Labour government would force landlords to offer indefinite tenancies Watch

Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 week ago
#81
(Original post by Quady)
Same as shares then.

Free money for everyone!
Winston Churchill said it best:

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.
They talk of the increased profits of a doctor or lawyer from the growth of population in the town in which they live. They talk of the profits of a railway, from the growing wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They talk of the profits from a rise in stocks and even the profits derived from the sale of works of art.

But see how misleading and false all those analogies are. The windfalls from the sale of a picture -- a Van Dyke or a Holbein -- may be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody's way. They do not lay a toll on anybody's labor; they do not touch enterprise and production; they do not affect the creative processes on which the material well-being of millions depends.

If a rise in stocks confers profits on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected or indeed deserved, nevertheless that profit was not reaped by withholding from the community the land which it needs; on the contrary, it was reaped by supplying industry with the capital without which it could not be carried on.

If a railway makes greater profits it is usually because it carries more goods and more passengers.

If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better practice, it is because the doctor attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits.

At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for his fees.

Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 week ago
#82
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing.
Ahem. As he is a landlord he is, by definition, making his property available to others in return for a rent. He is not, therefore, sitting back and doing nothing.

He is fulfilling his purpose and providing a service to people in need of homes. These people either do not wish to own his property, or do not wish to live in it for long, or cannot afford to buy that property, yet can afford the rent it. In all these cases he is providing a useful and valuable service.

Indeed, he himself would not receive an income if he simply sat back and did nothing, as he could, preferring instead to awat the rise in value of his idle land, benefitting nobody else in the meanwhile.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 week ago
#83
(Original post by Good bloke)
Ahem. As he is a landlord he is, by definition, making his property available to others in return for a rent. He is not, therefore, sitting back and doing nothing.

He is fulfilling his purpose and providing a service to people in need of homes. These people either do not wish to own his property, or do not wish to live in it for long, or cannot afford to buy that property, yet can afford the rent it. In all these cases he is providing a useful and valuable service.

Indeed, he himself would not receive an income if he simply sat back and did nothing, as he could, preferring instead to awat the rise in value of his idle land, benefitting nobody else in the meanwhile.
Rent is, by definition, unearned. If the landlord didn't own that property, it would still exist. If they owned it but chose not to rent it out, then they incur an opportunity cost equal to its rental value. If they chose to live in it as a primary residence, they would be paying imputed rent to themselves. Economically speaking he or she is providing nothing.
Last edited by Captain Haddock; 1 week ago
1
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 week ago
#84
This is hardly a radical policy. It's basically what they have in Germany. To me this policy is nothing more than an acceptance of the fact that the myth of Britain as a 'property-owning democracy' is all but dead for a great many people. What we experienced was a fleeting 'golden age' of property ownership that many have been able to take advantage of simply by being born at the right time. Now they have seen an enormous windfall increment to their wealth, and have leveraged this privileged position to impose grievous exactions on the young and worse off. If we are making the transition to a rental society then measures like this are imperative to ensure that people have access to secure accommodation. And where better to look for policy direction than Germany, where 60% of people rent their homes - and I do mean homes, not just houses or flats - and do so quite happily for the most part, without suffering the same affordability crisis we are seeing in places like London today.
Last edited by Captain Haddock; 1 week ago
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 week ago
#85
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Economically speaking he or she is providing nothing.
Well the taxman is a fraud, then, deducting tax from nothing, as he must. Perhaps there is a magic money tree after all, if the property owner can prove nothing valuable and yet pay tax on that nothing. We should encourage everyone to become a landlord, do nothing, and create further wealth that the taxman can benefit from.
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
TWhat we experienced was a fleeting 'golden age' of property ownership that many have been able to take advantage of simply by being born at the right time. Now they have seen an enormous windfall increment to their wealth, and have leveraged this privileged position to impose grievous exactions on the young and worse off.
We have experienced a fleeting golden age of mortgage rates at 15% and two year queues to qualify for that mortgage. We are now experiencing a golden age of the people who agitate fror free movement of people complaining of the effects when that movement causes a shortage of property to be available and to rise in price to the extent that native young cannot afford it while immigrant not-so-young can afford it.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 week ago
#86
(Original post by Good bloke)
Well the taxman is a fraud, then, deducting tax from nothing, as he must. Perhaps there is a magic money tree after all, if the property owner can prove nothing valuable and yet pay tax on that nothing. We should encourage everyone to become a landlord, do nothing, and create further wealth that the taxman can benefit from.

