Ed Miliband

[edh]

98elise said:

edh said:

Nice to hear from all the good landlords who look after their tenants - I seem to remember a few of you posting that long term tenancies were beneficial to landlords, so what's the problem? labour isn't proposing to set the rental price, just restrict price rises within the contract term.

They are proposing capping rent rises and making rental values available to the next tenant. The problem is it won't stop there.

Each government is making it more expensive and difficult to be a landlord, both from a legal and compliance perspective. This ultimately costs the renter money.

Adding in rent caps pushes those costs onto the landlord, so the last thing you want to do is be stuck with a tenant for years with less scope to raise rents. especially if there are other changes in the pipeline (punitive taxes, removing loan interest tax relief etc.)

I currently keep my rents low, but having the flexibility to raise them means its at no risk to me. If they cap rent rises then I need to mitigate that risk by moving the rents to market rates.

So you're charging less than "market rates"? Any particular reason apart from philanthropy? Not knocking philanthropy, it's nice to see, but how many landlords charge less than "market rates" and why?

..and if there are business reasons for charging less, then I'd have thought that's the "market rate" to obtain those particular business benefits.

[Justayellowbadge]

MarshPhantom said:

How many BTL landlords would be able to afford to do that?

The majority, or very few?

A good proportion.

I know several people with rental properties in SW London that are mortgage free.

After fees, maintenance, renovation costs and tax, the rental is, or at least has been for quote some time, somewhat irrelevant when compared to the capital appreciation.

Rent controls and less flexible tenancy agreements may well give pause for thought.

As said several times, any decent landlord loves good, long term tenants. It reduces costs and more importantly those tenants view the property as home and treat it as such - that's priceless. It doesn't need to enforced.

I can't imagine a lot of young sharers, in their first job in London, wishing to be committed to three years. The churn in that market is almost completely driven by tenants, not LLs.

[Justayellowbadge]

edh said:

So you're charging less than "market rates"? Any particular reason apart from philanthropy? Not knocking philanthropy, it's nice to see, but how many landlords charge less than "market rates" and why?

..and if there are business reasons for charging less, then I'd have thought that's the "market rate" to obtain those particular business benefits.

You look after good tenants, as per my post above, they are worth their weight in gold.

[mph1977]

barryrs said:

Stamp duty exemption for first time buyers up to £300k now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194

That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"

given that in a large swath of the uK that 300k is still what normal life would consider FTB type houses ...

paret of prudence abolishing boom and bust weas the ridiculous overheating of house prices ...

[R666]

barryrs said:

Stamp duty exemption for first time buyers up to £300k now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194

That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"

Another gimmick designed to buy votes and nothing else. He just keeps trotting them out. Ill thought out, unfunded and actually detrimental to 'hard working people' (what does he know about hard working people?)

Mansion tax
Cap energy prices
Reduce tuition fees
Non doms
Stamp duty
Capped rents

All designed to appeal to people who might be bought with a little sweetener, or who don't understand how markets and economies work

What's next?

Maybe some inward investment in the north to build a factory making left foot Wellington boots only?

Edited by R666 on Monday 27th April 14:09

[edh]

R666 said:

barryrs said:

Stamp duty exemption for first time buyers up to £300k now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194

That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"

Another gimmick designed to buy votes and nothing else. He just keeps trotting them out. Ill thought out, unfunded and actually detrimental to 'hard working people' (what does he know about hard working people?)

Mansion tax
Cap energy prices
Reduce tuition fees
Non doms
Stamp duty
Capped rents

All designed to appeal to people who might be bought with a little sweetener, or who don't understand how markets and economies work

What's next?

Maybe some inward investment in the north to build a factory making left foot Wellington boots only?

Edited by R666 on Monday 27th April 14:09

I disagree with the stamp duty cut, but it is funded.

if you want to talk about unfunded gimmicks, you need to look at the Tories

[Slaav]

I cannot be bothered to check but I assume the Stamp Duty sweetener/bribe is in the Labour manifesto? If not, why not?

And I do hate the way the desperate pleas for votes on both sides are absolutely rubbished by more and more frantic 'giveaways' to buy votes in the closing stages.

[Zod]

edh said:

I disagree with the stamp duty cut, but it is funded.

if you want to talk about unfunded gimmicks, you need to look at the Tories

"fully funded by tackling tax avoidance by landlords, increasing tax paid by holding companies that buy UK property on behalf of investors and by cutting the tax relief for landlords who fail to maintain their properties."

So not funded at all, like all of Labour's policies. These measures, together with the 50% tax rate, bankers' bonus tax, end to non-dom status and Mansion tax will raise tiny amounts in themselves and most likely take money out of the system.

[Cheese Mechanic]

edh said:

I disagree with the stamp duty cut, but it is funded.
if you want to talk about unfunded gimmicks, you need to look at the Tories

There would not be funding problems if the Labour Party yet again, had not trashed the economy. Something they will make even worse, if they are given the chance.

When will stupid socialists realise that the money they crave to buy votes, comes from the greater economy , that same economy they always screw up. Still if they understood that, they would not be socialists because they would have sense. . Jeezus.

[R666]

L

edh said:

R666 said:

barryrs said:

Stamp duty exemption for first time buyers up to £300k now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194

That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"

Another gimmick designed to buy votes and nothing else. He just keeps trotting them out. Ill thought out, unfunded and actually detrimental to 'hard working people' (what does he know about hard working people?)

