To think we should ban private renting?

Err, young people are leaving because of low wages & high housing costs, not because they can’t be landlords!

It will take properties off the market though.

No no no!
in this utopia only if everyone gets the same! No more holidays to Sandals Jamaica for Tim and Monica and Grimsby for Terry and June… it’s a state sanction visit to Blackpool for both… although they still have to pay what the previous holidays would have cost.
state issued booze and cigs too, rationed of course! It’s all fair!

I appreciate that the OP is proposing banning all private rental, which throws up all sorts of situations and would likely be unworkable.

But a requirement that you can only own one property wouldn’t stop any of the situations you’ve described but would stop property hoarding for profit.

Rents are going up for a variety of reasons.

One is UC.

So I have my own home by decide to move in with my partner who also owns his.

My house I would otherwise let will be empty now, so that one unused property.

My next door neighbours are going to work in the ME for a couple of years. Their house should also stay empty according to OP.

Honestly, OP is either naive or else votes Green.

@honeyrosesandwichwhat makes you think social housing is magically cheaper? Don’t you realise that’s because it’s subsidised….? Why should the state (=taxpayers) subsidise even more people’s living costs? After all they’re grownups who should be responsible for their own basic needs, not children

Part of the reason that HA’s and Council’s can buy housing is because they are purchased at discounted affordable rates from developers.

My team purchases houses for a council, it’s almost impossible because most older houses on the open market because most don’t meet modern decent homes standards that we have to comply with. To get them into decent home standard doesn’t work out financially. It would bankrupt the country.

@honeyrosesandwich what a daft notion. There are plenty of people who want to rent privately and don't qualify for housing association or state funded rentals. I agree rents should be reasonable. And their should be steps to ensure rents are appropriate to the market their in. But to ban all private rentals is absurd.

So landlords shouldn’t make a profit but a for profit company can?

There are many negatives….? For example:

1. family need to re locate somewhere temporarily for work (or whatever reason), don’t want to sell their house as they want to return to it when they return to the area, can’t have it sat empty due to costs. Currently they rent it out temporarily. Why would you stop them doing so?

2. who would pickup the tab of all the additional social housing? Clearly all the “free maintenance” you get isn’t “free” - the taxpayer (ie other people) pays for it

3. what would happen to the people currently privately renting* that don’t qualify for social housing (eg because they’re on good salaries or other). Where would they live? Would they be forced to buy a house to live in? Or would you gift them social housing? Surely not either as they may not be able to afford to buy a house and why should the state (=other people) pay for them to have cheap housing?

4. further reduction of individuals responsibility for themselves (to you themselves in this case) is going to mean they lean more heavily on the state for other stuff (as they become used to being dependent on the state for even basics). This clearly isn’t an acceptable trajectory

You can’t have thought very hard (or you’ve a limited world view) if you can’t see any negatives…

I’d rather be a person that asks a genuine question than be a judgemental rude person that’s obviously got a chip on their shoulder

I think rent-capping would be a more workable solution in the short-term, plus a specific (high) tax on air b & bs - or even a ban on charging more than the equivalent of the (capped) daily rent in that area per night. Yes, this would drive some landlords to sell, yes it would reduce the availability of rental properties but it would also increase supply of properties to buy, driving down prices, reducing demand for rentals. Yes, some people (myself included) would see the value of their homes go down, and possibly have to adjust plans for releasing capital at a later date but tough. Having a secure home is a privilege - an increasingly rare one!

I'm not in favour but think rent should be controlled/capped.

Being a landlord isn't productive. Buying more houses than you need to make a profit from those who do need them produces, creates or adds nothing of worth to our society whatsoever.
If your worried about a haemorrhage of talent, you'd do better to look to the young people with a whole life of productivity to offer, who are leaving the UK because buying homes and progressing their lives seems out of reach here.

If you want to live in a communist state op, there are still some available. Cuba, or North Korea perhaps? Most countries have realised that communism just doesn’t work and if you’ve been to any communist countries, it’s not hard to see why. So no, I do not agree with you.

If I rent a car there are conditions attached. The owners have to protect their investment. How is property any different, should owners be able to protect their investment? I can rent a £100k Mercedes, and if I dont return it on time it gets reported as stolen and the police become involved. If I refuse to pay rent or move out of a £100k property there's nothing anyone can do. To me that's completely unfair on the owner. Nobody is forcing tenants to live there. And landlords weren't evicting hoards of people for no reason. Good tenants, who paid their rent on time and kept the property in good order weren't being evicted.

State control of the rental market

do you really believe that when their is central control their isn’t corruption?

it’s a nice idea but it’s just that a nice idea of how things could be not how things become under central control over what would still be a business

tax landlords higher, tighten rules I am all for but central control over the market not at all look at how appalling some of the housing associations are run

Can you really not imagine the multiple ways people who are shelling out up to 44% of their income on extortionate rent might spend that money that dont involve things you disapprove of?
I'm not sure why you're using language to imply its a free choice to rent when 76% of renters would like to own a property, and 60% of them believe they will never afford to. A roof over your head isn't a lifestyle choice.

And it’s a downward spiral. Anyone ambitious or productive will either stop (what’s the point) or leave.

Our country has already lost so many of our best professionals. We are haemorrhaging talent and wealth creators. Without them the lights really will be turned off, and we become a failing communist state, no thanks!

What about diplomatic and military families who deploy overseas and then return? They often rent their homes out - if they weren’t able to do that they’d be coming back to no where to live.

The solution to the housing crisis shouldn’t be, as it is with everything else, to penalise the ambitious or hard working. All you do is stagnate the economy.

New build estates should be at least 50% council houses and be social rent (not ‘affordable’ rent as this is double social rent).

So many new housing estates are being built due to ‘local demand’ yet in many cases the houses aren’t actually affordable for the people in the area if it doesn’t have good networks and high paid jobs.

There should also be housing affordable for single people.

All of those things do also come under scrutiny for the extortionate profits they make, though.

It's the sheer amount of wealth that people can accumulate from things that are basic life necessities for humans.

It's not wrong to profit at all if people choose to make a living providing these things - but it shouldn't have become as lucrative as it is.

Ideally, we wouldn’t need social housing apart from a tiny percentage of severely disabled people and those that are terminally ill. Whom would be fully supported by the state and given excellent care. Everyone else would be earning a good salary, working in gainful employment and able to afford their very own home. That’s my vision.

Not millions more languishing in grotty social housing with no prospects. That depresses me beyond belief.

This is such a daft opinion. Whilst they are not owned by the government they are HEAVILY subsidised by the Government. Housing Associations are Public Sector organisations, not private. So you would have a new landlord but your rent absolutely would go up as the Government couldn't subsidise to the same level for the extra millions of homes they are now responsible for, nor for the thousands of extra employees they would need to deal with all the new homes and tenants. Your repairs would have to become harder to obtain, they would be done to a lower (cheaper) standard and major/capital repairs would be carried out less frequently. The banks who finance the HA properties (they don't own them, they finance and re-finance them all constantly) would put interest rates up so your bills would increase across the board.

Private landlords subsidise the government through the tax on their earnings. Like it or loathe it.

HAs and lower rents should be for people who need it not for the masses, it's a support not a solution.

I absolutely support more stringent rules for private landlords, and more protections for renters but this is so ridiculously naive as a proposed solution.