Copy of Lib Dem coalition agreement with Tories

[DJKillaQueen]

Sigh.....but Mitch you are not lisitening to any of the core points being made, the rising gaps between rich and poor, the 2.6 million families in overcrowded accomodation. The rate of rise of property value compared to salaries. These are all really key problems that are going to continue to increase until what? The point is that we need to get back to making homes affordable (and that includes rents) for the mass and not the few.

There's a fundamental difference between letting a market of more or less buyers affect prices and then making it possible for those that already own a property (without the capital required to become property tycoons)to buy again and again without any sizeable outlay. It was designed to and has served to keep the market bouyant and prices going up irregardless of the overall economic climate.

The interesting thing is that the government did step in to instruct banks on how to deal with those that get into repayment trouble.....but then does nothing to protect other business from the effects of recession. It's like the housing market is some kind of holy grail. In a sense it is because no other commodity has such a high percentage of the population invested in it but the right to make a huge profit is no more divine than the right to own a home.

[MitchK]

I'm listening but I do not have the power to do anything about it. Write to the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps. A far more productive 20 minutes than posting your well-considered arguments on here.

From what I know, he is well aware of the problem that first time buyers face.

[Huguenot]

Buy-to-let tax breaks are a disease which disproportionately rewards those who believe in the exploitation of those who cannot fend for themselves.

Like any tyrants, bullies or wifebeaters, they lay the blame for this exploitation at the feet of their victims - they're too weak, or they shouldn't be indulged, or they're not trying hard enough, or they should enjoy it because it's only a joke.

This is the essence and the core voter base of 'I'm alright Jack' conservatism.

Tories are not in a position to offend them.

So what they do is fabricate solutions that have absolutely no impact on the problem at hand. In this case they blame it on immigrants.

In your case MitchK you're willing to believe this because the truth, that BTL landlords tacitly support the exploitation and disenfranchisement of young families, is just to painful to admit. You couldn't look at yourself in the mirror of a morning.

Comments like 'they can just go somewhere else' are a reflection of this, because BTL landlords, like wifebeaters actually hate their victims for their weakness.

[Brendan]

Probably wasting you breath though H. I?ve had these sorts of arguments more times that I care to remember. (Mostly with the older generation of South Africans when I was younger.) People who refuse point blank to see things from outside of their point of view and insist that everyone else is ok and should just be happy with what they have because they are intrinsically unable to admit that they are actually complicit in something that is fundamentally wrong no matter how you look at it.

[MitchK]

If you want someone to blame, blame Sarah Beeny and all those ghastly property shows.

[Loz]

Having bought my tuppence ha'penny's worth to a logical conclusion I'm staying out of the discussion. But I have to say ...

Like any tyrants, bullies or wifebeaters, they lay the blame for this exploitation at the feet of their victims - they're too weak, or they shouldn't be indulged, or they're not trying hard enough, or they should enjoy it because it's only a joke.

and

BTL landlords, like wifebeaters actually hate their victims for their weakness.

You've some good points, Huguenot, but by 'eck you do like your hyperbole, don't you.

[Brendan]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you want someone to blame, blame Sarah Beeny

> and all those ghastly property shows.

Once again I find myself forced to agree with you.

[DJKillaQueen]

From what I know, he is well aware of the problem that first time buyers face.

You are absolutely right Mitch...falling on deaf ears and all that. And yes Sarah Beeny should be deported... to umm.... now I'm stuck.

To be fair though I don't think the buy-to let buyer is intentionally thinking 'lucky me' and 'damn the poor'. I just think they don't think about it all. The buy-to-let property is seen as just 'business' - investment and return, and there is of course never any room for the personal in that. But that is why only regulation can be effective to force change and of course those affected won't like it one bit. Things have to be done for the greater good sometimes though.

[Brendan]

Do you seriously think it doesn?t cross peoples minds that what they are effectively doubling their personal wealth at the expense of someone else who they are forcing off the property ladder or at the expense of the public purse?

I?m sure it does it is just that some people lack the moral capacity to properly process what is wrong with it. Or they are sociopaths who don?t care about the damage they do to others.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think thre are plenty of sociopaths in business yes. But when they buy a house I don't think they do think that they are depriving anyone of anything, because they don't see the predicament of those who lose out. They do all however know full well that it's a route to easy money or greater property wealth.....the most obscene nouveau rich term being 'property portfolio' but don't make the same connections to poverty and other things as you and I, and if they do, they don't care. There have always been commercial landlords like too. Who can forget Van Hoogstraten for example? We can't blame people for taking an advantage of an opportunity so much as we can blame those that create the opportunities, the products in the first place. The creators of buy-to-let understood exactly what they were doing and the consequences that might evolve and didn't care. Just like bankers, as long as mortgage lenders and estate agents get their commission and bonuses, who cares? They are the true 'scumbags'

[Brendan]

Well considering that one of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is the inability to empathise it is not really an unreasonable term.