Mansion tax
Cap energy prices
Reduce tuition fees
Non doms
Stamp duty
Capped rents

All designed to appeal to people who might be bought with a little sweetener, or who don't understand how markets and economies work

What's next?

Maybe some inward investment in the north to build a factory making left foot Wellington boots only?

Edited by R666 on Monday 27th April 14:09

I disagree with the stamp duty cut, but it is funded.

if you want to talk about unfunded gimmicks, you need to look at the Tories

Can you list them? Genuinely interested. Even when we have the list, They don't seem to trot out bullst everyday like milliband though just to win votes

And he says nothing to support business. Last time I checked the people that create wealth for everyone by employing people etc....

[edh]

Justayellowbadge said:

MarshPhantom said:

How many BTL landlords would be able to afford to do that?

The majority, or very few?

A good proportion.

I know several people with rental properties in SW London that are mortgage free.

After fees, maintenance, renovation costs and tax, the rental is, or at least has been for quote some time, somewhat irrelevant when compared to the capital appreciation.

Rent controls and less flexible tenancy agreements may well give pause for thought.

As said several times, any decent landlord loves good, long term tenants. It reduces costs and more importantly those tenants view the property as home and treat it as such - that's priceless. It doesn't need to enforced.

I can't imagine a lot of young sharers, in their first job in London, wishing to be committed to three years. The churn in that market is almost completely driven by tenants, not LLs.

Well you could give your tenants a break clause, or a shorter contract if they ask for it. I don't think that would be a problem? They aren't proposing mandatory 3 year contracts.

Capital appreciation - well there's the issue. These people aren't in the landlord business, they are in the property business. I'd prefer to see policies that kill capital appreciation or better still reduce house prices.

[TorqueVR]

His housing plans have wiped nearly £200 million off the value of Britain's House-builders.

And his response...."Our proposals will be better for companies building homes in Britain,"

So please explain why devaluing the value of house-builders is good for them?

[edh]

R666 said:

Can you list them? Genuinely interested. Even when we have the list, They don't seem to trot out bullst everyday like milliband though just to win votes

And he says nothing to support business. Last time I checked the people that create wealth for everyone by employing people etc....

Zod listed them above - I'm sure you will dismiss them anyway.

Policies for business - see below

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/115103489714/labou...

As for Tory bullst, what else would you call the splurge of Tory spending and bribery promises that appeared suddenly, without even a shred of explanation of funding apart from "trust us" and "look SNP!" So far that's been pretty much all the Tories have had to offer - their campaign has been very poor. They say there will be £12bn cuts in welfare, but refuse to say where they will fall - is there anyone who thinks they don't know?

[edh]

TorqueVR said:

His housing plans have wiped nearly £200 million off the value of Britain's House-builders.

And his response...."Our proposals will be better for companies building homes in Britain,"

So please explain why devaluing the value of house-builders is good for them?

Large Housebuilders are land speculators trying to extract the maximum profit from every plot by restricting supply. Should provide much more opportunity for smaller builders to grow their businesses if we can make land available to them.

[Justayellowbadge]

edh, you're on HPC, aren't you?

[Vaud]

Buying your first house is hard enough, the stamp duty is an added pain.

But surely it is better to keep it, tie it as a loan to the house in event of sale, or make it an interest free, 10 year loan?

[gregf40]

edh said:

So far that's been pretty much all the Tories have had to offer - their campaign has been very poor.

Oh right...and there was me thinking they should be judged on the past 5 years. Silly me.

[MarshPhantom]

edh said:

Justayellowbadge said:

MarshPhantom said:

How many BTL landlords would be able to afford to do that?

The majority, or very few?

A good proportion.

I know several people with rental properties in SW London that are mortgage free.

After fees, maintenance, renovation costs and tax, the rental is, or at least has been for quote some time, somewhat irrelevant when compared to the capital appreciation.

Rent controls and less flexible tenancy agreements may well give pause for thought.

As said several times, any decent landlord loves good, long term tenants. It reduces costs and more importantly those tenants view the property as home and treat it as such - that's priceless. It doesn't need to enforced.

I can't imagine a lot of young sharers, in their first job in London, wishing to be committed to three years. The churn in that market is almost completely driven by tenants, not LLs.

Well you could give your tenants a break clause, or a shorter contract if they ask for it. I don't think that would be a problem? They aren't proposing mandatory 3 year contracts.

Capital appreciation - well there's the issue. These people aren't in the landlord business, they are in the property business. I'd prefer to see policies that kill capital appreciation or better still reduce house prices.

I can't see many Landlords lasting long without tenants, capital appeciation might be enough for some in London, but not elsewhere, so if Landlords are encouraged to sell that's good for house buyers.

As above I'm sure 3 year contracts won't be mandatory if the tenant doesn't want one.

[Mario149]

O/T:

Questions re the rental cap: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Cheese Mechanic]

edh said:

Large Housebuilders are land speculators trying to extract the maximum profit from every plot by restricting supply. Should provide much more opportunity for smaller builders to grow their businesses if we can make land available to them.

So after they fked up the Banking system, the Labour party are going to fk up the building trade are they? Because, by God evwerything they stick their control freak snouts into they sure as hell fk up.

Utter, utter idiots.