|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Please remind me why the taxpayers should stump up your rent
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Scroungers moaning about having benefits cut.
Please could someone explain why some people in our society expect the government to fund their lifestyle choices. I don't think I actually know anybody who spends £21,000 on accomodation per year. I know lots of people who spend significantly less but have to work hard, scrimp and sacrifice stable family time and life to pay rent and mortgages.
The welfare state is there to give strugglers a leg up, not a blanket bloody free for all.
Too many fuckers know their rights, not enough know their responsibilities.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Is the "unemployed lifestyle" in anyway related to the "gay lifestyle"?
Still, at least there's a handy faceless group to vent your frustration on, without any need to perhaps get a fucking clue about their actual circumstances, attitudes, 'choices' and so on.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
A mortgage of around £275,000 would cost about £400 a week in repayments (obviously depending on the interest rate and length of the mortgage). And although I don't live in London I would imagine that £275,000 doesn't get you that far, if you have a family to house. If you don't own your own home, then renting privately would be more expensive.
What is iniquitous is that house prices (and thus rents) in London are so huge compared with the rest of the country (and compared with many wages, even with London weighting), and that the housing sector is badly regulated (if at all).
I think it's a major problem that the UK is so centred on London that too many people and jobs (and thus families, people who become unemployed etc) are located there. When attempts are made to redress this, like the BBC move to Salford, it doesn't really seem to work very well.
The 'scroungers' of your title won't be seeing any of the money anyway - it will all go straight to landlords, some of them already immensely rich of course. You should really be asking why taxpayers money is going to those people.
What would you propose to do instead? And how would how deal with the consequences?
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jigsaw
Shipmate
# 11433
|
Posted
Where in the article did it say that these people are scroungers? Mightn't they be working hard as cleaners, catering workers, nurses, firefighters, teachers? If you're going to get cross about something, maybe you should direct it at the social cleansing in Westminster Council's aim to ship the poorer people well out of London.
--------------------
You are not alone in this.
Posts: 743 | From: Snorbens, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
The rhetoric is all that there is no social cleansing going on... But judging by what they did in Sydney in 2000, I wouldn't believe what they are saying. Like it or not, the poor and the dirty, the outcast, the "underbelly" is one London would be eager NOT to show the world...
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Let them die and decrease the surplus population.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I don't see any sign of poor lifestyle choices in that article. People can be in need of help through no fault of their own. And haven't you ever heard of the "working poor"?
It looks like that's the limit the council will pay for people who are housed in regular apartments instead of council housing?? That would be something like Section 8 housing here, or other programs that involve vouchers.
IME, people make remarks like yours when they're feeling over-whelmed, have never been on benefits themselves, and assume that people on benefits are getting a much better deal. You having a bad day??
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
And if they can't afford to move? If there are no jobs in areas they might be able to afford?
I don't know about the UK; but here in the US, many people are One Paycheck Away (tm) from homelessness. Not because they did anything wrong, nor because they aren't working hard enough, nor because they don't want anything better for themselves and their families.
The economy is crap; the (worst among the) ultra-rich and powerful, and their corporations, get away with crap; and the poor are blamed for the crap.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
Yeah, but Newham council didn't just want them to move to a cheaper borough, it wanted them to move to fucking STOKE ON TRENT which is 160 miles away!
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
quote:
The 'scroungers' of your title won't be seeing any of the money anyway - it will all go straight to landlords, some of them already immensely rich of course. You should really be asking why taxpayers money is going to those people.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
It's all very well saying that if you are choosing to move to a new area. What about people who have lived in a particular area all their lives? They didn't ask for rents to be forced up.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Exactly. There's a certain irony in calling the tenants scroungers, when the people who have forced the rents up are landlords, who are also scroungers - at least to the extent that they're getting paid not for doing any work, but merely from owning a set of title deeds.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
Hang on. Are you suggesting that employers are offering jobs in an area of known high rents at a rate that means people who might take those jobs can't afford to live nearby, so that they're required to claim for housing benefit?
That's an outrage. We should force employers to pay a living wage rather than subsidising their poverty-wages.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
the people who have forced the rents up are landlords, who are also scroungers - at least to the extent that they're getting paid not for doing any work, but merely from owning a set of title deeds.
