Gov allowing tenants to buy PRS housing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by ash72 View Post
    I personally think this is a way to get council's off the hook, as they don't have enough properties themselves (especially since they sold them all off cheaply to their tenants who subsequently then sold them off making profits),
    The councils didn't want to do this; it was Maggie and her right wing Conservative government that forced them to do so.

    As such, doing the same to private landlords would just be balancing things.

    Not that that means that I would approve of forcing sale below market price, but then isn't covered by the human rights courts, which are in Europe....

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

      estate agents are regulated to give investment advice.
      Did you really mean that?

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by MdeB View Post

        Did you really mean that?
        No. Corrected.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

          The councils didn't want to do this; it was Maggie and her right wing Conservative government that forced them to do so.

          As such, doing the same to private landlords would just be balancing things.
          Eh...? How does
          a) Stealing from landlords
          "balance"
          b) The original theft from the taxpayer.

          Apart from the fact that a small number of those landlords might have been beneficiaries of the original theft (for certain types of properties in certain areas only). In most cases the same people are being stolen from twice - hardly balancing anything (expect the books of a a soon-to-be-bankrupt country)

          Makes no sense whatever

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
            For any other sort of pension saving you would be told to diversify your investments. It seems that people relying on BtL as a savings vehicle violate this by only investing in the single, market. Diversity isn't just having properties in several parts of the country it is spreading investments across different sorts of venture that won't be affected by the same legislation changes.
            A reasonable point -- but diversity is supposed to hedge against vagaries of markets (which might result to some extent from legislation) - not outright theft or appropriation by a jackbooted thug.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

              For any other sort of pension saving you would be told to diversify your investments. It seems that people relying on BtL as a savings vehicle violate this by only investing in the single, market. Diversity isn't just having properties in several parts of the country it is spreading investments across different sorts of venture that won't be affected by the same legislation changes.

              Unlike sellers of other investments, estate agents aren't regulated to give investment advice.
              You are correct, but I think you're making some wrong assumptions on my pension strategy!

              This however doesn't stop some marxist going through and stealing your pension, regardless of how diverse the investments are!

              Quite frankly, I'm more likely to be dead before I reach this new so called pension age of 75. Maybe the idea is to steal everything and then say you can't retire anyway. I'm not in the baby boomer generation with a final salary pension, unfortunately.

              Comment


                #22
                Could this be Labour's way of preventing social mobility? If a person gets a better job in another part of the country they might not be able to get a PRS house because the PRS would have sold off so many properties, leading to that person not being able to take the job.

                Comment


                  #23
                  I don't think you have anything to worry about. The tenants that are causing the problems are not the kind of people that will ever be offered a mortgage so would never be in any kind of position to buy your property.

                  One thing I do get concerned with, is the kneejerk reaction of some around here which seems to be "I'm gonna raise the rent" or "I'm issuing a section 21 as soon as I can" to the slightest bit of bad news. This is just inviting action from the government who could step in with even further regulations. It was agents taking the proverbial that ended up with us getting the TFA. The more we keep screwing over the tenants for something they have now power over, the more likely government intervention will be.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Maggie didn't present it as stealing from the tax payer, but rather as returning the money stored up in social housing to them. Arguably it was actually stealing from the non-tax payers, in the longer run.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
                      Could this be Labour's way of preventing social mobility? If a person gets a better job in another part of the country they might not be able to get a PRS house because the PRS would have sold off so many properties, leading to that person not being able to take the job.
                      Well yes -- that is the most important point of all. The fossilised restrictive non-flexible nanny-state legislation-ridden housing market is the biggest constraint of all on social mobility and indeed flexibility of employment in every part of the population.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                        Maggie didn't present it as stealing from the tax payer, but rather as returning the money stored up in social housing to them. Arguably it was actually stealing from the non-tax payers, in the longer run.
                        You mean because folk in the future would not have access to even more taxpayer funded facilities. That's a bit like saying that police catching burglars is stealing from the later family of burglars.


