Thread 15 Starmer - Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5244293-thread-14-starmer-the-starmeristas-strike-back?page=40&reply=141334312

I think I’m broadly with you as far as I understand it on housing @Rummly We’ve allowed houses to become investments. They should be viewed as homes primarily, and we need to regulate our way back to that. It’ll upset a lot of people in the short term thoigh, which is why it would be politically unappealing.

Haven't we already acknowledged that growth is not good for planet earth ?

Fair point. In which case, we need to do what? Because infrastructure needs investment…
I guess the real problem is the birth rate.

@SerendipityJane - we cannot stop the developing countries from growing, from our privileged vantage point, after exploiting their countries in frankly embarrassing ways aka India. So yes, they are growing, significantly, and they are entitled to grow. All we can do is work with them on “greener” forms of growth.

Wealth and economic growth and education of women always brings down the birth rate.

I think what we've got in the UK is the worst of all worlds really.

We have the poorest in society dependent on a lot of welfare benefits which are enriching companies on wages (if they work) which is an effective state subsidy, and the same with housing, ie housing benefit (paid to landlords). There is absolutely no incentive here really to work if you are at the lower level given this structure, and it's parasitic on the structural poverty that is being built in. It incentivised not working and low wages, not building any housing, and transfer of wealth to landlords. We have socialised costs but none of the benefits.

I agree @bombastix. In work benefits should not be necessary (except 8n the case of disability etc). Employers should be paying the full costs of eMolly ing someone, not getting chunks of the pay bill picked up by the state. Though as a recipient of child tax relief when DD was younger - I did appreciate it… The changes to employment law around remuneration need to happen first.

I had child tax credits, but I would have preferred a proper wage. Hopefully, alongside the pay increases through minimum wage, we can start to reduce universal credit alongside. That way we can reduce the benefits bill, ensure employers are paying a living wage and make people on the lowest salaries better off. This won't be popular either with employers who prefer profit over everything, or the people who will perceive themselves as worse off.

In which case you may as well give up on protecting the environment - it's not compatible with "growth".

Basically you are making the right wings case for them, which is "if other countries are allowed to push for growth at all costs, so can we".

I think stamp duty should be paid by the seller.

As for moving house easily, have Scottish law on house sale and purchase applied in England and Wales. Together with reform of estate/letting agents and licensing of holiday lets.

I don’t really understand what difference it would make who pays stamp duty. If sellers paid it asking prices would rise and that wouldn’t help anyone.

People would kick off about being double taxed if stamp duty liability changed to sellers, as you'd have a lot of people who paid on buying and would have to pay on selling the same property.

On the topic of landlords selling up - if they all do it, house prices will fall so more people can buy. Renting where LL’s hang on will drop in price.
Im sure I’m about to be called naïve, but hey ho. I can take it, if someone can explain why these things don’t work (genuinely interested to know)

There are millions of people who can never buy a house, they simply fail any form of lending criteria.

5.4m dwellings in private rent, now some of that will be privately owned HAs but the majority are individual LLs, if just 1/3rd sold, say over a 5 year period, thats 1.8m families looking for somewhere to live... where do they go?

The vast majority cannot afford to buy and/or fail any loan criteria.

Large house price falls also mean recession, people feel encouraged to spend if they see their house has increased in value, they do the opposite when they see values fall, we all saw this in the recessions of the 80s and 90s.

The solution is to build social housing with cheaper rents, tenants will have an alternative, rents fall as LLs try and compete, if they cannot, they sell... state buys up these properties, as thats easier than building new ones.

Needs money of course and thats the bind.

That’s the long version of what I meant really. Houses out of private landlords hands so rented without the profit motive.

Housing is why the UK is so hard to change. Social housing should not be sold off. Instead it should have strong deterrents to it being marketable. The UK is a small densely populated island and housing is now at a premium price.

Unless we do have social housing in far greater numbers, in control of the state, then this issue will never be fixed. You will her generations of very privileged people who will inherit large equity sums from their parents, and the gap will get bigger and bigger. Enployment and hard work will not meet the financial demands of housing which has this dynamic priced in. It is happening already. It means a lot of young people cannot own a home or rent a home which is of good quality. It will not matter how hard you work, you will never beat inherited property wealth.

Maybe landlords selling up could sell a house at 75% cost to the local authority. They can then use it to increase the housing stock, with the option to buy the remaining 25% at market value later on- similar to how new build housing works.

A nearby council to me, looked at buying private rented properties but they would access whether there was a more suitable family to live in the house, so evicting the original tenant!!!

But in the end didn't go ahead buying older properties as they would need too much work to bring up to an EPC of C.

They did spend £10m on new builds, cheaper than paying for temp accommodation.

The requirement to move to a minimum EPC of C will ensure that LLs will sell in very large numbers, so will be interesting to see if it benefits renters or not.

On a selfish note, it might help my dc. The 2 that are working are desperate to buy, but priced out.

The industrial revolution broke housing in Britain.

Got to be honest, I don’t love this proposal - mainly because, if I’ve understood it, it means the landlord has to accept a lower than market price for the asset they are selling.

Not all landlords are Dickensian villains. When I was at university, my landlord was awesome. He had 40 properties and treated them like a business. He employed two builders, a plumber and electrician and was quick to fix any problems.

I think what they did trial in some London boroughs was getting landlords to sign up to social housing contracts with the council directly and then the council would guarantee a certain rent including percentage increases for e.g 5 years and would sort out all the tenants and then the landlord would just get it back at the end. I am not sure whether there were agreements to give it back in a certain condition or not and how many people signed up to this.

Add to "EVs are shit" file.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zwyeq3v9o

In theory, that scheme should work for some small landlords as it can give a small guaranteed return, which is what a lot of pensioners look for, without the hassle of dealing with tenants/void periods/estate agents who take a month’s rent each time etc.
If there was a will to kickstart this kind of thing and give it some favourable tax treatment for landlords signing up to it, perhaps it could work in some areas.

Perhaps something along the lines of landlords selling to LAs don't pay CGT on the property sale but must discount the property by 75% of the CGT value, that way everyone wins a bit (except the taxman, but I doubt landlord CGT is a massive revenue stream anyway).
Link with colleges and use apprentices to get properties up to scratch (while training the next generation of electricians/plumbers/heat pump installers/plasterers etc).

He was still making profit from owning multiple properties, even if he was fair about it. Part of the problem.