But to what extent have those rents risen due to councils setting their price caps at the median price rather than the lowest? As soon as the landlords demanding lower rents see that the council will happily pay more, they're inevitably going to increase their charges to take advantage of the fact - as you say, it's free money. That pushes the median rent up even higher, which in turn pushes up the amount councils are happy to pay and thus the cost of renting.
It's a vicious cycle which leads to massive inflation and thus prices poorer people (and, eventually, councils) out of the market. I'm not sure that a perfect solution exists, but the council moving to a strategy of setting their price cap at a lower level should at least slow down the inflation. If landlords can no longer get tenants they will have to either lower their prices or sell their uneconomical properties, both of which options will result in more homes available to people with more limited means.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
That wouldn't happen though. The landlords would simply evict the tenants and find someone else prepared to may the market rate.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yeah, but Newham council didn't just want them to move to a cheaper borough, it wanted them to move to fucking STOKE ON TRENT which is 160 miles away!
Oh blimey, there is enough congestion in the Stoke on Trent area as it is....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
Hang on. Are you suggesting that employers are offering jobs in an area of known high rents at a rate that means people who might take those jobs can't afford to live nearby, so that they're required to claim for housing benefit?
That's an outrage. We should force employers to pay a living wage rather than subsidising their poverty-wages.
Good idea - let's see if the local corner shop is happy paying £60K a year for its staff. I'm guessing that is the minimum going rate to support a family in Kensington or similar.
Seriously - some places are expensive to live. If you can't afford to live there, live somewhere else. Yes people need help , but above a reasonable amount, it is time to move if you can't afford it.
[ 25. April 2012, 08:57: Message edited by: ianjmatt ]
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Not that I would wish ill on anyone, but for some - especially the willfully stupid - hard personal experience is the only teacher. So Stoker I do hope that in a years time you haven't lost your job and find yourself sitting on negative equity (or your mummy and daddy loose their jobs and you end up living on a council estate and having to do a paper round every day to help make ends meet).
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Some interesting reflections on why these terrible poor people just sit on their arses and do nothing, written in the context of international aid, with parallels that can be drawn in relation to those parts of society to whom The Market markedly fails to provide a solution.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Good idea - let's see if the local corner shop is happy paying £60K a year for its staff. I'm guessing that is the minimum going rate to support a family in Kensington or similar.
But it must be obvious that this situation is unsustainable, unless either -
a. Some low-paid workers receive subsidies to live in Kensington;
b. All Kensington corner-shops and similar enterprises are shut down.
ETA: or c. Kensington rates are driven aggressively downwards.
[ 25. April 2012, 10:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
Hang on. Are you suggesting that employers are offering jobs in an area of known high rents at a rate that means people who might take those jobs can't afford to live nearby, so that they're required to claim for housing benefit?
That's an outrage. We should force employers to pay a living wage rather than subsidising their poverty-wages.
Good idea - let's see if the local corner shop is happy paying £60K a year for its staff. I'm guessing that is the minimum going rate to support a family in Kensington or similar.
Seriously - some places are expensive to live. If you can't afford to live there, live somewhere else. Yes people need help , but above a reasonable amount, it is time to move if you can't afford it.
Then an awful lot of work that relies of low pay won't get done. Not merely cleaners and shop workers but teachers, nurses, transport workers: the entire infrastructure that The City relies on.
I suppose that 'reasonable amount' needs to be looked at but if a reasonable salary for a city trader is well into six figures even before bonuses what should it be for those who never see a bonus?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Sorry - if someone cannot afford to live in a particular area then it is time to move. I have turned down jobs because I know that we would wouldn't be able to afford the rent anywhere close to the place of work. Didn't expect any sympathy - you make your choice. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise it.
It's all very well saying that if you are choosing to move to a new area. What about people who have lived in a particular area all their lives? They didn't ask for rents to be forced up.
Er...so? No-one has the 'right' to live in the same area all their lives - we all have to go where the work is, where the housing is that we can afford (or, if we are asking taxpayers to pay for our housing, where the taxpayer can afford), etc. If either or both ain't there, then we can't afford to live there. I don't see why one group of us should be exempt from that basic fact at the -literal - expense of the rest of us.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
the people who have forced the rents up are landlords, who are also scroungers - at least to the extent that they're getting paid not for doing any work, but merely from owning a set of title deeds.
