We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
25 Oct 17
18:27
Joined:
Date Joined:
27 Jan 02
It seems to me that reforming the broken housing market is a better solution than price-fixing. The dice are loaded heavily against tenants now. There are four measures which could return the market to sustainable, fair pricing.
1) Abolish the indefensible mortgage-tax-relief for landlords at once. It has STARTED to be phased out this year, yet landlords will continue to reap the benefits along the current timescale.
2) Make landlords liable for Council Tax. Most Council Tax is spent on enhancing around a landlord's property, thus protecting the value of the landlord's asset. In fact, the value of the landlord's property depends very heavily on the infastructure surrounding it, just like a butterfly needs a garden and a summer to sustain it. Only right, then, that the landlord rather than the tenant makes the contribution. Double the Council Tax for empty properties, and double it again if the house is still vacant after a year. This would go a long way to solve the supposed "housing shortage."
3) Tax rental-income the same as other unearned income such as share- dividends. Most landlords are very adept at avoiding any tax while sitting on their hands by re-investing profits into an expanding portfolio, exacerbating the disadvantage of aspiring house-owners in the buying market. There is no qualitative difference between rent and other forms of unearned income but the "Spare Room economy" so prevalent in the South East should be exempt from tax: the landlady renting out a room should continue to fall below the tax-threshold.
4) Reform Housing Benefit. The base of the pyramid that supports the whole housing market is set at a false level derived from from a broken market because only one party cares how much is paid; that being of course the landlord. The tenant has no interest in the price, since he is not liable for it.
Hope this chimes with some others' thoughts around this subject.
1) Abolish the indefensible mortgage-tax-relief for landlords at once. It has STARTED to be phased out this year, yet landlords will continue to reap the benefits along the current timescale.
2) Make landlords liable for Council Tax. Most Council Tax is spent on enhancing around a landlord's property, thus protecting the value of the landlord's asset. In fact, the value of the landlord's property depends very heavily on the infastructure surrounding it, just like a butterfly needs a garden and a summer to sustain it. Only right, then, that the landlord rather than the tenant makes the contribution. Double the Council Tax for empty properties, and double it again if the house is still vacant after a year. This would go a long way to solve the supposed "housing shortage."
3) Tax rental-income the same as other unearned income such as share- dividends. Most landlords are very adept at avoiding any tax while sitting on their hands by re-investing profits into an expanding portfolio, exacerbating the disadvantage of aspiring house-owners in the buying market. There is no qualitative difference between rent and other forms of unearned income but the "Spare Room economy" so prevalent in the South East should be exempt from tax: the landlady renting out a room should continue to fall below the tax-threshold.
4) Reform Housing Benefit. The base of the pyramid that supports the whole housing market is set at a false level derived from from a broken market because only one party cares how much is paid; that being of course the landlord. The tenant has no interest in the price, since he is not liable for it.
Hope this chimes with some others' thoughts around this subject.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 71
|
By:
theres no way of solving the problem the genies out of the bottle and no way of squeezing it back in,by trying to right previous wrongs you,ll just trap people who,ve already bought at historic highs into a life of negativity equity and unable to move
|
|
By:
Concrete over the Green Belt. Build millions of homes watch the market collapse.
Either that or depopulation by 25%. |
|
By:
Charge the landlord council tax and it will only go onto the rental cost. What sort of policy is that ?
|
|
By:
The law was changed in N.Ireland to make the landlord responsible for council tax.
This was because the tenants used to clear off owing thousands in tax (millions to the local councils) and it was the devils own job to try and track them down and take them to court and get any money back. So it was obviously easier to make the landlord responsible, but of course this just meant that it was put onto the cost of renting. |
|
By:
In effect it made rents higher for the tenant.
|
|
By:
AFAIK being a landlord is already not nearly as good moneywise as it used to be, and landlords may be pulling out?
It's about supply and demand, the above is .. well .. it's not addressing that. |
|
By:
if you attempt to tax rental income too punitively you will find housing being rented out and no tax being paid.
|
|
By:
Why is housing so expensive? because millions of people don't have to pay for their housing.
