent drastic increase in Buy To Let are closely connected.

 

A scheme that assisted first time buyers to get a foot on the housing ladder disappeared, reducing peoples ability to obtain/afford mortgages, especially at a time when interest rates were a lot higher than what they are now.

 

Within a few years of MIRAS disappearing a whole new business called Buy To Let had been created.

 

Add to that Gordon Browns £118BILLION pension raid and people stopped thinking of pensions for their retirement and started investing in property for their retirement.

 

Then remove housing costs from the inflation figures so that they can inflate without the Bank of England having to intervene.

 

Increase the population dramatically to drive demand for housing and you have a frenzied speculative bubble that increases the wealth of millions of people that they can borrow against to drive the economy full steam ahead.

 

Sadly whilst this can work short term, the long term effects are the cuts we have to make now.

[Slikkwiver]

Looking back to when we bought our first house in 1997, we were able to take advantage of MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief At Source), a scheme that subsidised the interest on the first £30,000 of a mortgage used to buy main residence.

 

In my eyes, the decision by Labour to abolish MIRAS and the subsequent drastic increase in Buy To Let are closely connected.

 

A scheme that assisted first time buyers to get a foot on the housing ladder disappeared, reducing peoples ability to obtain/afford mortgages, especially at a time when interest rates were a lot higher than what they are now.

 

Within a few years of MIRAS disappearing a whole new business called Buy To Let had been created.

 

You really are a self serving little thing aren't you? Unlike your friend who is just a poorly informed bigot and therefore not worthy of reply.

 

The reason for ridding the taxpayer of the burden of MIRAS (which would ultimately benefit only the better off anyway) was mainly to reduce the incentive to buy.

 

Thatcher was cunning enough to know that the Labour Party wouldn't dare take away Right to Buy - removing MIRAS was an attempt by the Labour Party of damage limitation.

 

The greedy idiots who bought their council houses were not to know that they were inflicting a living hell on their descendants who would see Grans house go to pay for her care home - or become so remortgaged due to its need for repair and renovation over dear Grans lifetime that there was nothing left for them after she'd gone.

 

That's if it wasn't repossessed years earlier when Grandad became redundant due to incompetant conservative governments.

 

Meanwhile the hundreds of thousands of poor saps who lost their Right to Buy homes for whatever reason are now in the clutches of the Rackmanian Buy to Let thieves.

 

So if any government is guilty of encouraging Buy to Let it's the tories.

 

Their continuing quest to rip off the poorest gains strength daily - whilst the low-earners and the no-earners amongst us are priced out of the places we used to call 'home' and are left to the unscrupulous thieves who buy up the repossed homes of the fools who spent lifetimes trying to buy them.

 

You know well that the employment situation is far too unpredictable for most people to attempt to buy a home - no job is safe - yet try they do.

 

Only to realise as they sink irrecoverably into marraige/life breaking debt - that there are more sound reasons for most people to rent from a council than there are good reasons to buy.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Slikkwiver

[loraward]

 

The greedy idiots who bought their council houses were not to know that they were inflicting a living hell on their descendants

 

How does owning an house inflict a living hell on your descendants?

[Hippogriff]

You really are a self serving little thing aren't you? Unlike your friend who is just a poorly informed bigot and therefore not worthy of reply.

 

The reason for ridding the taxpayer of the burden of MIRAS (which would ultimately benefit only the better off anyway) was mainly to reduce the incentive to buy.

 

Thatcher was cunning enough to know that the Labour Party wouldn't dare take away Right to Buy - removing MIRAS was an attempt by the Labour Party of damage limitation.

 

The greedy idiots who bought their council houses were not to know that they were inflicting a living hell on their descendants who would see Grans house go to pay for her care home - or become so remortgaged due to its need for repair and renovation over dear Grans lifetime that there was nothing left for them after she'd gone.

 

That's if it wasn't repossessed years earlier when Grandad became redundant due to incompetant conservative governments.

 

Meanwhile the hundreds of thousands of poor saps who lost their Right to Buy homes for whatever reason are now in the clutches of the Rackmanian Buy to Let thieves.