But to what extent have those rents risen due to councils setting their price caps at the median price rather than the lowest? As soon as the landlords demanding lower rents see that the council will happily pay more, they're inevitably going to increase their charges to take advantage of the fact - as you say, it's free money. That pushes the median rent up even higher, which in turn pushes up the amount councils are happy to pay and thus the cost of renting.
It's a vicious cycle which leads to massive inflation and thus prices poorer people (and, eventually, councils) out of the market. I'm not sure that a perfect solution exists, but the council moving to a strategy of setting their price cap at a lower level should at least slow down the inflation. If landlords can no longer get tenants they will have to either lower their prices or sell their uneconomical properties, both of which options will result in more homes available to people with more limited means.
I'll suggest yet again something that would help. There are something like 930,000 empty homes in the UK including about 300,000 that have been empty for more than six months. The overall total includes nearly 75,000 in the London area.
Sort that out, provide jobs for tens of thousand and homes for about a million. If there's a free market the extra homes ought to drive rents and purchase prices down. For that reason alone I suppose it will never happen.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But it must be obvious that this situation is unsustainable, unless either -
a. Some low-paid workers receive subsidies to live in Kensington;
b. All Kensington corner-shops and similar enterprises are shut down.
ETA: or c. Kensington rates are driven aggressively downwards.
(b) is the mechanism by which (c) happens. Or a mechanism by which it happens, at any rate.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll suggest yet again something that would help. There are something like 930,000 empty homes in the UK including about 300,000 that have been empty for more than six months. The overall total includes nearly 75,000 in the London area.
Sort that out, provide jobs for tens of thousand and homes for about a million. If there's a free market the extra homes ought to drive rents and purchase prices down.
Absolutely. I'm not suggesting that my proposed solution is the only solution in any way - and if the councils bought all those houses, renovated them and then acted as the landlord themselves it could lead to massive cost savings down the line.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Good idea, Sioni.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
At the moment, many people who own empty houses are put off renting them out by the huge tax and other legal issues involved. Maybe have a simple way of doing it (with a tax free amount on rent income perhaps if rents are kept below a certain level?).
At the moment all rent is classed as income if you are a private landlord and taxed accordingly which incentivises keeping them high to offset the tax. Maybe classing it separately with an incentive to keep rents low would work.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
At the moment all rent is classed as income if you are a private landlord and taxed accordingly which incentivises keeping them high to offset the tax. Maybe classing it separately with an incentive to keep rents low would work.
Why should private landlords (many of whom are doing very nicely out of the housing market) be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of the populace simply because they derive their wealth from rents instead of a salary? Landlords are allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the house (including the cost of any mortgage payments) against the rent and are only charged tax on the profit they make, just like any other owner of a business. If you were not previously aware of this and have a spare property to rent out I suggest you take a look at the HMRC website for more details. Having tenants in a house is almost always better than leaving it empty.
Remind me again why London should be allowed to dump its social problems on the rest of the country? There are plenty of people already living in Stoke-on-Trent who would like a chance to rent one of those affordable houses; there's no need to import a bunch of Londoners to fill them up.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I used to work for a county housing commission, the local provider of low-income government apartments and family townhouses...the rents were one-third of whatever income the individual/household had, adjusted for things like ongoing medical costs. I hardly see that as "scrounging"; one-third of one's income on housing is a higher percentage than most personal financial planners consider a healthy one.
Plus: In the American system, if such recipients get up the gumption to find a job/a better job and their income rises -- their rent rises so that, no matter what, they're always paying a third of their income, up to an income ceiling after which they must find other housing.
There's not a lot of positive incentive built into this system to wean working people from government housing; the working poor actually had disincentives to improve their jobs or working hours, because they couldn't get ahead; and if a raise or more hours tipped their income enough, they'd lose some important aspect of their aid package that wouldn't be made up by the increased income.