Address that and you are mainly there. |
|
By:
One of the biggest problems in rentals was caused by Chris Mullin,the labour MP who fought for a change in the law that stopped benefit being paid directly to the landlord. A laudable sentiment that had the unintended consequence of producing a slice of tenants who could not manage their finances and couldnt pay the rent,an item that came some way behind mobiles,TV's and lager,and facing eviction. Many landlords then stopped considering benefits claimants from private rentals and teh many suffered because of the few.
|
|
By:
In practise, landlords pay less tax than roadsweepers.
In principle, there is no qualitative reason why rental income should be taxed differently to, say, share-dividend income. To address the specific points: 1st time poster: There is no reason why a house-buyer should have his investment protected, above an investor in the stock-market or the 15:15 race. Is there? The Baron: There is no need for either of your options. 99.9% of the population have a roof over their head tonight - the pressure for more houses stems from one reason: greed or, to put it in middle-class terms, "it's for the kids." Without the expectation of ever-rising house-prices, there would be no housing-shortage. treetop - No, that threat is not logical. If landlords could charge another hundred a month, they wouldn't need the excuse of Council Tax, they would be doing it to tenants already. Just Checking - "Landlords may be pulling out." Great. Celebrate the parasites leaving the host. Some context in the debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099v2zr Landlords have it easier here than just about anywhere in the world. Resulting in a society that values your parent's house higher than your creativity or work-ethic, a recipe for long-term disaster for the UK. |
|
By:
Landlords can only charge what the tenant, or somebody else can afford to pay.
It the tenant is paying 100 a month less in council tax to the council he can pay 100 more to the landlord. |
|
By:
- No, that threat is not logical. If landlords could charge another hundred a month, they wouldn't need the excuse of Council Tax, they would be doing it to tenants already.
That is precisely what would happen ub,no landlord would absorb that extra cost and take the risk of the property being trashed as well.The agents do the calcs when assessing a prospective tenant. |
|
By:
that's how it works in practice over time, rents go up.
|
|
By:
landlords are providing housing for the countries population, its a very important thing and should receive some form of incentive and help.
|
|
By:
when we have housing difficulties in Britain, (which are inevitable with the increase in population over the last few years)
it is madness to try and make things more difficult for landlords. |
|
By:
We don't have to ask what will happen, it has been implemented in N. Ireland...although for different and more sensible reasons than that proposed by biscuits
Have rents fallen since this change, I don't know but I doubt it. |
|
By:
treetop - When the landlord hikes his rent by £100, buying becomes more attractive to a certain privileged sector of tenants, another demographic will be enticed into a "Spare Room" arrangement, and the disparity between the cost to market renters and the rest of the country becomes even more obscene. Provided landlords suffer from the other three pressure points, we would enjoy a shakeout in the btl market; everyone's happy; a few greedy victims excepted.
|
|
By:
I am sorry but whilst I applaud some of the sentiment I do believe the reality ends up being more painful for the tenants.The ones that would suffer would probably be the poorest who may currently get council tax relief towards their costs might but face higher rental payments or worse property options.
|
|
By:
The poorest are on Housing Benefit, they have no interest at all in the price they pay to their landlords.
|
|
By:
that's why it will have no effect on the value of housing either, except to push housing values up.
|
|
By:
they don't have to pay the increased costs, we do, someone has to pay it and it isn't the landlord
|
|
By:
It is best to let lfc1971 "widdle on" until his incontinent thought-train dries.
|
|
By:
you see if someone is paying for housing then that is one thing, they can only pay what they can afford.
However if someone else is paying, nobody in particular, everyone and no one, then it is surprising how much can be paid. |
|
By:
Yes, very good point, lfc1971. Well done.
Could somebody else converse with him, please? |
|
By:
of course people long for that home, the home they've never had.
|
|
By:
if you do not give the people shelter they will perish. Before they perish they will rise up and ask
an honest question. The answer shall decide the consequence. |
|
By:
And if the government were to implement biscuits silly proposals and rents didn't fall would that matter to biscuits ?
