Benefits...Again!

Mikey23

It amazes me how resourceful they can be... The ones I support have quite a profitable sideline delivering local free papers. This is conducted in the name of the 15 year old son still at school rather than the dad who has a 'bad back'. But they all pile out on a Friday night, do the deliveries and share the booty.

Mikey23

@ mr goo ... And no way onto the housing ladder therefore no progression through it...

ballysmate

Mr Goo
You are preaching to the converted about the people who believe they have a right to be kept at others expense.
We may well be in a minority on here, as there a fair few posters with much more liberal views.
The cost of housing is down to supply and demand, I'm afraid.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Mr Goo
You are preaching to the converted about the people who believe they have a right to be kept at others expense.
We may well be in a minority on here, as there a fair few posters with much more liberal views.
The cost of housing is down to supply and demand, I'm afraid.

Yes that may well be so but buy to let allows free reign to raise rents to a level that is way above peoples ability to afford, so housing benefit goes up to 18billion a yr, a large part of that goes into the pockets of very wealthy and shrewd investors, they target low price housing, which means there is less housing at the bottom end, to actually buy as a home, more houses get built, more become buy to let and so it goes on.
the shift from the "deserving" hard working class to social layabouts came mainly due to the collapse in manufacturing industries and the shocking decline in educational stds, few apprentices in manual trade, so we import foreign workers and the rise in "i want it all now culture"
For those that do get manual jobs, the very Low wages then need toppin up by tax credits etc ALL of the above mean i pay fuggin huge amounts of tax for shocking public services and to make rich people even wealthier, take dividends from their bogus companies, employ their wives etc and pay even less tax.

Not everyone lives in Camerons nice true blue, family orriented England, some kids have no family structure, no safe plc to live and without benefits they ll be on the streets, allowing U25s with kids to keep HB (which is how he plans to get round this) will just lead to more "families of convienience" fanfuggintastic :roll:

morstar

As a Liberal minded individual, I actually don't have problem with success being rewarded or benefits being harder to come by.
I do however, have a huge f***in problem with constant attacks on benefits whilst there is no onus on job creation or actual wealth distribution.
Business leaders perpetually moan about minimum wage whilst those same directors salaries have risen totally disproportionately. Housing is a massive issue driving the wage demands as already said. The latest solution is just refuelling a housing boom because house prices HAVE to be rising.
I don't have all the answers but the solutions lie in tackling greed and laziness simultaneously.
It's easy to attack the have nots because don't have a voice but not all of them are actually lazy. The greedy are equally as despicable as the lazy. They just have a much stronger lobby.

pinno

VTech wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Buy to let is the real thing that needs addressing, this causes massive rents, escallating housing benefit, even for those in work - cap rents for start, its done in the US.
the insanely low min wage allows teso/banks etc to make huge profits on low salaries that we who are net tax payers then subsidise, thru various working benefits.

Margaret Thatcher got rid of the rent authority which capped what landlords could charge. We need a re-institution if the rent authority - capped rates set on a local basis. I doubt the tories would do that because they would never upset the landlord voters and do a U turn on a policy set by the fairy godmother herself.

VTech wrote:

The rents are capped already based on rooms and locations.

Oh yeah ? Where ? Spouting Bollox again Vtech ? There's a competition for that in BB, you're welcome to spout.

Your incredibly rude, especially when you have little idea of the law and how rents are capped.
I rent out 4 houses, all of them at capped rates and all of them I rent for BELOW the capped rates to families with children who are autistic and one to a couple who are pensioners. None of them wash there hands and all cost me money so please, for the love of god stop being a total pr4t and get your head around the fact that VTech knows more than you on the odd subject.

That's a voluntarist approach based on the fair nature of people who take it upon themselves to offer such terms. It is not a national policy. Is it enforceable by local council? Are those capped levels simply not arbitrary?

Mikey23

Fair rents? National policy administered locally. Enforceable? Yes. Arbitrary? Based on local conditions and according to case lore

Mikey23

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-tena ... ancy-types

This sets out the legalities fairly well...

fast as fupp

Regulated tenancies

Tenancies starting before 15 January 1989 may be regulated. You’ll have increased protection from eviction and can apply for a ‘fair rent’ .

how many private tenants live in the same property they were renting before 15/01/89?

not many ill bet.

the fact is landlords will screw as much housing benefit from their properties as the can, the thieving bassads.

daviesee

fast as fupp wrote:

Regulated tenancies

Tenancies starting before 15 January 1989 may be regulated. You’ll have increased protection from eviction and can apply for a ‘fair rent’ .

how many private tenants live in the same property they were renting before 15/01/89?

not many ill bet.

the fact is landlords will screw as much housing benefit from their properties as the can, the thieving bassads.