                        Because of course the taxpayers did not only have their assets stolen by council tenants at knockdown price - those folk selling at unimaginable profits, but they now also have to pay the housing benefits of 5 million families who somehow deserve it.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by ExpertInAField View Post
                          I don't think you have anything to worry about. The tenants that are causing the problems are not the kind of people that will ever be offered a mortgage so would never be in any kind of position to buy your property.

                          One thing I do get concerned with, is the kneejerk reaction of some around here which seems to be "I'm gonna raise the rent" or "I'm issuing a section 21 as soon as I can" to the slightest bit of bad news. This is just inviting action from the government who could step in with even further regulations. It was agents taking the proverbial that ended up with us getting the TFA. The more we keep screwing over the tenants for something they have now power over, the more likely government intervention will be.
                          Well the market does what the market does.

                          Rent is not raised as a punishment -- it is raised to offset loss and risk.

                          And no amount of dictat from government is ever going to change that in the long run. That is why communist countries end up as the poverty ridden, crime ridden messes that they all became and will become. And which we hopefully will not become - although it is looking as if our youth are pretty dumb about their futures.

                          Tenants are being screwed over by legislation not by the "we" -- of which I doubt you are one (of the "we").

                          Comment


                            #28
                            This is never going to happen (private LLs being required to sell their homes to tenants at discounted prices).

                            And regardless of the verbal effluent that the Labour Party perpetually spews forth (and have done for decades), they are not actually "the party of the masses". Its a long standing deception perpetrated on the masses, by the privileged/the ones in control, and who just have different coloured flags, emblems, endless drivel, etc. The same goes for the Democrat party in the US. Same BS/MO. Ergo, Politics doesn't really exist and its all part of the same deception. Voting is an illusion too.

                            Private property is a key underpinning of "relatively free" societies. If such a policy came into being, not only would the property market be devastated/collapse overnight, but almost every person's personal wealth and all their possessions would be subject to government theft, confiscation or "re-appropriation", by some fluffy and "the right things to do" policy, or perhaps by some policy which starts of not doing exactly that, but rapidly builds to that.

                            Labour's park wino hasn't got a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the keys to No.10.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Mogino View Post
                              This is never going to happen (private LLs being required to sell their homes to tenants at discounted prices).
                              I'm not so sure at all. But it might be done in a sneaky way (as outlined before) which will amount to the same thing.

                              Originally posted by Mogino View Post
                              And regardless of the verbal effluent that the Labour Party perpetually spews forth (and have done for decades), they are not actually "the party of the masses". Its a long standing deception perpetrated on the masses, by the privileged/the ones in control, and who just have different coloured flags, emblems, endless drivel, etc.
                              Well that is totally true, and well put

                              Originally posted by Mogino View Post
                              Private property is a key underpinning of "relatively free" societies.
                              True

                              Originally posted by Mogino View Post
                              If such a policy came into being, not only would the property market be devastated/collapse overnight, but almost every person's personal wealth and all their possessions would be subject to government theft, confiscation or "re-appropriation", by some fluffy and "the right things to do" policy, or perhaps by some policy which starts of not doing exactly that, but rapidly builds to that.
                              Yes it would collapse. And that is exactly what would happen if they got into power, let alone got into big time theft from ordinary people.

                              But that is not a reason to say it is unlikely to be implemented.

                              Originally posted by Mogino View Post
                              Labour's park wino hasn't got a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the keys to No.10.
                              If the voters were intelligent -- and not ignorant kids with no perception of history or any understanding of how they got into the position they are in (and why labour policies will not only not solve the very real problems they have, but will devastate their generation and country) - then they would have no chance. But there is a significant chance - I would have said 50% over the next year given the right circumstances. And as a racial minority and gay person in this country and as an immigrant I will be leaving as soon as I can.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Is your final sentence a true statement of your situation ? I could mind my own business but it concerns me that I can see your reasons. Unless you experience something it is impossible to fully understand.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X