[DJKillaQueen]

True B)

[Jeremy]

Obviously the BTL bandwagon has been harmful to our housing situation... property speculation has essentially lowered the average standard of living, and this is very wrong. So I agree with the capital gains tax, and I also agree with Huguenot regarding tax on interest payments (something I had never realised).

However - the idea that a BTL landlord just sits there while the money rolls in is not accurate. They will need to spend time and money maintaining the property. There will be periods of time when the house is empty and no rent is coming in. There is the danger of squatters (either breaking in or tenants refusing to leave). They are also exposed to interest rate risk. It is not a license to print money.

Some people do want to rent. In fact, it suits lots of people. Students. Young professionals in house shares. People living somewhere temporarily for work. People living abroad for a while. Or people who want to spend a while living in an area which they couldn't afford to buy in. I have been in most of these situations myself, and renting has suited me well.

Yes, there are too many rental properties in London, but we need some of them. Not everyone in a rented property is a young family. No single person on this forum speaks for everybody.

[DJKillaQueen]

They will need to spend time and money maintaining the property.

No they don't...they give it to a letting agent to manage for them. Most of them do that. The rent collected covers all the costs to the letting agent too. If costs go up the rent goes up. The only restriction on rent is that placed by fair rent committees, but they decide what is 'fair' by comparison to other similar properties in that area. So if all the rents go up accross an area, by the same margin, then there is no issue of 'fairness' to address.

Yes, there are too many rental properties in London,

The issue is not the number but affordability of them.

[Jeremy]

Sure, the agent will manage day-to-day stuff. Major stuff (refurbishments, redecoration, major repairs, new boilers/appliances/furniture) will need to be handled by the landlord. I know plenty of people who have rented out properties, and I would never bother doing it myself because I know what a hassle it can be.

Also the rent isn't determined by the landlord's costs, it's determined by the market - i.e. what people are prepared to pay.

[DJKillaQueen]

Major stuff (refurbishments, redecoration, major repairs, new boilers/appliances/furniture) will need to be handled by the landlord.

Those things don't take very much time, and rents will still be set to enable a profit. Yes market forces determine rent but this whole debate has been about how the market has been manipulated to make sure nothing ever significantly goes down. Buy-to-let was an investment scheme designed (by mortage lenders) to keep a ready supply of buyers on the market which in turn keeps prices going up, under that false notion of natural demand. If buy-to-let hadn't happened the market would have naturally slowed, balanced out and peaked at a lower level of value in line with real economic growth. Instead it has superceeded ecnomic growth and survived three recessions intact. And that is why the gap between it and salaries is so large.

[Brendan]

Jeremy we both know that there are people for whom renting is preferable but you know as well as I do that the vast majority of people you meet who rent are being forced to. So once more I will bring your attention to reality of what that arrangement means.

Where Mr A does not get access to private home ownership and rents for 25 years off Mr B who gets the chance to own 2 homes. His own worth 500K and a second buy-to-let worth 250K

after the 25 years.

Mr A 25K ? income tax = 18K

Mr B 100K ? income tax = 60K + 750K = 810K

After 25 years Mr B is approx 45 x better off than Mr A and Mr A is homeless.

As opposed to the preferable situation where each get a chance to own their own home proportionate to their salary. Mr A?s being the 250K one obviously.

Mr A 25K ? income tax = 18 K + 250K = 268K

Mr B 100K ? income tax = 60K + 500K = 560K

After 25 years Mr B is still better off by approx 2.5 x and they both own a house and their families benefit from the associated security.

After 25 years of forcing his subjects to rent the cost of refurbishments, redecoration, major repairs, new boilers/appliances/furniture are not even a blip in the 45 x richer that Mr Landlord is going to be from sitting on his arse collecting his tithe.

[Jeremy]

Brendan, I am more or less in agreement with the thrust of your argument. I don't like property investment either, we have all been impacted my the huge "artificial" inflation in property prices. You're not the only one worrying how you can afford to raise a family in a reasonable home.

The difference is, you villainize the investors, whereas I think it's more constructive to look at how the laws can be changed to make BTL less attractive (while still retaining some landlords to satisfy the genuine rental market). People will always grab opportunities to make money, as far as the law allows. We won't get anywhere by trying to appeal to people's better nature with sentimental arguments.

[Brendan]

That?s very magnanimous of you Jeremy. I however don?t absolve these people of their culpability.

Perhaps I have an over developed sense of morality. In fact I know I do because I go though my life ripping my hair out on a daily basis at the disgusting way people treat one another and how they seem to think it is ok.

I don?t think anyone will disagree with the fact that legality doesn?t constitute morality. Somebody doing something immoral is not justified just because it is legal. I?m willing to let the stupid and greedy off on the assumption that they?ve never thought about it properly but I will not tolerate the wilful and knowledgeable exploitation of families need for housing. The attempts to try to justify this exploitation just go to show that my original assertion that they are sub-human filth was correct.

I wouldn?t break bread with such people. In fact I wouldn?t use then to wipe the dog shit off my boot. After the shit my family has suffered recently at the hands of this kind of bastard if one of them tried to fob the issue off as if a family needing their own home to live in was some sort of unreasonable request, they would come very fucking short indeed.

