Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

[chrcoluk]

The problem with these though is once they're in that structure that's it, there aren't any future transactions as far as the UK is concerned. It would stop future properties from being put in such a wrapper but the existing ones can be bought and sold by buying and selling the respective offshore entities... which has nothing to do with the UK.

It's basically a sneaky stamp duty dodge that we've tried to crack down on by charging more stamp duty for companies than for individuals. It's charged at 15% these days for companies buying residential property worth more than 500k so an incentive against doing this in future is already there.

Would a annual 10% of value of property tax on empty properties owned by a company force the company to sell up? That would make 15% stamp duty the lesser evil.

Perhaps too draconian? Maybe we start seeing "ghost" tenants to evade the tax.

No idea is perfect, but something is better than ignoring it and doing nothing.

 

[Tefal]

Landlording is entirely immoral and should be banned. There's no societal good from allowing it.

So uni students ned to buy houses and sell them a couple of times a year?

 

[Tefal]

How else do you propose the state gaining the required accomodation volume to nearly totally replace the private rental market?

Or is the state going to start redistributing population to meet the housing right?

This is the problem with positions driven by irrational hatreds.

Dig up thatcher and put her back in charge?

She built more council houses than every successive labour government combined!

 

[dowie]

Would a annual 10% of value of property tax on empty properties owned by a company force the company to sell up? That would make 15% stamp duty the lesser evil.

Perhaps too draconian? Maybe we start seeing "ghost" tenants to evade the tax.

No idea is perfect, but something is better than ignoring it and doing nothing.

Then you've got to define empty... it would presumably force the company to get someone to be present in the property for the min time necessary?

 

[FoxEye]

Special facilities for the rich and powerful, while everyone else is only allowed what the state agrees to.

Good afternoon komrade.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The idea is that the state provides rentals that are affordable, for those who need them.

Those who don't can get a mortgage on a property.

Perhaps you've forgotten in your haste to be make a cheap quip, that the current system demands people pay rents that are much higher than a mortgage would be.

And that the state has to pay this rent directly to the private landlords on behalf of those who can't afford the (extortionate) rent themselves.

Perhaps I should return your mockery, and say that you clearly favour a system where private landlords get rich from state hand-outs?

I'm not sure what that makes you... a fan of corrupt capitalism? Or the government being bent over by the private sector?

 

[Hades]

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The idea is that the state provides rentals that are affordable, for those who need them.

Those who don't can get a mortgage on a property.

No, that's not what you said. You said only the top, luxury, end of the rental market such as mansions should exist.

To be honest if my UK there would be no private rentals except for the top end of the market (renting luxury mansions, etc).

 

[Dolph]

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The idea is that the state provides rentals that are affordable, for those who need them.

Those who don't can get a mortgage on a property.

Perhaps you've forgotten in your haste to be make a cheap quip, that the current system demands people pay rents that are much higher than a mortgage would be.

And that the state has to pay this rent directly to the private landlords on behalf of those who can't afford the (extortionate) rent themselves.

Perhaps I should return your mockery, and say that you clearly favour a system where private landlords get rich from state hand-outs?

I'm not sure what that makes you... a fan of corrupt capitalism? Or the government being bent over by the private sector?

How is the state going to manage demand? Location driven or size driven?

 

[FoxEye]

Back to wonderful 60s tower blocks and the like?

That was the solution then.

You realise of course that modern tower blocks are built in other countries that are both efficient in terms of land use and also of good quality, modern, and well-liked by the tenants..

But you keep resorting to ridiculous rhetoric.

We can't have social housing unless we literally become the USSR, we can't have tower blocks unless they are throw-backs to the 60s...

You seem determined to make the most absurd comparisons and refuse to believe there could be anything between the USSR or the status quo (or the 60s).

Why do you do this?

 

[Dolph]

You realise of course that modern tower blocks are built in other countries that are both efficient in terms of land use and also of good quality, modern, and well-liked by the tenants..

But you keep resorting to ridiculous rhetoric.

We can't have social housing unless we literally become the USSR, we can't have tower blocks unless they are throw-backs to the 60s...

You seem determined to make the most absurd comparisons and refuse to believe there could be anything between the USSR or the status quo (or the 60s).

Why do you do this?

Why do you propose the same solutions and expect them to work out differently?

 

[FoxEye]

No, that's not what you said. You said only the top, luxury, end of the rental market such as mansions should exist.

What are you getting confused about?

Non-profit rentals would be provided by the state for those who needed them.
Private rentals would be for the luxury market/top-end of the market only.

I'm not sure how you think I've contradicted myself, I've said this all along.

Those who neither needed social housing (rented) or luxury housing (rented) would be able to get a mortgage.

The idea is this:
1. You don't have landlords targeting the lower end of the market and profiteering from the worst off in society.
2. You don't have rents at >70% of income for the lower-paid (trapping them in poverty).
3. You don't have rents that far exceed the cost of a mortgage on the same property.
4. You don't have the state paying benefits to private landlords for their enrichment.

 

[FoxEye]

Why do you propose the same solutions and expect them to work out differently?

It's you that says every tower block must look like they did in the 60s.

And every socialist leaning policy will end with the UK becoming the USSR.