At least our properties had a lot of control in terms of requiring standards of cleanliness, tidiness and neighborly behavior; we were known for keeping a tight ship. We had to; we were constantly being audited and inspected by the feds. There's also a US program that provides the working poor and disabled with housing vouchers that can be applied toward "approved" other landlords; this housing is much more dicey because there's less oversight.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why should private landlords (many of whom are doing very nicely out of the housing market) be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of the populace simply because they derive their wealth from rents instead of a salary? Landlords are allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the house (including the cost of any mortgage payments) against the rent and are only charged tax on the profit they make, just like any other owner of a business. If you were not previously aware of this and have a spare property to rent out I suggest you take a look at the HMRC website for more details. Having tenants in a house is almost always better than leaving it empty.
I know exactly how the tax system works, thanks.
I was simply trying to suggest a way of incentivising landlords to keep rents low, by providing a tax break to keep rents at a certain level. This would be a more cost use of taxpayers money than paying huge amounts of housing benefit to the same landlords.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
There are a few issues here:
1) The whole letter to Stoke on Trent, followed by release to the press seems to be a clear put up job. it is a bit sad if that is what has happen for local government to get a message to central government - it doesn't seem very constructive. But then given it's a Labour council trying to embarrass rather than influence the Coalition, I don't suppose they're interested in being constructive.
2) Constructive strategies would include Sioni Sais's suggestion for some council appropriation rights for empty property (within reason and with protection for homes legitimately empty.) As well as that, all London councils should have a serious crackdown on illegal sub-letting of council property.
3) We need more affordable housing in London, so the government is going to have to invest, and the builders are going to have to build. Ken Livingstone committed to building a certain amount of affordable housing. He didn't however see through on that commitment for a couple of reasons. He was determined to get "landmark" buildings built, and therefore allowed these to get the go-ahead even without the agreed percentage of affordable housing. There was also a pretty big loophole in that developers were exempted from the affordable housing requirement if a certain amount of the development was "live/work". This led to widespread developments of "live/work" units, which were really just high spec apartments for professionals, and did not in fact lead to any growth in urban "cottage industry" whilst continuing to price key workers out of areas that were being developed and improved. So that loophole, if it is still there, has to go.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why should private landlords (many of whom are doing very nicely out of the housing market) be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of the populace simply because they derive their wealth from rents instead of a salary? Landlords are allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the house (including the cost of any mortgage payments) against the rent and are only charged tax on the profit they make, just like any other owner of a business. If you were not previously aware of this and have a spare property to rent out I suggest you take a look at the HMRC website for more details. Having tenants in a house is almost always better than leaving it empty.
I know exactly how the tax system works, thanks.
I was simply trying to suggest a way of incentivising landlords to keep rents low, by providing a tax break to keep rents at a certain level. This would be a more cost use of taxpayers money than paying huge amounts of housing benefit to the same landlords.
Hang on a minute.
If one owns or is buying a house there are two ways in which you gain
i) somewhere to live or rental income
ii) a capital gain as the house price increases
OK, rental income is taxed but costs of repairs are deductable, unlike putting a roof on one's own abode. A capital gain is taxed when it is realised.
Why anyone should leave anywhere empty beats me. We don't have the wild and woolly 1976 Rent Act any more. Hell, squatters have better tenure than shorthold tenants, so it pays every way to let rather than leave empty.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But must the taxpayer pay for Stoker to live in such expensive accommodation? Putting another way, what right has Stoker to insist on living somewhere at the taxpayer's expense that's too expensive for the taxpayer to live?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But must the taxpayer pay for Stoker to live in such expensive accommodation? Putting another way, what right has Stoker to insist on living somewhere at the taxpayer's expense that's too expensive for the taxpayer to live?
Now and again (and again) we are inclined to forget that taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed!
I don't think Stoker has any right to have the rent paid for an eight-bedroomed palace in stockbroker belt either, but it makes sense to pay that rather than expect him to move at his own expense to accomodation more befitting his reduced circumstances, as these may be temporary. It's a utilitarian thing, for the most part.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Creating a situation where the rich never have to encounter the poor, share their schooling, healthcare, streets etc creates little social uncentive to prevent the creation of ghettos of deprivation, gated communities and a divided society. Even Boris Johnson - hardly Marxist - has noticed this will be a problem.
If the councils had not been forced to sell off so much of their housing stock then the private landlords wouldn't have them over a barrel. (Incidentally, this is exactly what will happen with health and social care - private sector initially underbids state sector, then once you have tendered away most of the service - quelle surprise - the private sector prices go up.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]Hang on a minute.
