Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Jippy said:
That gentrification doesn't happen overnight though. I lived on Commercial Road about 25 years ago and it's still a shithole now.

Linking rent to mortgage payments would still result in massive inequalities by your example if some are paying a fraction of what others are, purely down to random factors like when they move into an area or what the prevailing interest rates are. Landlords need to have a cushion too, eg this year we had to replace the oven, fix the bathroom lighting and get some other bits and bobs fixed, plus we bought the tenant a new bed for the tenant's daughter- the old second bedroom had a sofabed.
Click to expand...

No comment on you, just my politics, but I don’t think landlords should have a cushion. It’s an appreciating asset, not an ATM. In my opinion. And I’m a militant twat about it.

With regards to massive inequalities, yes. But less than what we have now, by orders of magnitude. Society isn’t fair. Everyone would want the cheaper properties, but that already exists. But currently we reward wealth and let asset owners take as much as possible from those that don’t own anything. Better is better. Period.
 
pacifictheme said:
Why would anyone be against means testing it? My in laws go on about 8 holidays a year and they get it.

Unless the argument is that it costs more to check than the saving.
Click to expand...

in general, reasons not to means-test:

1. What you said: admin costs spike, sometimes more than savings.

2. Paperwork and bureaucracy involved means that some "deserving"/eligible people don't get it because they mess up or forget the paperwork, or because the test is insane.
Some extreme examples of this from the UK's means-tested disability benefits over the last decade, the same happens with US Medicaid and disability payments, and also school meal vouchers in the US. Also happens in India in massive amounts for our govt food programs.

3. A small means-test (excluding billionaires, say) can be expanded quite easily (excluding all above the official poverty line).

4. Universal programs (the NHS in the UK, Social Security in the US) create a wide base of support that keeps them politically untouchable for at least decades. It's easier to gut means-tested programs that only benefit a small proportion of the population, especially if you can demonise that segment and that segment's voters are captive to one party.

5. The same thing (clawing back money from high earners) can be achieved by universal programs and progressive taxation.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
No comment on you, just my politics, but I don’t think landlords should have a cushion. It’s an appreciating asset, not an ATM. In my opinion. And I’m a militant twat about it.

With regards to massive inequalities, yes. But less than what we have now, by orders of magnitude. Society isn’t fair. Everyone would want the cheaper properties, but that already exists. But currently we reward wealth and let asset owners take as much as possible from those that don’t own anything. Better is better. Period.
Click to expand...
It's generally an appreciating asset, though people do get into negative equity when there's a market shakeout.

We've actually nearly paid the mortgage off (under three years it's been rented out, rest was us paying). What would you set the rent at there, given there's no market rate and everyone's mortgage payments vary wildly based on multiple factors?
 
berbatrick said:
in general, reasons not to means-test:

1. What you said: admin costs spike, sometimes more than savings.

2. Paperwork and bureaucracy involved means that some "deserving"/eligible people don't get it because they mess up or forget the paperwork, or because the test is insane.
Some extreme examples of this from the UK's means-tested disability benefits over the last decade, the same happens with US Medicaid and disability payments, and also school meal vouchers in the US. Also happens in India in massive amounts for our govt food programs.

3. A small means-test (excluding billionaires, say) can be expanded quite easily (excluding all above the official poverty line).

4. Universal programs (the NHS in the UK, Social Security in the US) create a wide base of support that keeps them politically untouchable for at least decades. It's easier to gut means-tested programs that only benefit a small proportion of the population, especially if you can demonise that segment and that segment's voters are captive to one party.

5. The same thing (clawing back money from high earners) can be achieved by universal programs and progressive taxation.
Click to expand...
I know government systems and IT are shite and not joined up, but given the amount of info the authorities -from HMRC to the DSS (or whatever it is now) and NHS- have on you, it's crazy that we can virtually never means test anything cos it's deemed prohibitively costly.
 
Jippy said:
It's generally an appreciating asset, though people do get into negative equity when there's a market shakeout.

We've actually nearly paid the mortgage off (under three years it's been rented out, rest was us paying). What would you set the rent at there, given there's no market rate and everyone's mortgage payments vary wildly based on multiple factors?
Click to expand...

Look, I’m every bit the prick that I suggest I am on this issue (among others).

I get that you’ve operated within the system and done well from it. I did too. When I moved countries, I kept my house and rented it out. I self-justified it by renting when there, and figured I was in the circle of capitalism.

With regards to having paid off a second property and where to set rent? None of these measures need to be suggestive, but if I was financially capable and it was me (let’s assume market rent is £1000/m for ease of purpose).