No, because he is driven more by a desire to harm landlords than to help tenants That's a very silly way to go about things. |
|
By:
Houses, gardens ...and people .
These are things I understand. |
|
By:
You do seem to understand biscuits as well.
|
|
By:
What about:-
Extra tax breaks on new builds for landlords, such as tax-free profits on rents for the first five years to encourage new house building? And to encourage landlords to accept LHA tenants: A guarantee from the government that LHA tenants will have any damage they cause put right for free from the council concerned. A further guarantee that any rents they withhold from the landlord will also be made good by the council. Then fully reinstate mortgage tax relief for landlords. Let's get the housing market moving and the builders building. Come on UB, you know it makes sense. Even to a heartless person like yourself, who would rather see people sleeping on park benches rather than see a business person turning a profit. |
|
By:
We need to relieve landlords of their unfair advantages, otherwise there is no rebalancing the housing market. That is bad in itself but worse for the future of the UK - when our children see that entitlement outweighs hard-work and creativity, hard-work and creativity will leach away from these shores.
|
|
By:
UB I'm a landlord, just the one property. All repairs are made within a week of being reported to me. Before the current tenant moved in a new oven, hob and carpets were put in plus fresh paint. All I could claim for was the paint. My tenant was told not to use the loft.......its full ! No pets, she's got a cat !!!!!! So don't think I'm to bad a landlord. And out of interest I receive a rent of £800 a month, probably could get more down here in Sussex. How would your proposal for rent control affect me ?
|
|
By:
Ufcdan- You would pay tax on the £800, paye about £200. You would also be liable for Council Tax on the property. And if I am paying your rent for her (if she claims Housing Benefit) we'll be having a look at that arrangement too.
|
|
By:
4) Reform Housing Benefit. The base of the pyramid that supports the whole housing market is set at a false level derived from from a broken market because only one party cares how much is paid; that being of course the landlord. The tenant has no interest in the price, since he is not liable for it.
Isn't housing benefit "capped" now. Meaning that the tenant won't get necessarily get the full value of their monthly rent paid by the council - depending on the size of the property / number of people living there etc? Therefore the tenant is forced to find the extra rent themselves, by hook or by crook. This incites landlords to shun those on benefits or forces them to shack up ten to the dozen. The housing market in this country is a proper game of monopoly. One in the latter stages, where there is nothing left to buy up, and you know everywhere you land you're gonna pay through the nose. |
|
By:
dontwin2easy - Private landlords suck out £200 million a week in LHA from you and me via the Exchequer; cash which is then spent to outbid honest prospective house-buyers, for the purpose of landlords avoiding tax. It's a broken market, as you say, like Monopoly. We all know how that game ends.
|
|
By:
ufcdan - Your situation would be altogether better than was sketched out above. There is currently and justifiably a £7,500 allowance that is tax-free, that would be yours to start with. You would only pay the marginal rate of tax on the balance - about £40 a month.
|
|
By:
The best figures I can quickly find are...approx 4m private renters. About 1.5m housing benefit private renters.
Most private renters are not on housing benefit. |
|
By:
That is true, Jack, but LHA raises the level of the whole market by acting as a base-rate (you won't find anywhere a place to rent below LHA).
|
|
By:
UB simply wants to punish private landlords for turning a profit.
He cares nothing for the consequences of legislation as long as the end product would frustrate landlords. And fewer landlords means fewer houses available for occupation through loss of newly renovated properties for the rental market and new builds. Would not it be better to stimulate house building and try to relieve the pressure on the demand for housing? This is a clear comparison of the destruction that socialist thinking promotes. Against the success of free market principles. Not one word about taking the pressure off the demand for houses in the rented sector. Simply an attack on private landlords which would lead to fewer houses to rent and fewer houses being built. And there you have the results of socialist thinking in a nutshell. |