[Livia]

I hate the whole buy to let thing, it's got way out of hand. It's appalling he's allowed to do this. Appalling... but sadly not surprising. We need more social housing. Is there another answer?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I hate the whole buy to let thing, it's got way out of hand. It's appalling he's allowed to do this. Appalling... but sadly not surprising. We need more social housing. Is there another answer?

They could also allow housing benefits to be used to pay a mortgage, as I believe was once allowed. The reasoning for stopping it was petty rather than economic (in fact, it makes ZERO economic sense). Basically, they stopped allowing people to pay a mortgage on a home they owned because it "isn't fair" on others that those people end up with a house. Emotive, and petty.

Think about it;

Someone is in and out of work, on and off housing benefit, for whatever reason, for life. If they can BUY a property and receive housing benefit for mortgage payments when they are not working and pay them themselves when they are working, then once the mortgage term is up, that's it. The house is owned outright. It doesn't cost the government ANYTHING to house that person again. But because that "isn't fair", that same person will be on and off housing benefit to be paid to fatcat private landlords for that person's entire life. It costs the government double... triple... or more... what allowing payment of a single mortgage term would cost.

It's about time government put its' pragmatic maths-hat on and starts to act purely on what costs less and stops worrying about what's going to make some people get a bit huffy ("so they get a free house at the end boo hoo hoo???").

Basically, it doesn't sit well with people for the less well off to get £100,000 of "taxpayer's money" for nothing over the course of their life (let's say 50 adult years)... so they're happier to see a private landlord given almost £350,000 of "taxpayer's money" on that person's behalf over the same 50 years. It's ****ing insane.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They could also allow housing benefits to be used to pay a mortgage, as I believe was once allowed. The reasoning for stopping it was petty rather than economic (in fact, it makes ZERO economic sense). Basically, they stopped allowing people to pay a mortgage on a home they owned because it "isn't fair" on others that those people end up with a house. Emotive, and petty.

Think about it;

Someone is in and out of work, on and off housing benefit, for whatever reason, for life. If they can BUY a property and receive housing benefit for mortgage payments when they are not working and pay them themselves when they are working, then once the mortgage term is up, that's it. The house is owned outright. It doesn't cost the government ANYTHING to house that person again. But because that "isn't fair", that same person will be on and off housing benefit to be paid to fatcat private landlords for that person's entire life. It costs the government double... triple... or more... what allowing payment of a single mortgage term would cost.

It's about time government put its' pragmatic maths-hat on and starts to act purely on what costs less and stops worrying about what's going to make some people get a bit huffy ("so they get a free house at the end boo hoo hoo???").

Basically, it doesn't sit well with people for the less well off to get £100,000 of "taxpayer's money" for nothing over the course of their life (let's say 50 adult years)... so they're happier to see a private landlord given almost £350,000 of "taxpayer's money" on that person's behalf over the same 50 years. It's ****ing insane.

I'm going to answer this, even though you said "think about it..." which is one of my pet hates...

I don't agree that the taxpayer should buy people a house. If someone's claiming housing benefit for twenty five years, or the course of a mortgage, then there's something wrong. I understand that there was a method in place (I'm not sure of the situation now though) whereby if you lost your job and needed housing benefit, they would pay the interest on your mortgage only. I think that's fair. People shouldn't lose their home because they're unemployed. But to buy someone a house who might never, ever work or contribute? I don't think so.

More social housing. As a taxpayer I'd be very happy to see my tax go toward that.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm going to answer this, even though you said "think about it..." which is one of my pet hates...

I don't agree that the taxpayer should buy people a house. If someone's claiming housing benefit for twenty five years, or the course of a mortgage, then there's something wrong. I understand that there was a method in place (I'm not sure of the situation now though) whereby if you lost your job and needed housing benefit, they would pay the interest on your mortgage only. I think that's fair. People shouldn't lose their home because they're unemployed. But to buy someone a house who might never, ever work or contribute? I don't think so.

More social housing. As a taxpayer I'd be very happy to see my tax go toward that.