If one owns or is buying a house there are two ways in which you gain
i) somewhere to live or rental income
ii) a capital gain as the house price increases
OK, rental income is taxed but costs of repairs are deductable, unlike putting a roof on one's own abode. A capital gain is taxed when it is realised.
Why anyone should leave anywhere empty beats me. We don't have the wild and woolly 1976 Rent Act any more. Hell, squatters have better tenure than shorthold tenants, so it pays every way to let rather than leave empty.
You seem to have fixated on the wrong bit. I was talking about both getting empty properties let AND getting current rents down.
I agree - it may be more beneficial to rent an empty property, but my main point on the tax incentives is that by offering a tax break to keep rent within a certain amount (which should be similar to a housing benefit cap) is better use of taxpayers money and benefits all tenants in the area.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]Hang on a minute.
If one owns or is buying a house there are two ways in which you gain
i) somewhere to live or rental income
ii) a capital gain as the house price increases
OK, rental income is taxed but costs of repairs are deductable, unlike putting a roof on one's own abode. A capital gain is taxed when it is realised.
Why anyone should leave anywhere empty beats me. We don't have the wild and woolly 1976 Rent Act any more. Hell, squatters have better tenure than shorthold tenants, so it pays every way to let rather than leave empty.
You seem to have fixated on the wrong bit. I was talking about both getting empty properties let AND getting current rents down.
I agree - it may be more beneficial to rent an empty property, but my main point on the tax incentives is that by offering a tax break to keep rent within a certain amount (which should be similar to a housing benefit cap) is better use of taxpayers money and benefits all tenants in the area.
Yup, my mistake. I expect the devil will all be in the detail and who will set the cap? Balancing the interest of landlords and tenants when there is a (sometimes artificial) housing shortage will be like a lasting peace in the Middle East.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I don't think I actually know anybody who spends £21,000 on accommodation per year.
£21,000 a year in rent is £1750 a month. Renting even a single room in a shared flat in London can cost £200 a week or more (= £800 a month or £9600 a year) - and that's only one room, never mind a whole flat. On that basis, while it sounds a lot, I don't find it difficult to believe that £21,000 is the likely annual rent for a three-bedroom house somewhere in the London area.
You see shared houses with 3-4 bedrooms being let for something like £400 pcm a room round here (which is not London), which nets the landlord something like £1600 a month, which is £19,200 a year. This is how landlords end up becoming professional property landlords, buying up other properties with the income they make purely out of rentals. There's never any question of the properties ever remaining vacant for long - demand is such that if you ring up at 9.30 am the day something is advertised, you may well find it's already gone.
Renting is a mug's game but once you are in it it can be quite difficult to save up enough to move on, or to eventually get a mortgage.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But must the taxpayer pay for Stoker to live in such expensive accommodation? Putting another way, what right has Stoker to insist on living somewhere at the taxpayer's expense that's too expensive for the taxpayer to live?
Depends how many kids he has, where his friends and other family are.
Before this dreadful government, it was already the case that NEW claims only paid enough rent to suit the person e.g. if a single person claimed fort a 2 bedroomed flat, s/he only got the price of one-bedroomed flat and was expected to move or pay extra.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tina
Shipmate
# 63
|
Posted
The £950 we pay in rent each month gets us a pleasant, small 2-bedroomed terrace house, in the next London 'village' east from where Spike was born and raised.
A quick visit to good ol' Rightmove shows that in Stoke-on-Trent such a house would cost around £350 per month, while £950 would cover the rent on a four-bedroomed detached house.
Thus we reasonably-paid folk have some choice about where we live (although I couldn't afford £950 per month if I either quit my London job or paid thousands of pounds a year to commute). We get to decide whether space, luxury or location are our most important criteria.
While I understand the sense of frustration at large rents coming out of the public purse, and sometimes to people who refuse to work, or who keep having shedloads of kids they can't support, forcing people away from their roots and support networks Is Just Wrong.