-Set it at a below market rate for a young couple that both worked in the public sector.
-Tell them they can have the place at £600/m if they commit to a 2 year lease, but advise it will be £800 in year 3, and £1000 in year 4.
-Advise that I’ll be keeping the rent at £600/m for anyone moving in in year 3 if they move out.
-Clearly state that I want to operate as a social landlord and that a saving of £9,600 over 2 years should be enough to stand a young couple in good stead, but I want to help 2-5 couples over 10 years. That subsidising one couple for a decade isn’t the goal.

It would take a lot of financial security to do that. I’m not saying that’s you, but I’d want to be able to play around with those numbers in order to help people.

Or, some more simple methods. Tell a couple (and it would always be a couple, they kind of self-insure against job loss etc) that if rent was paid on time January to October in full, there would be no rent payable in November and December. Or even just December. Christmas, the British financial crunch time… completely unburdened.

With all due respect, anyone claiming to be a ‘good landlord’ because they paint things and repair stuff, isn’t. There has to be act of self sacrifice in my brain. Especially in periods of huge property price inflation. The idea that my house increase in value by £12k as I charge someone £12k to live there, just feels wrong.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Look, I’m every bit the prick that I suggest I am on this issue (among others).

I get that you’ve operated within the system and done well from it. I did too. When I moved countries, I kept my house and rented it out. I self-justified it by renting when there, and figured I was in the circle of capitalism.

With regards to having paid off a second property and where to set rent? None of these measures need to be suggestive, but if I was financially capable and it was me (let’s assume market rent is £1000/m for ease of purpose).

-Set it at a below market rate for a young couple that both worked in the public sector.
-Tell them they can have the place at £600/m if they commit to a 2 year lease, but advise it will be £800 in year 3, and £1000 in year 4.
-Advise that I’ll be keeping the rent at £600/m for anyone moving in in year 3 if they move out.
-Clearly state that I want to operate as a social landlord and that a saving of £9,600 over 2 years should be enough to stand a young couple in good stead, but I want to help 2-5 couples over 10 years. That subsidising one couple for a decade isn’t the goal.

It would take a lot of financial security to do that. I’m not saying that’s you, but I’d want to be able to play around with those numbers in order to help people.

Or, some more simple methods. Tell a couple (and it would always be a couple, they kind of self-insure against job loss etc) that if rent was paid on time January to October in full, there would be no rent payable in November and December. Or even just December. Christmas, the British financial crunch time… completely unburdened.

With all due respect, anyone claiming to be a ‘good landlord’ because they paint things and repair stuff, isn’t. There has to be act of self sacrifice in my brain. Especially in periods of huge property price inflation. The idea that my house increase in value by £12k as I charge someone £12k to live there, just feels wrong.
Click to expand...
Fair enough and it's interesting to see your suggestions.

It's not a second property, it's our flat. We've just rented it out while working abroad in that circle of capitalism like you- rents way more expensive where we moved to. Maybe 'well-meaning' is a better term for our approach than 'good', eg fixing stuff quick, bought the kid a bed, didn't raise the rent when we just extended by two years, so will be four years without the rent increasing.
Not expecting a medal for it and sure, we could do more and offer it cheap in the hope of getting good long-term tenants, but there is also the paranoia about being among those with low pension savings having moved to London saddled by debt, so additional income is welcome. Property prices in Brook Green seem to have flatlined for a few years tbh.
 
Jippy said:
Fair enough and it's interesting to see your suggestions.

It's not a second property, it's our flat. We've just rented it out while working abroad in that circle of capitalism like you- rents way more expensive where we moved to. Maybe 'well-meaning' is a better term for our approach than 'good', eg fixing stuff quick, bought the kid a bed, didn't raise the rent when we just extended by two years, so will be four years without the rent increasing.
Not expecting a medal for it and sure, we could do more and offer it cheap in the hope of getting good long-term tenants, but there is also the paranoia about being among those with low pension savings having moved to London saddled by debt, so additional income is welcome. Property prices in Brook Green seem to have flatlined for a few years tbh.
Click to expand...

Oh mate, there was no direct critique of you in there. It’s just the ‘there are good landlords and bad ones’ line that I hate. There are a tiny amount of good landlords. Those providing below market rents, free accomodation to refugees or people getting back on their feet. Then there are average landlords, like yourself. Full of well intention and an understanding of the duty of care involved. Then bad ones. The last block probably accounts for 80% of private landlords. The binary good/bad suggestion is guilty of whitewashing a lot.

It’s none of my business at all with regards to your personal finances. I wouldn’t criticise anyone for doing anything with their own money.