The problem with more social housing though, is that there are already so many houses (privately owned) sitting, unrented, forgotten about, and falling apart. Which is a shame, a waste, and a real problem. And its like I said; your main issue with "buying someone a house who might never contribute" is just that you find it "scroungey" or "unfair"... which it probably is. But its also far (far, far) cheaper than paying private rent for that same person indefinitely... like I said, for a 2/3 bed semi detached house you could be looking at £100,000 worth of mortgage over 20 years (then zero for 30 years) vs £300,000 in rent payments over 50 years. If you let go of that feeling of "someone getting something for nothing" and look purely at the implications on the benefits bill, it paints a very different picture. Not to mention that the home could then be inherited by children who - scroungers or not - would NEVER have to be paid a penny of housing benefit. Ever. The financial benefits of this are obvious.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Livia

I hate the whole buy to let thing, it's got way out of hand. It's appalling he's allowed to do this. Appalling... but sadly not surprising. We need more social housing. Is there another answer?

Didn't all this start with allowing people to buy their Council Houses on the cheap, but not replacing those that were bought with new stock? I don't know why a private landlord has to be castigated for taking advantage of a situation that was brought about by successive governments.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Didn't all this start with allowing people to buy their Council Houses on the cheap, but not replacing those that were bought with new stock? I don't know why a private landlord has to be castigated for taking advantage of a situation that was brought about by successive governments.

Yes, the reason we're short of social housing is that the Tories brought in the right to buy scheme. That doesn't mean that private landlords should be applauded for being opportunists and profiteers.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, the reason we're short of social housing is that the Tories brought in the right to buy scheme. That doesn't mean that private landlords should be applauded for being opportunists and profiteers.

What? Why not? aren't most people who have successful businesses opportunists, they see a gap in the market and they cash in? Most private landlords have mortgages to pay, they rely on their tenants to pay the rent, simple economics, it doesn't matter if you have 1 property or 1,000 the economics remain the same.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]

What? Why not? aren't most people who have successful businesses opportunists, they see a gap in the market and they cash in? Most private landlords have mortgages to pay, they rely on their tenants to pay the rent, simple economics, it doesn't matter if you have 1 property or 1,000 the economics remain the same.

Hey, if you're okay with this, that's your decision. Personally, I think kicking out people who are on benefits and taking in people who aren't is unscrupulous in the extreme. The only answer to this profiteering and opportunism is to build more social housing. But you argued with that too... so I think you're just looking to argue.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Livia

Hey, if you're okay with this, that's your decision. Personally, I think kicking out people who are on benefits and taking in people who aren't is unscrupulous in the extreme. The only answer to this profiteering and opportunism is to build more social housing. But you argued with that too... so I think you're just looking to argue.

Excuse me, i guess if you were answering anyone else it would be a debate, but that's more your problem than mine, and where did I argue that I was against more social housing?

This unscrupulous landlord has 1,000 properties, he wont be managing these on his own, he will be employing trademen, a solicitor, an accountant, cleaners, a mortgage broker, he will be paying buildings insurance so his enterprise is keeping alot of people in work, he will have paid thousands in stamp duty, VAT, and tax thereby helping to pay for people on benefits. If these people who have already been paid their rent by the Council have spent it elsewhere, why should he pick up the tab?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Livia

Hey, if you're okay with this, that's your decision. Personally, I think kicking out people who are on benefits and taking in people who aren't is unscrupulous in the extreme. The only answer to this profiteering and opportunism is to build more social housing. But you argued with that too... so I think you're just looking to argue.

its not. simply because the government have foolishly decided to pay the rent money to the tennants. in many cases the tennants are keeping this money and not handing it over to the landlords. theres a story here where one man owns 800 houses and is having delays with over 300 payments a week. thats over £30,000 a week. additionally the tennants refuse to speak to him as their debt builds and they refuse to tell him of any problems or damage at the properties. so the landlord gets into problems as does the house. In 1 story the tennant takes the monies to pay for his drugs. he fails to tell the owner of damage at the property, the house leaks and the ceiling collapses, the tennant then has the cheek to report the house to the council who issue an improvement order on the house costing £400 plus over £10,000 in damage needed to be fixed in order to make the house liveable and rentable again

this system is insane

it also adds massively to the workload on the council staff for no reason

housing benefit should go straight to landlords