Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
well, something needs to be done. On average rent prices in the south are ridiculous.
Ed's rent controls idea
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
This. More tax on BTL properties.
The link you provided also suggests that the German system works. Of course you have to be careful when looking at other systems and applying them to your own. However what Ed is proposing isn't the German system, it's a change to our system that moves us a little bit closer to the German one.
Move north then?
I'm not saying you can, I've the same argument myself when Gove used the example of Sweden to introduce the disastrous Free Schools policy. However that's not to say that you can't successfully improve British systems by looking at what works abroad and adapting it to our situation. Perhaps if you explained why you think the lower pressure on housing stock in Germany means that rent controls are a bad idea over here?
Thought it was obvious tbf:
It will help to reduce the rate of rent increases.
It may help to increase the stock of properties for sale, reducing prices.
Yes because the point of a rent raise cap is that you can't put up rent by as much as you'd like.
They will not be able to make as much money as they would be able to without rent caps. More regulation = less attractive investment to put it simply.
It wont work and its a stupid idea.
The only way to drive down rent costs is to out strip demand with surplus supply, this hasn't happened for a number of years now and the help to buy scheme only serves to push prices further up both in the purchase and let sectors.
As house values increase, so do the rents on those houses making them even more unaffordable. Which results in more legislative solutions to prop up the market leading to more bubble increases.
Rinse, repeat.
The only way to drive down rent costs is to out strip demand with surplus supply, this hasn't happened for a number of years now and the help to buy scheme only serves to push prices further up both in the purchase and let sectors.
As house values increase, so do the rents on those houses making them even more unaffordable. Which results in more legislative solutions to prop up the market leading to more bubble increases.
Rinse, repeat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
It's a bad idea. High rents are just a manifestation of deeper problem. Also, rents aren't actually that unaffordable when compared with buying. House prices, rent/buy are both too high.
The biggest issue for buyers is the deposits, not the mortgage payments. No amount of rent control is going to fix that problem.
The only solutions to the housing problem is build more houses or encourage people to live somewhere else.
The biggest issue for buyers is the deposits, not the mortgage payments. No amount of rent control is going to fix that problem.
The only solutions to the housing problem is build more houses or encourage people to live somewhere else.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, high rent and high house prices are an inevitable consequence of living on a small hopelessly overcrowded island where everybody needs a place to live. You can't just build more houses because there's not enough land. Maybe building a bunch of high rise residential buildings would ease the situation a bit, but it's just delaying the inevitable.
I don't buy the argument that capping rent increases would reduce the supply of rentable places. Why would it? It's not like landlords are going to go "well, I can't charge quite as much as I'd like, so I'm just going to throw my toys out of the pram, not rent it out any more, and get zero income instead of some income."
I don't buy the argument that capping rent increases would reduce the supply of rentable places. Why would it? It's not like landlords are going to go "well, I can't charge quite as much as I'd like, so I'm just going to throw my toys out of the pram, not rent it out any more, and get zero income instead of some income."
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
There's $*?% loads of undeveloped land. The biggest problem we have is too many people want to live in the same place.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
One day Ed might open his mouth and say something that's not stupid. Unfortunately that day still hasn't arrived.
Also with an action group setup everytime someone wants paint their front door, 13 different appeal routes for every decision, a fee driven legal hell to negotiate and a planning system thats slower than erosion building on that land is pretty challenging.
Stupid idea, it's just supply and demand.
We have a massive problem is this country.
No elected party wants to open up planning laws as 90% of the house owning population wants to protect their asset and turn into rabid Nimby's at the mention of development near themselves.
Planning committee's, regardless of any government directive's on planning, ignore it as best they can as THEY want to get re-elected and development is not a vote winner locally.
Throw in our stupid red tape culture (highways wanting a perfect world,etc) and you get the ongoing reason of no development.
We have a massive problem is this country.
No elected party wants to open up planning laws as 90% of the house owning population wants to protect their asset and turn into rabid Nimby's at the mention of development near themselves.
Planning committee's, regardless of any government directive's on planning, ignore it as best they can as THEY want to get re-elected and development is not a vote winner locally.
Throw in our stupid red tape culture (highways wanting a perfect world,etc) and you get the ongoing reason of no development.
This and this.
Wonder how many times he will mention the term "cost-of-living crisis" on the run up to the elections. It is just embarrassing that they give out the same line with anything related to the economy.
I'm against this in principle - I feel artificially controlling prices is more like sweeping the problem under the carpet. Yes you deal with the symptoms - prices becoming unaffordable - but the underlying problem of housing supply still exists. A select few still get to live in desirable areas but now as a result of luck, getting there first rather than there being an open market and competition.
As far as London is concerned I'd like to see council owned accommodation in prime locations sold off and significantly more built in cheaper locations further outside the capital. We have council flats in Westminster FFS... these are extremely valuable assets - for each of these flats several more could be built elsewhere. There is no specific need for an unemployed or low income person to have to live in a prime location in central London where the vast majority of ordinary working professionals couldn't even afford to live. Social housing should be organised on a London wide basis rather than being down to individual boroughs. It should also be viewed as a privilege, be means tested and not come with rights to pass on a tenancy to a relative or buy the property at a discount.
Example a colleague lives in a 2 bedroom ex-council flat in Islington - its worth about 500k, there is a council tenant in a similar flat in the same block as her who doesn't work and regularly stays up till 3am playing loud music, smell of weed round his door etc... I'm sure he could do similar in a cheaper location, and an asset worth more than twice the average UK house could be disposed of and the money used to build more accommodation elsewhere.
I don't think the issue is controlling price - price is a reflection of demand, the issue is satisfying that demand where needed by both being more liberal with planning regulations and better managing/restructuring local authority owned accommodation.
As far as London is concerned I'd like to see council owned accommodation in prime locations sold off and significantly more built in cheaper locations further outside the capital. We have council flats in Westminster FFS... these are extremely valuable assets - for each of these flats several more could be built elsewhere. There is no specific need for an unemployed or low income person to have to live in a prime location in central London where the vast majority of ordinary working professionals couldn't even afford to live. Social housing should be organised on a London wide basis rather than being down to individual boroughs. It should also be viewed as a privilege, be means tested and not come with rights to pass on a tenancy to a relative or buy the property at a discount.
Example a colleague lives in a 2 bedroom ex-council flat in Islington - its worth about 500k, there is a council tenant in a similar flat in the same block as her who doesn't work and regularly stays up till 3am playing loud music, smell of weed round his door etc... I'm sure he could do similar in a cheaper location, and an asset worth more than twice the average UK house could be disposed of and the money used to build more accommodation elsewhere.
I don't think the issue is controlling price - price is a reflection of demand, the issue is satisfying that demand where needed by both being more liberal with planning regulations and better managing/restructuring local authority owned accommodation.
Not his fault that it continues to be relevant.