Thank you all for providing me with a new pension plan.

pinno

daviesee wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

Regulated tenancies

Tenancies starting before 15 January 1989 may be regulated. You’ll have increased protection from eviction and can apply for a ‘fair rent’ .

how many private tenants live in the same property they were renting before 15/01/89?

not many ill bet.

the fact is landlords will screw as much housing benefit from their properties as the can, the thieving bassads.

Thank you all for providing me with a new pension plan.

No chance - you're penny wise and pound poor.

daviesee

pinarello001 wrote:

No chance - you're penny wise and pound poor.

Wherever did you get the idea that I was penny wise?

Mikey23

i know one or two folks that do this buy to let stuff. we did consider it ourselves but concluded that it isnt worth the aggro. a heck of a lot of expense and commitment and the profit margins arent really that much more than sticking your money in the building society and a darned sight riskier

VTech

fast as fupp wrote:

Regulated tenancies

Tenancies starting before 15 January 1989 may be regulated. You’ll have increased protection from eviction and can apply for a ‘fair rent’ .

how many private tenants live in the same property they were renting before 15/01/89?

not many ill bet.

the fact is landlords will screw as much housing benefit from their properties as the can, the thieving bassads.

Its not possible.
When you have a tenant and charge more than the fair rent level they come and inspect and set a new fee.
Of course as landlord you can charge more than the fair rent but the DSS will NOT pay more than fair rent value.

daviesee

Mikey23 wrote:

i know one or two folks that do this buy to let stuff. we did consider it ourselves but concluded that it isnt worth the aggro. a heck of a lot of expense and commitment and the profit margins arent really that much more than sticking your money in the building society and a darned sight riskier

But is sounds like such an easy money maker from what I read on here.

mr_goo

The buy to let trend is just one of the contributors to inflated house prices. Others factors are obviously the shortage in properties at the entry level, not including social housing and the small family home sizes (3-4 beds).
One of the main factors for the shortage in this area is the obligation of the developer to provide a percentage of the development for social housing. These have to be built at a higher 'code for sustainable homes' level than those for private sale, which is completely daft. This obviously means that the cost is passed onto the private buyer.
It also makes it difficult for the developer to sell the private houses. Why would prospective home owners forking out £250-£300k for a 2-3 bed house want to be on the same development as a 'council tenant'. I can hear the cries of the liberal wrist wringers even as I type. But this is a reality of human nature, and our predisposition to acquire material goods that categorise us and align us into different social demographics.

Getting back on subject with the Benefits issue and claimant bashing. It is merely a policy that David Camoron hopes will recapture disaffected conservative voters. The same can be said for Red Eds freeze on fuel prices. Both are just topical policies to capture votes that will only be to the benefit of MPs.

If we want a fair and just society for all then Socialism is obviously the only way to go. But we are human, and some people are more equal than others. Therefore it cannot work.

Just going off to read my little red book.

morstar

Mikey23 wrote:

i know one or two folks that do this buy to let stuff. we did consider it ourselves but concluded that it isnt worth the aggro. a heck of a lot of expense and commitment and the profit margins arent really that much more than sticking your money in the building society and a darned sight riskier

The nominal profit from rent income is almost irrelevant. The housing boom was about the asset growing at an inordinate rate. Which it did for a long time.

daviesee

morstar wrote:

The nominal profit from rent income is almost irrelevant. The housing boom was about the asset growing at an inordinate rate. Which it did for a long time.

Does that mean that the bubble has burst and I have missed the gravy train?

morstar

daviesee wrote:

morstar wrote:

The nominal profit from rent income is almost irrelevant. The housing boom was about the asset growing at an inordinate rate. Which it did for a long time.

Does that mean that the bubble has burst and I have missed the gravy train?

Who knows? Logic post credit crunch suggested house prices needed to realign.
Market stagnated but never realigned and now policies are in place to reignite the market.
It'd be a gamble, but it could well pay off.

VTech

The bubble hasn't burst, it went offline for a while but unless we stop breading and the need for homes declines, or the sea levels retreat giving us more land the prices will go up.
The fool is the man who buys to quickly make a profit, if you set it as a long term plan your almost certainly onto a winner.

verylonglegs

Interest rates were dropped to a record low in order to prop the economy up, if you are talking house prices then this needs to be considered.

morstar

VTech wrote:

The bubble hasn't burst, it went offline for a while but unless we stop breading and the need for homes declines, or the sea levels retreat giving us more land the prices will go up.
The fool is the man who buys to quickly make a profit, if you set it as a long term plan your almost certainly onto a winner.

