Rent controls - good or bad?

[Slikkwiver]

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.

 

 

I said that you were self serving - I didn't give a particular reason why you are so but it is obvious that there are many reasons - pick one or two for yourself.

 

You are desperate to blame Labour for the disgraceful thieving acts of past Conservative governments. And you can quote as many names and dates as you like - dear - you impress no one.

 

The wealthy are the ones who have ultimately gained from Thatchers thievery - of course - many ordinary people believed they were onto a good thing being allowed to buy ancient housing stock that was well past its best and often ready for massive and major renovation.

 

But you stick desperately to your short term account of the housing situation because you daren't peep through your sweaty fingers at the truth.

 

The truth being that many hundreds of thousands of homes bought during and since the 80s and refurbed by ordinary people - then (most often) resold on the death of the occupier or repossessed when the tory sell off began to bite - are now in the hands of thieving estate agents - private landlords and highly respectable and upright citizens (like yourself?)

 

Don't give me the 'get a foot on the housing ladder' crap - people used to pay a fair rent to the council whilst they saved for their deposit - debt was anathema to the working classes until Maggie rammed it down their throats and convinced them that greed was good.

 

Now the better off are really beginning to benefit from the 'foundations' (unfortunate pun) of Maggies Britain - as greedy and/or desperate siblings rush to sell off deceased mums' house so that they can share out the spoils.

 

You think you're so secure -so certain of your rightness - you cling to your lies like a thief clings to his loot as he hurtles down the road - you might find yourself having to face the truth one day - when you find that depending on the 'short memory of the people' no longer works the way you tories always said it would.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Slikkwiver

[BoroB]

I said that you were self serving - I didn't give a particular reason why you are so but it is obvious that there are many reasons - pick one or two for yourself.

 

You are desperate to blame Labour for the disgraceful thieving acts of past Conservative governments. And you can quote as many names and dates as you like - dear - you impress no one.

 

The wealthy are the ones who have ultimately gained from Thatchers thievery - of course - many ordinary people believed they were onto a good thing being allowed to buy ancient housing stock that was well past its best and often ready for massive and major renovation.

 

But you stick desperately to your short term account of the housing situation because you daren't peep through your sweaty fingers at the truth.

 

The truth being that many hundreds of thousands of homes bought during and since the 80s and refurbed by ordinary people - then (most often) resold on the death of the occupier or repossessed when the tory sell off began to bite - are now in the hands of thieving estate agents - private landlords and highly respectable and upright citizens (like yourself?)

 

Don't give me the 'get a foot on the housing ladder' crap - people used to pay a fair rent to the council whilst they saved for their deposit - debt was anathema to the working classes until Maggie rammed it down their throats and convinced them that greed was good.

 

Now the better off are really beginning to benefit from the 'foundations' (unfortunate pun) of Maggies Britain - as greedy and/or desperate siblings rush to sell off deceased mums' house so that they can share out the spoils.

 

You think you're so secure -so certain of your rightness - you cling to your lies like a thief clings to his loot as he hurtles down the road - you might find yourself having to face the truth one day - when you find that depending on the 'short memory of the people' no longer works the way you tories always said it would.

 

And it took you all day to come up with that rant?

 

You're time would have been spent off at the top of Fargate selling Socialist Worker.

 

But then again, thirteen years of the so called socialist party being in power led to house prices tripling, forcing many hard working aspirational working class people to a generation of renting.

 

Still, comrades Blair and Ed 'two kitchens' Miliband don't appear to have done too bad out of things. Now that's self serving.

[Cyclone]

Very true but people are also looking for short-term and/or long-term capital gains too. Losing a couple of grand a year on a £100,000 houses isn't a bad deal if you could exit 3, 5 or 10 years later with a net capital gain of £100,000. Many people who bought 1998-2002 and exited at the right time will have achieved spectacular capital gains.

 

Can that be repeated again? I totally share your pessimism about the viability of entering that sector now.

 

Speculation on capital gains sounds like a very risky business to me.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 09:08 ----------

 

Yes.

 

A fifth of all households claim HB.

 

Is that, Yes, you know such a landlord? And you wouldn't fib would you.

 

And having just had a look, it appears that approx 1/10th of the population (5 million people) are in receipt of HB.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 09:09 ----------

 

Thats why all this supply and demand tosh is just an excuse for landlords to increase rents above and beyond what they should be.

 

As if there is a "should be" price determined by something other than supply and demand.

[Slikkwiver]

And it took you all day to come up with that rant?

 

You're time would have been spent off at the top of Fargate selling Socialist Worker.

 

But then again, thirteen years of the so called socialist party being in power led to house prices tripling, forcing many hard working aspirational working class people to a generation of renting.

 

Still, comrades Blair and Ed 'two kitchens' Miliband don't appear to have done too bad out of things. Now that's self serving.

 

It never fails to amuse - how bigots and blockheads respond by calling a post a 'rant' when they're confronted by irrefutable truth. Ho! Ho! Ho!

 

Then, just to add some real malice you accuse me of being an extreme socialist!!

