Yeah. It's the only solution.
Frustratingly. It is the obvious solution. But no one wants to actually commit. It would change lives.
Last edited:
Yeah. It's the only solution.
Frustratingly. It is the obvious solution. But no one wants to actually commit. It would change lives.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with 1/3 of MPs having large housing portfolios.
It totally sucks most politicians are at least somewhat into the rich category.
Especially the tories. You don't become a tory because you want to help the lower rungs of society. Yet our dumb ass population keep voting them in.
Same applies to Labour but to a far less degree.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,214
i am not sure it is..... maybe i am naive but i like to think if it was properly explained a lot of people would get behind it.
maybe not... but for me the trick is not letting a future party then sell it all off. As foxeye says FPTP is a big part of the problem.
if a party has all the power then a lot of damage can be done and a lot of good undone over night.
some form of PR would mean no one ever has all the power (which isnt perfect and has issues of its own) but at least it should keep them all (slightly more) honest and have to work together.
FPTP is also why i sadly do not think any form of long term government controlled renewable energy will ever be built... and its a damn shame. ... but nothing will stop it all being sold off by vandals just worried about short term gain.
Unless you remortgaged recently it was almost impossible not to make a profit with previous interest rates. Or is it a repayment mortgage and you do actually make a profit?
But my point was it makes a profit from the capital of the property been paid off fully by the renter and then double dips with a monthly profit ontop of the mortgage repayment. Its not an ethical system really especially when these "businesses" are in lots of cases profiting heavily off low income people that due to the system then struggle to save to be given a mortgage themselves.
Soldato
But that’s where the social housing is supposed to come in. It’s the failure of government to build that that’s the problem.
We need government to start building masses of council housing with legal provision that it cannot be sold off.
Last edited:
What's stopping your local council from building?
They're not necessarily, take a look at rental yields in London for example, now go look at interest rates.
If someone has owned a property for a few years, bought at a lower price, or has locked in a good rate then it might well be the case that the rental income pays both the mortgage income and their mortgage.
Someone buying right now on the other hand might not find it viable at all to have a significant mortgage on the property and a cash buyer might look at some yields and realise they may get a better return from buying some gilts + not have to worry about losing 10% in the near future from property prices falling not to mention the various other risks/costs that come with being a BTL landlord.
I'm sure it's been a nice earner for people in the past few years but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,214
They cant even afford to repair our roads in a timely manner I cant imagine they have a few 100million behind the back of the sofa or lying around for them to fall back on to build a few 1000 homes.
Last edited:
Probably spent too much money making sure dinner ladies get the same pay as bin men.
Soldato
They are government and should be doing the building.
Man of Honour
But then a government would change the law to allow it to be sold off for short term gain without any care for the long term cost. Because that's what our political system is geared for.
The only social housing system I can think of that actually works as intended is a freak setup that essentially works on the basis of nothing more than tradition and honour - the Fuggerei. Set up ~500 years ago by Jakob Fugger, who had become immensely rich and decided to spend a small part of their vast fortune on doing something beneficial to their home city. Some decent quality housing at a low rent with a promise that the rent wouldn't be increased. Their descendents have continued the project ever since. And they still haven't increased the rent. It's about 75p per year. No typo. Jakob Fugger funded a trust fund to support the project and his descendents have done a good job of managing it since then. But that's not a viable model for housing. It only exists because the Fugger family continues to choose to honour the wishes of their ancestor ~500 years ago. Businesses don't work that way and nor do governments.
I was looking at the issue of parking in Chicago last night. It was under the complete control of the mayor, effectively no restrictions. A few other people who were there to glance over the mayor's actions and rubber-stamp them. So the mayor sold parking in Chicago to a private business. Giving them a 75 year contract and imposing a 400% increased in parking price in Chicago and guaranteeing that the company would profit above inflation, absolutely guaranteed six ways from Sunday and paid for by taxes in Chicago. But not just profit from parking. Also profit from theoretical parking, parking that never actually occurs. If any future local government ever reduces parking for any reason (roadworks, cycle lane, bus lane, whatever), Chicago will still have to pay the company for the parking that didn't happen. For the full 75 years. If parking prices increase by less than inflation (let alone go down), Chicago will still have to pay the company at the agreed price of 400% of the pre-sale parking price plus inflation. If prices go up by more than inflation, the company pockets the extra.
The mayor has changed a couple of times since then. But the people of Chicago will be paying through the nose for that major's decision for the full 75 years. The major absolutely didn't get any money for themself from the deal and absolutely didn't get a well paid cushy no work involved "job" with the company after leaving office. That's how politics works.
Last edited:
Caporegime
They need funding
Social housing is crucial for the lowest earners but tighter regulations around how property rental works capping the amount that can be charged would help aswell. The market as it is is truly not fit for purpose for such an essential service. Every other key service such as energy is (supposedly)tightly regulated and so should housing.
Soldato
With sufficient social housing there’d be no need for tighter regulation of private rentals.
Why not? Just because there would be enough social housing for the poorest of society does that mean landlords should be allowed free reign to make as much profit as possible from the rest?
Soldato
Because at that point the people in private rentals are those who can afford to chose to not be in social housing, so don’t need those protections.
Fair enough so option 1 is to regulate rental markets so that pricing is reasonable and option 2 is have the government build and rent so much housing that private rentals arent required anymore and so the rental market below the top end collapses. I suppose either way works.