To think we should ban private renting?

It totally depends on the total rent and whether tenants are renting more rooms than entitled to.

If the allowance is £500, rent is £700, then by the time the landlords has paid for interest only, tax, fees, repairs etc....its highly unlikely they make a profit.

If the rent is £1,000 that's another natter, but then the tenant is clearly looking at nicer or bigger than what they are expected to rent.

The landlord pays the same amount of tax whether rent is privately funded or state funded.

@Passaggressfedupnot forgetting it just registering that the amount of tax paid - even at the highest rate - does not exceed the amount of housing benefit received. Even with a BTL mortgage. Private landlords take out more than they pay in where tenants are eligible for housing support.

However benefits should not be paid to private landlords charging rent in excess of that charged by social housing that incorporates maintenance to ensure profit that goes straight to the landlords as a return
You seem to be conveniently forgetting the income tax the landlords has to pay on the rent received, so ultimately money that goes back into the system and funds UC.

It is true that the housing element of UC is paid to the tenant as long as they pass the full amount to the landlord plus some if it exceeds the cap. If they don’t payments are made direct to the landlord.

It is also true that maintenance is reclaimed from gross profit and reduces tax liability. However it is common for landlords to increase rent after maintenance works have been carried out. I rented a rather run down farmhouse with rotting window frames etc. Maintenance was carried out after 8 years we had been there and decades after issues had become apparent. The landlord wanted to increase monthly rent by a third after maintenance. No BTL - this property and many others on the estate (country not housing) in bad repair were owned by the Lord of the manor - literally a Lord.

whichever way you look at it it is a bad deal for tenants whether in receipt of benefits or not and a good investment for private landlords. However benefits should not be paid to private landlords charging rent in excess of that charged by social housing that incorporates maintenance to ensure profit that goes straight to the landlords as a return. This is essentially using state money to give a better return than investing elsewhere and is pushing up the benefits bill - as is allowing employers to pay low wages that are topped up by benefit.

Sort out benefits paid to employers and private landlords before coming for the elderly, unemployed, disabled and sick to reduce the benefit bill.

The OP is probably imagining some kind of confiscation for the greater good.

Yes, definitely. Anyway he/she hasn’t been seen on this thread for several days - maybe because not all the posters agreed with her.

Wrong...

Unless the tenant is in arrears by more than eight weeks, or in the case of a vulnerable tenant. The landlord cannot begin to apply for direct payments.

If a landlord spends money on the property their accountant reclaims that against the gross profit., which reduces their tax liability Not future rent.

In theory yes. The issue is that a lot of housing association construction is at least partly funded by government grants/subsidies. Where is the money going to come from to get more housing owned by housing associations?

I've lived under such a system. It was called communism. State provided the flats (expropriated of course) for a verrry low rent. However, it was deemed that 8 m2 per person was plenty. We were 4 people in a 32 m2 flat and were considered lucky by many in even worse circumstances. But yes, the rent was low.

Many people live off renting out their second or subsequent homes. If you banned private rental you would have a lot of incomeless people who would need a job or benefits quickly.

Do yo urelaise you're talking about more than doubling the housing stock across the UK - currently 19.5% private rented vs 18.5% social renters. 4. 7 million vs 4 million.
Where is the money coming from to buy 4 million homes? Over what time period do yo u think this could be practically done given the legal work needed, the paperwork, the home visits, the repairs etc.

It both puzzles and intrigues me about the motives of whoever starts these kind of threads. Are they naive about how money is made through such as renting out a house, or are they very left wing verging on communist, or are they playing us all. Or are they in dire straits themselves and it seems like an answer to their problems.
After 20 pages of comment are we any further forward?

So the idea is that a landlord who owns one or two properties would be obliged to sell to housing associations or the state? Would they get market price for the property, or would they have to accept a certain price?

I agree that HA properties are affordable and a good fit for many people, but in a democracy, I think it's tricky when people are dictated to in this way. Longterm, it could be a good idea, but the small landlords would need to be fairly compensated, for example.

I don’t disagree…. That is however different to what PP stated.

Exactly! If only it was so simple.....cloud cuckoo land methinks...

Haven't read the whole thread but banning private renting is ridiculous.

What I would do is ban buy to let so that government benefit money doesn't go towards paying mortgages and also ban houses of multiple occupation as there was a reason we did the slum clearances, many people and families forced to live in a single room is a bad idea.

I never realised this.
My Dsis is a landlord. I don’t ask her about the ins and outs but I know that the yearly tax bill on the properties is extortionate.
It’s not an easy business. One you have to put a lot of trust in, lending your home.

Most BTL mortgages are interest only, not repayment, so the mortgage is only cleared by selling the property. However, most BTL mortgages require at least 25-30% deposit (it's usually risky to only have that amount of deposit though).

To use a repayment mortgage you'd never cover costs from rent in most cases, especially if you've only got a 25-30% stake in the property to start with.

@EmeraldShamrock000l believe the profit is year on year from rental income and does not take into consideration profit of eventual sale of the asset.

The issue is that high rent increases benefit claims and means that the state (ie the tax payer) is subsidising profit to private landlords. Increasing cost of living to low and medium wage earners and increasing benefit bill.

They make a profit when the mortgage is cleared and they sell the property. It’s a longterm investment that doesn’t use self cash input to grow. It may take 20 years for a profit but it will come.

My aunt takes in students. It’s 180 a week for one international student, that includes one meal, she always takes two students, they’re rarely there as they’re in college and visiting the different sites.
My aunt has 3/4 holidays a year.

I don't want to live with anyone. I don't even want to live with my DP.

In fairness, when I was a child in the 60s many took in lodgers as a way to get by, particularly widows or single women. My father lodged when he came from Ireland, breakfast and dinner included.
It would solve the problem of loneliness, and lack of purpose, but there’s the trust issue nowadays.

I didn’t state they don’t make a profit. They should. My point is that it’s not pure profit as you originally stated….

youre obviously overlooking that a) those profits aren’t substantive and b) 20% don’t make a profit (if your stats are too be believed, I haven’t counter checked).

I’m speaking from an informed position btw: I’m a(n accidental) landlord. So my knowledge is 1st hand….