 

So if any government is guilty of encouraging Buy to Let it's the tories.

 

Their continuing quest to rip off the poorest gains strength daily - whilst the low-earners and the no-earners amongst us are priced out of the places we used to call 'home' and are left to the unscrupulous thieves who buy up the repossed homes of the fools who spent lifetimes trying to buy them.

 

You know well that the employment situation is far too unpredictable for most people to attempt to buy a home - no job is safe - yet try they do.

 

Only to realise as they sink irrecoverably into marraige/life breaking debt - that there are more sound reasons for most people to rent from a council than there are good reasons to buy.

 

I love reading this, it's a guilty pleasure to absorb such vitriolic bitterness. Although I don't know what Rackmanian means so I don't know if I am that, but I don't consider myself a thief.

[Slikkwiver]

I love reading this, it's a guilty pleasure to absorb such vitriolic bitterness. Although I don't know what Rackmanian means so I don't know if I am that, but I don't consider myself a thief.

 

You might call it 'Vitriolic Bitterness' - I call it 'Undeniable Truth'.

 

Go find who 'Rackman' was - educate yourself.

[Hippogriff]

Can't you just tell me? I did Google "rackmanian" but nothing useful came back.

 

Maybe you made it up, or you didn't spell it correctly?

[BoroB]

You really are a self serving little thing aren't you? Unlike your friend who is just a poorly informed bigot and therefore not worthy of reply.

 

The reason for ridding the taxpayer of the burden of MIRAS (which would ultimately benefit only the better off anyway) was mainly to reduce the incentive to buy.

 

Thatcher was cunning enough to know that the Labour Party wouldn't dare take away Right to Buy - removing MIRAS was an attempt by the Labour Party of damage limitation.

 

The greedy idiots who bought their council houses were not to know that they were inflicting a living hell on their descendants who would see Grans house go to pay for her care home - or become so remortgaged due to its need for repair and renovation over dear Grans lifetime that there was nothing left for them after she'd gone.

 

That's if it wasn't repossessed years earlier when Grandad became redundant due to incompetant conservative governments.

 

Meanwhile the hundreds of thousands of poor saps who lost their Right to Buy homes for whatever reason are now in the clutches of the Rackmanian Buy to Let thieves.

 

So if any government is guilty of encouraging Buy to Let it's the tories.

 

Their continuing quest to rip off the poorest gains strength daily - whilst the low-earners and the no-earners amongst us are priced out of the places we used to call 'home' and are left to the unscrupulous thieves who buy up the repossed homes of the fools who spent lifetimes trying to buy them.

 

You know well that the employment situation is far too unpredictable for most people to attempt to buy a home - no job is safe - yet try they do.

 

Only to realise as they sink irrecoverably into marraige/life breaking debt - that there are more sound reasons for most people to rent from a council than there are good reasons to buy.

 

Please explain why it is 'self serving' to point out that a lot the problems with the rental/buy to let issues facing the country today stem from the past actions of the Labour administration?

 

MIRAS did not benefit the better off - it helped thousands of first time buyers get a foot on the housing ladder (and thus stopping them being dependent on the state proving housing for them)- that's why the threshold for it was set at £30,000.

 

At the time that MIRAS was announced Michael Coogan, director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, said the decision was 'unfortunate'. He added: 'Although the impact may be modest in London and the South-east, the cut will be felt disproportionately in the Labour heartlands of Scotland, Wales and the North of England.'

 

Just look at the facts since then dear.

 

Labour elected in 1997, the phrase/industry known as Buy to Let is virtually unheard of. Property developing as a career was unknown.

 

Labour abolish MIRAS making houses more expensive for first time buyers of houses that they intended to use as their main home.

 

Fast forward 13 years to 2010 when Labour left office. Buy To Let had become a major product on the financial scene and house prices had trebled.

 

And the name of the person who abolished MIRAS, making housing more expensive for working class families at the bottom end of the housing ladder?

 

Gordon Brown.