And of course, Housing Benefit:
a) is only £21k in exceptional circumstances (ie if you are eligible for a large property in an expensive area)
b) is only payable on properties at the lower end of (the lowest 30% IIRC) of the local market
c) is generally paid to landlords, not into the 'scrounger's' hands.
d) is paid to not only to unemployed people, but to disabled and elderly people and working people on low incomes (tut, tut, what irresponsible lifestyle choices to make) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Kindness is mandatory. Anger is necessary. Despair is a terrible idea. Despair is how they win. They won't win forever.
Posts: 503 | From: South London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Creating a situation where the rich never have to encounter the poor, share their schooling, healthcare, streets etc creates little social uncentive to prevent the creation of ghettos of deprivation, gated communities and a divided society. Even Boris Johnson - hardly Marxist - has noticed this will be a problem.
If the councils had not been forced to sell off so much of their housing stock then the private landlords wouldn't have them over a barrel. (Incidentally, this is exactly what will happen with health and social care - private sector initially underbids state sector, then once you have tendered away most of the service - quelle surprise - the private sector prices go up.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
If the councils had not been forced to sell off so much of their housing stock then the private landlords wouldn't have them over a barrel. (Incidentally, this is exactly what will happen with health and social care - private sector initially underbids state sector, then once you have tendered away most of the service - quelle surprise - the private sector prices go up.)
I couldn't agree more.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So we've got ourselves a situation where housing stock is limited and distressingly expensive, where private landlords dominate the rental sector and live, at least partially, on government handouts, and where the costs of commuting by public transport is in the hands of private rail or bus companies.
I would suggest firstly, an aggressive house building and refurbishment campaign to lower both rental and buying costs; secondly, an end to state handouts to private landlords and a tax on property itself, not just the profit gained from it; thirdly, renationalisation/transfer to a non-profit co-op of the capital's public transport network to make it cheaper to get to work from outlying areas.
We're essentially transferring money from poorer people to richer people through the tax and benefit system. Well done, everyone.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest firstly, an aggressive house building and refurbishment campaign to lower both rental and buying costs;
Where are you going to be building? The south-east is pretty built up already.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... No-one has the 'right' to live in the same area all their lives - we all have to go where the work is, where the housing is that we can afford (or, if we are asking taxpayers to pay for our housing, where the taxpayer can afford), etc. If either or both ain't there, then we can't afford to live there. I don't see why one group of us should be exempt from that basic fact at the -literal - expense of the rest of us.
The problem my town has is that the work is where no one can afford to live, result being a labour shortage. Because of inaction at every other level of government, the city has stepped in to support more affordable housing for people that they want to stay in the city: paramedics, nurses, firefighters, police, city engineering employees, etc. Lots of small service businesses have a hard time finding staff - no one is going to commute 2 hours each way for a 4 hour shift. So if the taxpayers want functional cities and economies, they'll want to make sure there is a range of housing available for every level of income and employment and type of household. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest firstly, an aggressive house building and refurbishment campaign to lower both rental and buying costs;
Where are you going to be building? The south-east is pretty built up already.
I've already posted that there are nearly 75,000 empty homes in London alone. That isn't all of the south-east by any means and thousands of them will have been empty for years. Councils already have the legal authority to take over unused homes but they often lack the will and, more importantly the funds.
I'd prefer that to new build, as the latter usually creates new communities which make demands for new infrastructure (utilities, schools and, if you're lucky, transport too).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
If the councils had not been forced to sell off so much of their housing stock then the private landlords wouldn't have them over a barrel. (Incidentally, this is exactly what will happen with health and social care - private sector initially underbids state sector, then once you have tendered away most of the service - quelle surprise - the private sector prices go up.)
I couldn't agree more.
This has been done before on here, but I'm still none the wiser. If the council owns a house (rather than a private landlord) and Mr Jones has been living in the house for the last 30 years, how does that affect Mr Smith's ability to find a place to live or the rent he has to pay?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest firstly, an aggressive house building and refurbishment campaign to lower both rental and buying costs;
Where are you going to be building? The south-east is pretty built up already.
Pretty built up?
So either the south-east has reached an unsustainable population, or there is room for more. If it's unsustainable, then there needs to be a huge intervention to disperse the existing population. If there's room for more (feel free to compare the population densities of London and places like Singapore and Manhattan), then we need to build smarter, supported by better infrastructure.
Which is it to be?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
