Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
good work, team
I seriously doubt this will have any effect on the level of rents in inner London. they're at ridiculous levels these days because the system is out of control and it's just seen as a way to print money.
doesn't the housing benefit system act as a kind of control on it in some areas? if you know a sizeable chunk of your renting market is low income then you don't rent out at ridiculous prices surely?
"Conservative sources admitted the aim was to push poor, workless families out of inner London and force down rents in the private rented sector – the key driver of the ballooning housing benefit bill."
the relative lack of social housing means a lot of families are housed in private properties, which are rented out at market rates, with the local council picking up the tab.
i can understand the idea, and i'm really uncomfortable with local government money being used to prop up private landlords, but this really isn't the way to go about it, especially when (as that states), the Government is simultaneously removing required levels of affordable properties in new developments.
of this entire operation not looking sinister.
because, y'know, having the most landlord-friendly legislation in Europe is quite enough...
bloody fat fingers
Veiled I have friends IRL post.
...trying to get 'Workless' people who rely on Housing Benefit out of 'Inner London' because this will reduce the rents in the area for 'Working' people. Right?
Leaving aside the rather sticky 'ethical' issues around it - can anyone with a more sophisticated grasp of Economics than myself explain how this makes ANY economic sense? Because, in my head, it doesn't...
...what it is more likely to do than deflate the rental market is to create large swathes of empty properties which can then be bought out by 'developers' and flattened in order to make new, very expensive housing
I reckon that's the thinking behind it
yesterday's child benefit cut; the richest 15% will lose between £20 - £60 a week; NET saving £1bn
overall benefit cap; the poorest 5% will lose an average of £93 a week; NET saving £300m
and still no word on tax avoidance
where's the link that was posted in the run up to the election about the model conservative council of Hammersmith and Fulham?
...I mean... this isn't going to work, is it? Because surely economic sense dictates that these houses that the 'rent is being paid by Local Authorities' FOLLOW area rents rather than help influence them. They are ringfenced off from the supply and demand issue.
Thus - you get rid of the 'Workless' tenants and 'release' these properties back onto normal market THEN they start to influence supply and demand. And because they're in Central London - demand will be huge and there is PLENTY of people who can afford to rent them. So, surely doing this will only serve to increase Central London rents...
In my mind anyway.
It's a stupid idea.
and well appointed buildings
the barely-fit-to-live-in damp/mouldy/infested/rotten properties will all fall empty an be sold off to developers
also, there will be landlords in the middle band who, despite an increase in rental income will take a knock in profit anyway as private tenants demand a higher building/living standard
In other news, turkeys voted unanimously against christmas.
Can't help but wondering where are all these new tenants gonna come flooding from? If they existed, landlords wouldn't be trying to squeeze every last drop out of LHA.
Why should it be an automatic right to live where you want? I work full time on a decent wage and can't afford to live exactly wherever I want. The daft poor people that voted the Tories in will perhaps think twice next time about being so quick to assume that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. What did they think would happen? Although 30+ years of no-difference red-blue see-sawing doesn't seem to have been enough of a hint, so I'm not holding my breath on that one.
The fundamental problem at the bottom of this is the fucked up level of house prices (and therefore rent). What other possesion (apart from antiques roadshow fodder) is celebrated when it gets ever more expensive? People bitch about food and petrol prices etc on the one hand, but on the other hand they're praying that the (ahem) "value" of their house goes up at an exponential rate.
Proposal: income from rent to be taxed at 90%. Own as many houses as you like. But as soon as you want to start profiting from a landgrab, you're eating away at the coherence of our nation. So fuck you sideways. Do some proper work to earn your income.
it's not an automatic right, which is why some people live in shitty places with poor services. a lot of people struggle somewhere they can at least hope to get a decent living standard - these are places where there are job choices
"Proposal: income from rent to be taxed at 90%. Own as many houses as you like. But as soon as you want to start profiting from a landgrab, you're eating away at the coherence of our nation. So fuck you sideways. Do some proper work to earn your income."
If you ask me the answer to the house price problem is to make renting more attractive, more reliable, and more protected for tenants.
You're never going to get that if you do something like this... (I reckon anyway)
but it would also help to take the profit out of 'buy to let'
Everyone sells up
massive increase of property for sale
massive decrease in prices of property
return to sensible house prices
more money for most people
For people who can't afford to buy and need to live somewhere.
Renting is important to protect, but at the same time you need to have a culture which suits BOTH tenants AND landlords. Else it ain't gonna work.
i'm being deliberately over the top above
Rental prices are generally a little over the cost of the mortgage - it's how the landlord makes his money. The difference is having the liquid capital to contribute towards a deposit.
It was more the ability to live somewhere nicer than you could afford to buy.
there's a need for a rental market yes - but it's profitability needs to be capped somwhat i think
90% tax on rental income is more than can be expected to ever get legislative approval. but it helps to illustrate the direction to head for, and gets the debate out in the open.
I even used the example of Paris!
(but yeah, all this was touched on yesterday)
well, not really psychic, the housing benefit cuts have a disproportionate effect on london, think at least 182,000 people would have to move out of capital to maintain some kind of living standard, that's been talked about for a few months. i guess the conference is really bringing it to light.
425,000 in London!! sorry
Presumably (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the reduced max LHA payable will come to less than the rent being asked for by the private landlord.
But it remains to be seen whether landlords will steadfastly refuse to adjust rents accordingly, or whether they'll realise that they've been milking the LHA thing, that there aren't great swathes of private tenants queueing up to pay their prices, and that rents will proabbly need to come down.
area more desireable, to be honest.
That's assuming that these low income families actually do end up 'forced out'.
Although I'll admit that the Conservatives have form on this kinda front. I'm thinking of the 80s homes for votes gerrymandering scandal here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3867387.stm
you sure about that?
depends entirely on the property in question dunnit?
if it's a riverside penthouse suite then, yeah, private income will always beat any benefits payment.
if it's a 'lesser' property that can only command a rent that falls withing the range of possible LHA payments, then what's the difference?
and turned into luxury accomodation
in this age of auesterity, no? Surely this country should be making do with what we've already got and only investing where necessary and/or significant improvements are being made?
and at whose cost?
or are they all going to magically get jobs in their local suburbs?
but I am against legislating against the poor to profit the rich
if private developments that arise from this social mobilisation are forced to have an appropriate tax levy and include a fair amount of affordable + social housing AND are in compliance with high specification environmental and energy criteria then great, the short term blow will reap a long term gain
but that isn't going to happen is it?
aren't going to be too happy to see several hundred thousand low-(or no) income families 'flood' into their areas.
If not, they'll have to accept the LHA lower rents, no?
Not that any of this is sweetness and light, or any sensible way to control rents (as I said above).
(clarification: the 'is marckee psychic' thing is something someone brought up on here not so long ago)
Supply and demand. Except you can't just make London physically bigger. That would be silly.
People have always wanted to go to London because it was so rich to make their fortune and 'the streets are paved with gold'?
and even less projected in the near future I'd find it hard to get too upset at this - moving out into the 'burbs is something that is happening to nearly everyone, working or otherwise, if they want to avoid paying what are starting to be quite illogical inner city rents.
The fact that it seems like this is going to cause mass upheaval at pretty much the same time rather than being gradually phased in sounds like a recipe for disaster as well
This policy (as a standalone policy) isn't especially abhorent.
It's the usual story of a failure to look at the bigger picture that grates.
this is a change designed for property developers to capitalise on
but you forgot to add all the forthcoming public sector redundancies to your recipe - to give it that extra kick