Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Behaviour around multiple property ownership can be controlled via a progressive tax on the rent. Every additional home would jump into a higher tax band until it makes no economic sense to own any more.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
25 billion has been taken out, possibly more.
That 25 billion accrued would have made a massive difference. Huge amounts could have been done with it. It is in addition to money that is reinvested as part of the companies contracts don't forget.
Private companies with hungry investors are always going to skew the figures, present greater investment, and find ways to take more out. You wouldn't be surprised to hear this, its normal. An extra 25 billion pounds and benign owners who's priority is water quality and public service, rather than taking profit, would have given every person in the UK cleaner water.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
I would have no problem with people keeping their profits if the % over mortgage that could be set as rent was capped. Hard to police but I think in 2024 we could have a more dynamic system that protects everyone.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Too hard to organise I would think. The mortgage should not be part of the equation imo. Using a progressive tax on rent would encourage landlords to sell those 'uneconomic' properties and help with supply for those looking to enter the market. The comodification of houses is something that should be discouragd by tax policy imo.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Just do like happened between the 1920-80s. London rents capped at say £2000 pm per property. Rest of the country £1500 pm.
People shouldn't be profiteering out of providing their 'spare' houses for those who can't afford to buy their own. It's just immoral on a very basic level.
glorygloryeze
Jack Jull
Surely one of the issues with lack of affordable housing in the UK is the fact Local Councils have been hamstrung in terms of restrictions on them building housing and often being forced to sell under right-to-buy....
I do suspect the main issue is that the real hereditary elite in the UK are some of the biggest landowners, so it might be political suicide to actually tackle some of the land and property hoarding that goes on. I'm sure that was one of the main reasons for the big co-ordinated political attacks on Corbyn
I do suspect the main issue is that the real hereditary elite in the UK are some of the biggest landowners, so it might be political suicide to actually tackle some of the land and property hoarding that goes on. I'm sure that was one of the main reasons for the big co-ordinated political attacks on Corbyn
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Perfect storm of both I would think. I know in a fairly small circle of work and friends a fair few associates who have two or more homes, so it makes me think, really unscientifically, that if I know that many the number must be high hahaha, but jesting aside it can't help.
People will argue that its fair game and people can do as they wish, but I don't think you can load the deck so that someone in their 40s/50s can manipulate the deck in their favour just because after a large portion of their working life they can beat new starters to property, just doesn't stake up for me.
I also think you are correct in your assessment
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
I used vogue rather the current in or on trend phrase which is on or in trend as I just get fed up with new language, I feel like crying every time I hear someone over 14 say "cool"
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Don't disagree with any of that
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
..it's literally been the crutch for the UK economy for the past 30 years. With the BtL boom and MEW ...they have done everything to keep the bubble going.And it's given us this divide and mess.
It all very well saying that when someone is on the right side of the bet (a bet that's granted, looked like only having one side for decades) but they potentially get rinsed out in a market crash..that's the flip side.
The problem is simply prices (and this is not just the UK)...the price of property has just inflated beyond wage rises, affordability is ridiculous even for a couple on an average wage.
Simply, people lucked out during a certain period in time. Since right to buy the UK has had a love affair with bricks and mortar. BtL was an easy game because the capital gain came thick and fast (easy to build a portfolio), those people will fairly say it's their pension and an asset class that is easy for them to understand.
The bad is it has distorted the market and fudged everyone in the following generation.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Yeh and I get that but then having less properties negates that extra risk
As I say, and maybe idealistic, heck I know its idealistic, I just think extra homes to make people private entrepreneurs at the expense of people getting homes needs to be looked up from an ethical perspective. I strongly believe a home is the safety net and backbone of a good life and for various reason, some of which you have alluded to as well, we have shockingly condemned some people to a harder life through greed all round
3m private renters in the UK of which 95% are individuals, eye watering numbers IMO
Last edited:
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Just so I’m clear here…. You want to tax private landlords so highly that they have to dump their assets on to the market, thus reducing the price of housing, likely causing a negative equity situation for a huge number of home owners and also resulting in large numbers of private tenants being evicted and then having nowhere to live?
And the thing is, what they're saying they want landlords to be public and corporate. But the cost of running a house is the cost of running a house. Rents have got to cover not only the inherent cost of running a house, but the wages of those that administrate it (which a homeowner or many casual private landlords do for free). And if cheaper rents are to be subsidised, someone's got to pay for that somewhere. So like most arguments about "state owned is better" it still comes back to the fact that the state is funded by you and me and ordinary citizens. I.e. on the one hand it's a cost of living crisis and everyone is struggling after 15 years of tory rule and on the other hand the solution is that the government needs to take more money off everyone to pay for everything they think should happen in the country to make things better.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
Just so I'm clear here,......... You were expecting a reasoned, sensible, well thought out suggestion?
All mortgage lenders are regulated by the FCA and all mortgage contracts are subject to the FCA's conduct rules and the PRA's prudential rules. As I've said the difference may be that a BTL mortgage that isn't deemed a consumer product isn't subject to MCOBs, which is the FCA's specific mortgage conduct rules. This generally relates to providing consumers with advice. The idea that any mortgage activity isn't regulated however is pie in the sky.
You say £25 billion/£7.2 billion taken out and zero invested but this doesn't even make sense. To be paid a dividend you'll have to own shares. That means you'll have had to purchase said shares and therefore invested your money into the company. This is kind of the point of privatisation isn't it? You're getting the investment from private investors rather than British tax payers, so you can keep taxation lower and prioritise public spending on say, the NHS. If you nationalise Thames water, yes you end having to pay out £7 billion over 30 years to shareholders, but you also lose the capital injection those shareholders put in to be entitled to those dividends and all that capital has to be provided by the government (and the tax payer) instead.
It’s not just Thames Water: the whole of the English water industry is environmentally insolvent
I posted this thread on Twitter last June, but it is just as relevant today: There has been much discussion about the likely failure of Thames Water in the last day or so. I've been looking at the accounts of England's water companies for the last twenty years. My conclusion is that they...www.taxresearch.org.uk
£25bllion taken out by water companies. Zero of this was reinvested apparently.
Thames Water dividend payments total £7.2bn over 32 years
In charts: how privatisation drained Thames Water’s coffers | Utilities | The Guardian
Decades of underinvestment and bumper dividends have left the firm debt-laden and under investigationamp.theguardian.com
The plan needs to be a huge civil engineering project funded and co-ordinated by central government to modernise and rebuild the entire water infrastructure in this country.
Other then prime and super-prime property (which ordinary renters can't dream of renting) people do not invest in property purely to speculate on value growth. Also rent that is x3 of a mortgage payment I'd only common where the mortgage is interest only which means it's not getting paid down and so money accumulated from rents will need to factor in eventusl repayment of loans at some point in time as well as repair and maintenance costs.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Yes. Property value would almost certainly decrease and investors would leave the market. The flood of properties on the market would mean huge amounts of previous tenants would then become owners. Also that would result in lower competition for rental properties resulting in lower rent. Brilliant isn't it?
How would the tenants become owners?