My only solace is that most decent right thinking individuals share my opinions on this type of parasitic filth leaching money off of people who earn less while denying them a home of their own.

Once again, vile sub-human scum who deserve every ounce of vilification the decent people of this world choose to pour on them.

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I go though my life ripping my hair out on a daily basis at the disgusting way people treat one another

You'll have no hair left by the age of 35.

But anyway, this is supposed to be a political thread. Do you have any ideas for how to tackle the problem? It should be up your street, it's a perfect example of when a free market works against the interests of the common man.

[Huguenot]

The staged removal of tax relief on the interest payments of residential property purchases.

[Jeremy]

That would seem like a good start.

[Brendan]

It?s not really a free market though is it? It never has been except for people who buy property for cash.

All that needs to be done is rules put in place to create a situation where owner occupiers are favoured over landlords and heavy restrictions or bans put on buy-to-let lending so that you get a situation where 10% of the market doesn?t go to landlords who then rent it out to the poorest 10% who as a result will never have access to homes and consequently end up exponentially poorer. (Not to mention the patronising vileness of the idea that someone else should be ?providing? housing for another family like some sort of feudal lord)

This is not radical or unprecedented it is just sensible and done in many countries all over the world. In fact many people would say it was the intention over here in the first place.

The market will be a reflection of what the people in the economy can afford and not an over inflated, contrived economic driver in itself that is liable to come crashing down around our ears as has recently happened.

I would go further to say that there is no reason why people in full time employment in this country should have to rely on the state for housing. State housing (except for the essential safety net) should be sold to owner occupiers at a price they can afford. If the reality is that the bottom rung of families are expected to live off an income of ?10K a year then the bottom rung house should reflect the market and cost those families ?40K.

And that my friend is about as fair a conservative policy as you can come across but those who use the veil of conservatism to disguise their antisocial nature would wail injustice at it because it wouldn?t allow them to exploit other decent peoples' basic needs for their own personal gain.

(edited because I really can't seem to fucking spell these days)

[Marmora Man]

Brendan,

I have been following this thread with an ever growing sense of incredulity. Your arguments, apparently based on some form of hatred of landlords, are economic hogwash. Your latest is even more so. You appear to want everyone in the country to own their own home and have no rental market at all. The idea that there should be no rented housing and no social housing is illogical.

The former allows anyone / everyone the freedom to move about with minimal costs - selling up and buying again is a huge disincentive in time and costs to taking a job on Scotland if living in London or London if living in Scotland. Social housing allows those on the lowest rungs of the economy to have, what should be, a decent roof over their heads - and also allows them freedom of movement as well. Freedom of movement is an essential part of a flourishing economy, but something that UK doesn't do very well. Why did hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans move to UK to take up work yet very few from impoverished WElsh valleys, or Tyneside terraces? Your solution would make the people that contribute to the UK economy live in a rigid and costly system that locks them into a locality. Social housing, moreover, is something that provides a house until death - not just to the end of a working life - which was one of your earlier illustrations.

Rigging the market seldom works - special tax breaks or tax penalties are not a good idea. The latest Lib / Con CGT proposal would affect the BTL market and, slowly, start to adjust the balance. Personally I'd support a proper flat tax with a decent tax threshold - any earnings (personal or business) from anything that are in excess of ?10K should be taxed at, say, 25% but there should be no other form of tax at all. The tax take to gov't would increase, avoidance becomes almost impossible and above all it is simple and transparent. Everyone has 75% of their earnings + ?10,000 to do what they will with.

[Brendan]

Your points would be valid if that was what is actually going on around us.

I wasn?t suggesting getting rid of the private letting sector. There is a need for it but the reality of what is going on in the country at the moment is that private rental is not only providing for those people who need and choose to rent because of their circumstance. The proliferation, especially in London is forcing more and more families who should have access to private home ownership to become perpetual tenants. This is why all the preasure groups and articles in the press etc. The reality is if you rent a house out in London now you are renting it to people who are forced to rent. People are exploiting this, some of them wilfully. That is not forgivable. It may be legal but it is in no way moral.

Not allowing people who already own a home first choice at the same properties that people trying to buy their first home are competing for is not rigging the market it is just making simple, sensible rules regarding lending. It?s just like telling someone they can?t drive their car down a cycle path.

The issue of social housing links in to social equality and the gaps in pay between the richest and poorest. In a country with a small gap between the richest and poorest (which is generally considered healthy in a first world democracy) you don?t have a need for much social housing. The need for so much of it in this country is because we have to hang on to socialist aspects of the economy in order to compensate for the inequality.

Socialism rarely works and is ultimately self defeating. In my mind it should only ever be used as a means to an end (rebuilding after war or redressing serious injustice). I?m not suggesting getting rid of the safety net but giving those who even though they are permanently employed are forced to live in social housing a way out.

If that means that we have to take a hard look at redressing the pay difference between the highest and lowest paid then so be it. If we did that we could then also more easily have a simple, flat rate of tax.