But I do think there’s a conversation to be had that’s uncomfortable. If we were mates, I’d be absolutely telling you to concede a months rent in December, to make two people’s lives better. Money coming directly out of your pocket, and into a strangers, sounds MAD. Especially as you may only spend £100 on a sibling for Christmas as you give £1000 to a strangers. But you two choosing to do that, spending time around affluent and like minded people at Christmas, maybe someone else does it the following year. Maybe two do. Maybe your (quite large) financial sacrifice ends up rolling up into 5 couples/families catching a break after a few years. Nobody need tell any tenants anything until they’ve moved in. Like a shit Willy Wonka, gifting some financial breathing space instead of free chocolate.

But we don’t think in that way as a society. It’s hard. You and I are but tiny cogs in a truly shitty and disfunctional machine. But we can move the needle for people.

I had a car. Nowt flash, an old 1 series. For 6 months at a new flat I saw a neighbouring family hustling groceries home on the bus once or twice a week. Kids carrying bags, mum or dad fully laden. After a chat, I just asked if they wanted to be added to my car insurance so they could do it all in the car. For the year and a half after, they did a big grocery shop every 3-4 weeks, cheaper at a big store, and all that noise vanished from their lives. Yeah my car did a bit more work but it was just sat there. Maybe it was worth a few quid less through additional wear and tear and mileage, and I always filled up the tank. But it didn’t touch me. It was far harder to deal with the undeserved and relentless thanks, than it was to sacrifice the money.

I’m not tub thumping about my golden character. In so many spaces I’m deficient. But the older I get, the more I try to expand my role in society further, and I quite like that about myself.

Champagne Socialism for the win. Always.
 
Moston Red said:
A 3 bed bungalow.
Approx.
£100 council tax
£150 food
£120 utilities
£25 house insurance
£30 phone

Doesn’t have sky, no mortgage or rent.
Click to expand...

Well obviously she doesn't have a mortgage. You told us she was 93. Not many 93 year olds with a mortgage....
 
Buster15 said:
Well obviously she doesn't have a mortgage. You told us she was 93. Not many 93 year olds with a mortgage....
Click to expand...
I'm surprised no one has said she needs to move, a 3 bedroom bungalow for a 93 year old!

150 a month on food seems a bit light to me
 
711 said:
They're devious too, probably had tins stashed under the bed and hidden in the toilet cistern.
Click to expand...
Not in her case, she didn't do her own shopping though she did most of her own cooking until the last 2-3 years when her eyesight failed.

She was physically frail but her mind was as good as it was decades earlier rkght up until she died
 
Red in STL said:
I'm surprised no one has said she needs to move, a 3 bedroom bungalow for a 93 year old!

150 a month on food seems a bit light to me
Click to expand...
Why would she need to move, and wtf has that got to do with anyone. It’s the home she spent years in with my dad before he passed and it’s means a lot to her. Why are you questioning the amount she spends on food. She’s 93 with a small appetite.
 
Moston Red said:
Why would she need to move, and wtf has that got to do with anyone. It’s the home she spent years in with my dad before he passed and it’s means a lot to her. Why are you questioning the amount she spends on food. She’s 93 with a small appetite.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting she should move, just an observation from a thread elsewhere about old people hogging larger properties which they should move from, according to some, I don't subscribe to it either
 


Another slimeball disgusting politician, riding on the back of the poor to get into power.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Look, I’m every bit the prick that I suggest I am on this issue (among others).

I get that you’ve operated within the system and done well from it. I did too. When I moved countries, I kept my house and rented it out. I self-justified it by renting when there, and figured I was in the circle of capitalism.

With regards to having paid off a second property and where to set rent? None of these measures need to be suggestive, but if I was financially capable and it was me (let’s assume market rent is £1000/m for ease of purpose).

-Set it at a below market rate for a young couple that both worked in the public sector.
-Tell them they can have the place at £600/m if they commit to a 2 year lease, but advise it will be £800 in year 3, and £1000 in year 4.
-Advise that I’ll be keeping the rent at £600/m for anyone moving in in year 3 if they move out.
-Clearly state that I want to operate as a social landlord and that a saving of £9,600 over 2 years should be enough to stand a young couple in good stead, but I want to help 2-5 couples over 10 years. That subsidising one couple for a decade isn’t the goal.

It would take a lot of financial security to do that. I’m not saying that’s you, but I’d want to be able to play around with those numbers in order to help people.