It's like you've never seen a modern tower block in other countries, where they actually care about doing things properly, and don't give property developers free reign to do as they wish.

 

[Hades]

What are you getting confused about?

I am confused that you think these mean the same thing:

To be honest if my UK there would be no private rentals except for the top end of the market (renting luxury mansions, etc).

The idea is that the state provides rentals that are affordable, for those who need them.

Those who don't can get a mortgage on a property.

 

[FoxEye]

You'll have to explain because I can't see the contradiction there?

Private rentals =/= state provided rental accommodation.

Are you saying that mortgages are rentals? I'm really confused why you think there is a contradiction, because I can't honestly see it.

 

[Hades]

You'll have to explain because I can't see the contradiction there?

Private rentals =/= state provided rental accommodation.

Are you saying that mortgages are rentals? I'm really confused why you think there is a contradiction, because I can't honestly see it.

Actually yes I misread the mortgage part. I agree its a consistent position. I disagree with that you're suggesting. But can see it's consistent.

 

[Jez]

Foxeye, watching this from the sideline(!) - what would define "luxury mansions, etc", in terms of palatable law?

Surely far from luxury mansions, beyond a relatively low bar, finger in the air a run of the mill £400-£500k house found in their thousands on every housing estate in England, is too expensive to be possibly subsidised by the state or be an issue to potential social housing stock? (Except in cities where i guess you'd need to substantially raise the bar).

I am not sure how you'd see some sort of "cut off" as being defined..

 

[FoxEye]

Foxeye, watching this from the sideline(!) - what would define "luxury mansions, etc", in terms of palatable law?

Surely far from luxury mansions, beyond a relatively low bar, finger in the air a run of the mill £400-£500k house found in their thousands on every housing estate in England, is too expensive to be possibly subsidised by the state or be an issue to potential social housing stock? (Except in cities where i guess you'd need to substantially raise the bar).

I am not sure how you'd see some sort of "cut off" as being defined..

As I said, between the state provided rentals at the bottom of the market, and the luxury housing at the top, you'd have the £400k properties that most people would be able to buy and get mortgages on.

The real luxury penthouses would be obviously in excess of the average house price. There would be no case to answer that these were needed for the average man on the street. They would be for the wealthy, akin to living in a 5* hotel.

But as I've said before, there would have to be a package of measures.

The state must be allowed to build housing and not forced to sell it (as they are currently).

Another stat I keep reading is that something like 70% of all former council houses have ended up in the hands of private landlords.

That is a complete failure of housing policy. The councils must be allowed to build and keep the housing they build. And then to provide it for reasonable rents, and any profit to be put back into programmes to build more houses.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I see my question has been aptly ignored.

Get rid of all landlords. Get rid of all investors.

Okay they are all gone and in 10 years time property is still too expensive for people in highly sought after areas. Who do you go after next?

 

[Dolph]

It's you that says every tower block must look like they did in the 60s.

And every socialist leaning policy will end with the UK becoming the USSR.

It's like you've never seen a modern tower block in other countries, where they actually care about doing things properly, and don't give property developers free reign to do as they wish.

Ok, so as you have now moderated your position from how you originally expressed it, shall we get into the key details.

By removing the ability of the market to regulate supply and demand imbalances, what alternative mechanism are you proposing to manage demand versus supply discrepancies?

Note that you cannot increase supply in a high demand area indefinitely.

How are you going to differentiate between needs driven demand and desire driven demand, and which should get priority?

How are you going to manage renters who cause excess damage to the properties, given that you have created both a right to be housed and removed the option of sending them to a competitor?

Just a few key questions to start with.

 

[FoxEye]

Define: "high demand area". Because house prices and rents are excessive in entire counties right now. In Cornwall, the lowest paid are spending >70% of their income on rent, on average.

Should all the low-paid leave Cornwall? There goes all your carers, delivery drivers, etc. But I guess they should all leave because the entirety of Cornwall is "high demand" and thus only for the wealthy.

Need would be based on income, as I believe most benefits are already means-tested by income. Would largely have to be first-come, first-served, with some common sense (i.e. you wouldn't rent a 3-bedroom house to a single chap when the next on the list was a family with two kids). There's already a system in place for this kind of thing, when allocating what little council and social housing exists. There are already waiting lists and the like. So, this is hardly a new problem.

Also you'll have to define exactly what you mean by "desire-driven demand". If a person can comfortably afford a mortgage they probably aren't going to desire the kind of basic, functional housing the state would be providing. Esp because rent money is dead money, and people with an average income aren't going to want to rent long-term. Don't forget the slum landlords are actively targeting the low end of the market, where they have an extremely abusing relationship with their tenants.

As for excessive damage - this is the minority of tenants. But it's a problem that's not really fundamental to the proposal. Crime will always exist, property damage will always exist. I would suspect that given the vast amounts of tax revenue given to private landlords, the cost of repairing damage isn't going to push us above current level treasury spending (today, housing benefit paid to private landlords is measured in £billions).

 

[tenofspades]

a couple in Cornwall both working full time, but the woman expecting a baby and can't afford to rent a place in the area (because of all the second homes)
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/young-couple-being-evicted-because-6208134