There's a big assumption in there that the economy continues on a generally upward trend. What if total borrowing properly bites us in the arse in the next few years. Regardless of party politics, we are very finely poised between continuing growth and total economic collapse.

mamba80

Unless HB is tackled and the only way to do that is to go bac to rent caps and council housing, then the overall benefits bill will just keep going up, tackling 200,000 long term unemployed willdo nothing, even if they ALL got jobs, they d almost all be low skilled and low pay, they d still be on benefits, probably more than before :?

But cameron wont do this nor will Milliface, they are all at it either directly or via "family and friends"
As Vtech said "your on to a winner"

morstar

But doesn't that still rely on the principle that the bubble doesn't burst.
Greece, Spain, Italy, Japan and others indicate that the unthinkable can and does happen. A property empire won't hold up under those circumstances.
Cash in the mattress would be my suggestion.

daviesee

morstar wrote:

But doesn't that still rely on the principle that the bubble doesn't burst.
Greece, Spain, Italy, Japan and others indicate that the unthinkable can and does happen. A property empire won't hold up under those circumstances.
Cash in the mattress would be my suggestion.

Good idea.
Whats your address so I can come round and discuss it?

VTech

Again, depends on wether your after a quick profit but most people who buy to let aren't.
Also, people keep posting about the fix being rent caps but ill say it again, thats already in place.

I would still suggest buying property and apart from Spain as they change the rules on British property owners on a weekly basis I would reckon all the other countries mentioned above will reap rewards for those who can afford to maintain payments on those properties.

We have just been through the worst recession since the 1920's and some say it was worse yet you find me a house valued less today that 20 years ago and ill show you 5,000,000 that have gained in value.

If your paying into a pension thinking those in charge will do whats right for YOUR future then I feel for you, it may not be right but having buy-to-lets is the safest option.

morstar

ERM Daviesee, hate to disappoint but, the £2.50 in my mattress probably isn't worth the hassle.
Vtech, are we really through it? Borrowing is sustaining the illusion of growth at the minute. Not playing party politics, that's the situation created over many years by blue and red parties. Until that is fundamentally altered, we're a house of cards. Brings us back to OP and benefits capping but what about real sustainable growth?

VTech

morstar wrote:

ERM Daviesee, hate to disappoint but, the £2.50 in my mattress probably isn't worth the hassle.
Vtech, are we really through it? Borrowing is sustaining the illusion of growth at the minute. Not playing party politics, that's the situation created over many years by blue and red parties. Until that is fundamentally altered, we're a house of cards. Brings us back to OP and benefits capping but what about real sustainable growth?

I agree with what your saying. Your only really through it for as long as you can afford the payments. I personally dont have a pension plan so for me it was always about renting to buy properties which had a considerable value wiped off through 2008/2009 but I wasnt in it for the short game and still sit at a payback of 10-12 years remaining.
I have chose to rule my own destiny so to speak and at times I do think that was the right choice although it started out due to me wasting my earlier years of pension payments thinking id never get old.

964cup

The government focus on benefits because there's not much else they can do. There's a limit (pace Mr Keynes) to what they can do to encourage genuine growth; we have an ageing population with ever greater health expectations but cutting NHS funding or pensions would be political suicide. Laffer et al have shown that after a certain point increasing the tax rate reduces the amount of tax collected, but in any case ultimately there simply isn't enough potential tax revenue to carry on funding the present level of state expenditure, That's not to say that they shouldn't be chasing tax evaders; of course they should. Unless, though, you support communist-style forced redistribution of capital wealth, the only way to narrow the wealth gap is for more people to become (more) productive.

daviesee

964Cup wrote:

The government focus on benefits because there's not much else they can do. There's a limit (pace Mr Keynes) to what they can do to encourage genuine growth; we have an ageing population with ever greater health expectations but cutting NHS funding or pensions would be political suicide. Laffer et al have shown that after a certain point increasing the tax rate reduces the amount of tax collected, but in any case ultimately there simply isn't enough potential tax revenue to carry on funding the present level of state expenditure, That's not to say that they shouldn't be chasing tax evaders; of course they should. Unless, though, you support communist-style forced redistribution of capital wealth, the only way to narrow the wealth gap is for more people to become (more) productive.

In summary. If you cant beat em, join em.