We have experienced a fleeting golden age of mortgage rates at 15% and two year queues to qualify for that mortgage. We are now experiencing a golden age of the people who agitate fror free movement of people complaining of the effects when that movement causes a shortage of property to be available and to rise in price to the extent that native young cannot afford it while immigrant not-so-young can afford it.
What part of the concept of 'unearned income' is so difficult for you to digest? They are not deducting tax from nothing. They are deducting tax from rent. The rent is real. That doesn't mean it isn't unearned.
.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 week ago
#87
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
What part of the concept of 'unearned income' is so difficult for you to digest? They are not deducting tax from nothing. They are deducting tax from rent. The rent is real. That doesn't mean it isn't unearned.
Unearned simply means that it didn't come from normal employment in a job and that is is a receipt from an asset, in this case property. In the less narrow, non-tax-related meaning of 'earned' the rent is earned by the provision of a service or benefit - housing.

If the landlord has received a rent then the tenant benefitted by living in the house. You may claim that no net economic benefit resulted but the fact remains that the tenant has a home that he found worthwhile to pay for, the landlord has an income he would not otherwise have had, and the taxman has some tax. That sounds like a net economic benefit for everyone to me.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 week ago
#88
(Original post by Good bloke)
Unearned simply means that it didn't come from normal employment in a job and that is is a receipt from an asset, in this case property. In the less narrow, non-tax-related meaning of 'earned' the rent is earned by the provision of a service or benefit - housing.

If the landlord has received a rent then the tenant benefitted by living in the house. You may claim that no net economic benefit resulted but the fact remains that the tenant has a home that he found worthwhile to pay for, the landlord has an income he would not otherwise have had, and the taxman has some tax. That sounds like a net economic benefit for everyone to me.
Landlords do not provide housing. House builders do. The landlord would still, strictly speaking, have that income if he/she chose to live in the house instead. That's imputed rent. They used to tax that as well, just like any other rental income. Now try getting your head around that!
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 week ago
#89
(Original post by ThomH97)
You use the money from tenants to pay for services they would be able to find (or do) themselves. As a 'big' landlord, you can perhaps claim your service is getting lower prices and more reliable repairs as you can build relationships with the contractors. Then again, you might just outsource that to a property management company as many do.

But the main point is, do you think any of your tenants want to own their own home? And do you see that your (and other landlords') actions of buying properties make it more difficult for tenants in a way that is profoundly unequal (details earlier)?

The right to buy is fine as long as there's a requirement on the property that it be lived in by the owner, a requirement that continues no matter who it's sold to (obviously make them aware of this). The problem came more specifically from landlords buying the right to buy homes to let them.
Yes they do but they cannot afford it, how it that my fault? I'm buying property at market value in not getting a discount, the market is desided by supply and demand and political happenings. How am I stopping anyone ow img their own home, i/we don't control the market, the government we electe does! We just have to live in the world the majority vote for.

Which brings me to TRTB and you are Wrong, absolutely totally wrong the right to buy is exactly what has caused the private renting boom that people like myself have capitalised on. You either belive in the free market or you believe in state housing you can't have you cake and eat it, if you buy the house off the council you live in it, when it is passed on to your children as inheritance you are going to dictate how people spend that money?

The right to buy us a disaster of a political policy, it's cost the taxpayer and chocked affordable housing for million of people.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 week ago
#90
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Landlords do not provide housing. House builders do. The landlord would still, strictly speaking, have that income if he/she chose to live in the house instead. That's imputed rent. They used to tax that as well, just like any other rental income. Now try getting your head around that!
No you can only make tangible money from the property market if you have more than one property, you cannot possibly make money on the house you live in regardless of market values.

Economics was removed from the NC and desperately needs to be reintroduced
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 week ago
#91
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
No you can only make tangible money from the property market if you have more than one property, you cannot possibly make money on the house you live in regardless of market values.

Economics was removed from the NC and desperately needs to be reintroduced
If you are an owner-occupier you are effectively paying rent to yourself, in lieu of renting somebody else's property. It's a weird concept but economically it's an important one when considering things like national income and, until relatively recently, taxable income. From Wikipedia:

"More formally, in owner-occupancy, the landlord–tenant relationship is short-circuited. Consider a model: two people, A and B, each of whom owns property. If A lives in B's property, and B lives in A's, two financial transactions take place: each pays rent to the other. But if A and B are both owner-occupiers, no money changes hands even though the same economic relationships exists; there are still two owners and two occupiers, but the transactions between them no longer go through the market. The amount that would have changed hands had the owner and occupier been different persons is the imputed rent. Imputed rents can alternatively be understood as returns to investments in assets. On these grounds, imputed rents might be included in disposable income, e.g. when calculating indices of income distribution."
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 week ago
#92
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Landlords do not provide housing. House builders do.
But not to people who cannot afford to buy, and to the disadvantage of people who want something for a short period. Landlords step in to fill the gap. Perhaps you would prefer the gap to gape.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 week ago
#93
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
If you are an owner-occupier you are effectively paying rent to yourself, in lieu of renting somebody else's property. It's a weird concept but economically it's an important one when considering things like national income and, until relatively recently, taxable income. From Wikipedia:

"More formally, in owner-occupancy, the landlord–tenant relationship is short-circuited. Consider a model: two people, A and B, each of whom owns property. If A lives in B's property, and B lives in A's, two financial transactions take place: each pays rent to the other. But if A and B are both owner-occupiers, no money changes hands even though the same economic relationships exists; there are still two owners and two occupiers, but the transactions between them no longer go through the market. The amount that would have changed hands had the owner and occupier been different persons is the imputed rent. Imputed rents can alternatively be understood as returns to investments in assets. On these grounds, imputed rents might be included in disposable income, e.g. when calculating indices of income distribution."
Recently? Unless you want to count rates as an imputed rent tax, Britain abandoned this even before it stopped charging an upper rate of income tax of 99%.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 week ago
#94
(Original post by Good bloke)
But not to people who cannot afford to buy, and to the disadvantage of people who want something for a short period. Landlords step in to fill the gap. Perhaps you would prefer the gap to gape.
This really has no bearing on whether or not the income is 'earned'. Whether or not you're ok with it is more a question of ideology than economics.
(Original post by Good bloke)
Recently? Unless you want to count rates as an imputed rent tax, Britain abandoned this even before it stopped charging an upper rate of income tax of 99%.
Wasn't it abolished in the 60s? Maybe it's the Medievalist in me but I'd call that relatively recent.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 week ago
#95
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Wasn't it abolished in the 60s? Maybe it's the Medievalist in me but I'd call that relatively recent.
It is a bit tricky to class the 1960s as recent, especially in the field of income tax that changes literally every year, when it is well outside the living memory of all but a handful of your audience.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 week ago
#96
(Original post by Good bloke)
It is a bit tricky to class the 1960s as recent, especially in the field of income tax that changes literally every year, when it is well outside the living memory of all but a handful of your audience.
Who cares?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 week ago
#97
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Who cares?
Those being tricked?
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 week ago
#98
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Yes they do but they cannot afford it, how it that my fault? I'm buying property at market value in not getting a discount, the market is desided by supply and demand and political happenings. How am I stopping anyone ow img their own home, i/we don't control the market, the government we electe does! We just have to live in the world the majority vote for.

Which brings me to TRTB and you are Wrong, absolutely totally wrong the right to buy is exactly what has caused the private renting boom that people like myself have capitalised on. You either belive in the free market or you believe in state housing you can't have you cake and eat it, if you buy the house off the council you live in it, when it is passed on to your children as inheritance you are going to dictate how people spend that money?

The right to buy us a disaster of a political policy, it's cost the taxpayer and chocked affordable housing for million of people.
It's not your fault individually, but collectively that is the effect of landlords. They decrease the number of properties available to buy (which also increases their price), they take money in rent that would go towards a tenant's deposit, they spend that rent money on another mortgage or deposit etc, and those are just the direct consequences. Or do you disagree that those happen? I'm not calling for you to be locked up for this, but I do want the government to at least reduce the negative impact that landlords have and are increasingly having.

When you said right to buy was disastrous, what did you mean? Restricting what someone can do with an item is nothing new, be it a knife, digital files, a pet, etc. Given that so many people do want the security of their own home (which this Labour policy does actually try to combat), and this is becoming increasingly difficult, why shouldn't the government try to help?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 week ago
#99
(Original post by ThomH97)
they take money in rent that would go towards a tenant's deposit,
No they don't. You cannot pay a purchase deposit from income as you can rent (that is a just a fact of life) and, if you wish to save a deposit from income, you still need somewhere to live while you save it. Do you expect that accommodation to cost nothing? Or do you need someone to allow you to live in a property he owns for easily manageable monthly payments while you do that saving? If you do we could call him a landlord for convenience.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 week ago
#100
"O lackaday, for want of common sense I have once more found myself swindled by that dastardly internet sea captain and his devilish devices. Is there nobody here who will stand up to this brutish rogue once and for all?"
(Original post by Good bloke)
Those being tricked?
"God be praised!"
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (93)
16.61%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (58)
10.36%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (99)
17.68%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (84)
15%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (56)
10%
How can I be the best version of myself? (170)
30.36%

Watched Threads

View All