 

Do you really think you're strengthening your case? You are only showing your true credentials as a malevolent Tory elitist - it's very clear that you can't bear to have your party line fabrications shattered and exposed.

 

Try to think in terms of the past 30 or so years - rather than your short term nit picking of individuals some of whom were certainly dicks - albeit incompetent dicks - rather than your own greedy duplicitous Tory dicks.

 

Furthermore - my posts rarely take long to compose - and I really do have more pleasant things to do than to sit here 'all day' trouncing mediocre egotists such as yourself (as I type here from my cabin cruiser on the River Aire).

 

Unlike you I don't have to scour innumerable web pages for information - I merely resort to the truth that I've lived through and seen.

 

You really should refrain from the old devise of making dubious statements appear as universally accepted facts? For example, when you say, 'forcing many hard working aspirational working class people to a generation of renting' - you're implying that renting is a filthy thing to be avoided at all costs when in fact renting - from a council that is - is a very sensible thing to do - particularly in these days of financial uncertainty.

 

You really must control your nasty temper - though I wager you are less insulting when face to face.

[ubermaus]

As a business man yourself, how can you not see the relevance of supply and demand here?

 

If you own a one bed flat in London opposite Hyde Park, the demand for rental would be huge. But the supply is low, there are not that many flats up for rent. So you basically can set your rent. Why rent out at £1000 per month when 50 people are willing to pay £5000 per month?

 

Then because people see that someone is getting good money for their flat, they decide to rent theirs out as well. More will be supplied at the higher price.

 

A property is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 12:48 ----------

 

 

As a businessman I am guessing here that you make your money as a consultant, telling people what to do and then charge them for it. You seem very very adverse to actually making money yourself, or letting anyone else dare make a profit.

 

No mate, we are fundementally the same.

Our difference is you see yourself as an individual whereas i see myself as part of a wider eco sysyem.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 16:05 ----------

 

Speculation on capital gains sounds like a very risky business to me.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 09:08 ----------

 

 

Is that, Yes, you know such a landlord? And you wouldn't fib would you.

 

And having just had a look, it appears that approx 1/10th of the population (5 million people) are in receipt of HB.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 09:09 ----------

 

 

As if there is a "should be" price determined by something other than supply and demand.

 

To clarify i understand supply and demand and the need for profit. I believe you are failing to see the bigger picture.

[loraward]

Speculation on capital gains sounds like a very risky business to me.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 09:08 ----------

 

 

Is that, Yes, you know such a landlord? And you wouldn't fib would you.

 

And having just had a look, it appears that approx 1/10th of the population (5 million people) are in receipt of HB.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 09:09 ----------

 

 

As if there is a "should be" price determined by something other than supply and demand.

 

The 10% are very likley to live in 20% of households, 65,000,000 people live in 26,473,000 households.

[sgtkate]

HB props up the very bottom of the market.

 

And the rate of birth in the UK is <2 per couple, so if it wasn't for immigration our population would actually be falling.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 09:28 ----------

 

 

They don't. That's just something you made up.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 09:30 ----------

 

 

SHOULD?

 

As if there is some charge for rent that is 'correct'.

 

£2 on amazon and you can rejoin the discussion;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Minutes-Understanding-Everything-Explained-ebook/dp/B00T1ZH904/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1430555389&sr=8-2&keywords=economics+101

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 09:31 ----------

 

 

The reason there is no undercutting is because supply is constrained and demand is high. Thus prices rise. Market economics.

If houses were standing empty due to over supply and under demand then prices would fall.

 

That was what I was saying originally is that there isn't enough houses, but these will take years to be built and have an effect so in the meantime we need rent controls.

[Hippogriff]

Go find who 'Rackman' was - educate yourself.

 

That's "Rachman", you did spell it wrong. I think times may have moved-on a bit since then, old timer. Anyway, he seemed like an interesting character, but not someone, I think, most Landlords would strive to emulate.

 

I laughed out loud at this - "you cling to your lies like a thief clings to his loot as he hurtles down the road" - I really appreciate the way you write, it seethes.

[ubermaus]

That was what I was saying originally is that there isn't enough houses, but these will take years to be built and have an effect so in the meantime we need rent controls.

 

I AGREE. Nobody is saying rents can't go up, but having a mechanism to put rents sky-high when they are already at the top end only benefits a select few people.

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2015 at 10:58 ----------

 

build a few more houses first, stimulate the market...

[Hippogriff]

So, genuine question...

 

If rent controls were to come in at a specific point in time... say, August 2015, and people knew about these coming up-front, whereby the rent could not be raised for a property any more than inflation (which is 0% today) per year.

 

Would there not be a flood of opportunistic Landlords who would go about raising the rent aggressively before it became law... to 'protect' themselves? I'm not saying it's right, but I'm thinking it would happen.

 

The Tenants are unlikely to up-and-leave because of the aggravation and the chances of it happening everywhere else (with properties empty and on the market for let) anyway.

 

I start to consider who wins in the end... who loses, surely it's the same folk?