Or, some more simple methods. Tell a couple (and it would always be a couple, they kind of self-insure against job loss etc) that if rent was paid on time January to October in full, there would be no rent payable in November and December. Or even just December. Christmas, the British financial crunch time… completely unburdened.

With all due respect, anyone claiming to be a ‘good landlord’ because they paint things and repair stuff, isn’t. There has to be act of self sacrifice in my brain. Especially in periods of huge property price inflation. The idea that my house increase in value by £12k as I charge someone £12k to live there, just feels wrong.
Click to expand...

Interesting fantasies. You must come from the same land of rainbow farting unicorns as Jeremy Corbyn.

Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...


This is vital.

Badunk said:
At least the pensioners of Ukraine will be warm this winter.
Click to expand...

Look after our own first?
 
Ultimate Grib said:
Interesting fantasies. You must come from the same land of rainbow farting unicorns as Jeremy Corbyn.
Click to expand...

Challenge it. By all means say ‘I like keeping all of my gold and I’m happy for most humans to not have any’. I’ll respect your position and understand it, while I disagree.

But at least try.

A smarmy brain dead response mentioning rainbows, unicorns, Corbyn and farts… really isn’t the flex you think it is. You just sound morally and intellectually empty.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Challenge it. By all means say ‘I like keeping all of my gold and I’m happy for most humans to not have any’. I’ll respect your position and understand it, while I disagree.

But at least try.

A smarmy brain dead response mentioning rainbows, unicorns, Corbyn and farts… really isn’t the flex you think it is. You just sound morally and intellectually empty.
Click to expand...

I'm not against what you're saying, just saying your suggestions will only work in a land of fantasies. They cannot in the real world.

Most people with second homes aren't that well off. They still have mortgages on the properties and if their tenants turn out to be non payers their expenses can very quickly spiral out of control and there's loads of instances where they've had to sell the homes and some facing financial ruin because of it. Don't forget they're still investments at the end of the day and come with their risk which are all taken by the landlord while the tenants have it pretty much easy. Why should people bearing the risk forfeit their reward?
 
Ultimate Grib said:
I'm not against what you're saying, just saying your suggestions will only work in a land of fantasies. They cannot in the real world.

Most people with second homes aren't that well off. They still have mortgages on the properties and if their tenants turn out to be non payers their expenses can very quickly spiral out of control and there's loads of instances where they've had to sell the homes and some facing financial ruin because of it. Don't forget they're still investments at the end of the day and come with their risk which are all taken by the landlord while the tenants have it pretty much easy. Why should people bearing the risk forfeit their reward?
Click to expand...

Read it all mate. My post was littered with disclaimers and qualifiers. There were two follow ups (no expectation that you saw them).

But what I’m suggesting… happens.

My best mate has a house in East London. They bought it 20 years ago. It was a 3 bed and they made it a 4 bed. They works as a nurse and family money helped them secure a deposit. The current mortgage is £1800 after they remortgaged.

They rent the rooms out at £300/400/500/month based on size. They could charge £600/800/1000 and be INUNDATED.

The house was purchased for £125,000. It’s now worth £725,000.

This kind of personal choice is happening and I admire it. It’s aspirational for me. It’s ok if it’s not for you.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
I'm not against what you're saying, just saying your suggestions will only work in a land of fantasies. They cannot in the real world.

Most people with second homes aren't that well off. They still have mortgages on the properties and if their tenants turn out to be non payers their expenses can very quickly spiral out of control and there's loads of instances where they've had to sell the homes and some facing financial ruin because of it. Don't forget they're still investments at the end of the day and come with their risk which are all taken by the landlord while the tenants have it pretty much easy. Why should people bearing the risk forfeit their reward?
Click to expand...
Yes, tenants have it so easy, they'll only be homeless if they miss a payment or 2 :lol:
 
Drainy said:
Thank god somebody has finally said it
Click to expand...

I think that it’s been poorly implemented. But I really don’t know why this is being discussed in the way that it is.

As so many follow up articles have said, we have this historic idea of pensioners being poor and vulnerable. They’re not, and they haven’t been for a while.

They are technologically vulnerable and it’s insane that this policy is being rolled out without advice and support available in order to ensure those entitled to pension credit are not enrolled in time.

It’s a very wealthy demographic in totality, and giving every single one of them free money is utterly insane.

My folks have used the winter fuel allowance to buy new coats/clothing for their neighbours kids for the past 3 years. They’ve got solar panels on the roof and have used the ‘free money’ to do good for years. They don’t need the money and they are STILL pissed at the government today.

That’s what we’re dealing with. Too many people are being given money that they don’t need.

At face value it’s gross to take it away. But it makes sense, considering our current circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.