Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To love the idea of scrapping all benefits and just giving everyone £500 a month

431 replies

DyslexicScientist · 08/12/2015 11:33

Like Finland are going to do.

Would get rid of all the east that goes on with means testing and would cost about the same.

Would be much fairer as the current system does discriminate against certain demographics.

OP posts:
Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 14/12/2015 14:05

Only the points you make, like interest offset being the only change to affect btl. When there has been several.

You keep asking me to answer a question, so I thought you would answer mine.

OP posts:
Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 14/12/2015 14:06

Did you just boom on an opinion, not a fact. Yikes.Xmas Shock

OP posts:
ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 14/12/2015 14:08

I know there has been more than one change to BTL, I was simply pointing out that the changes don't apply equally across the whole BTL sector.

You still haven't answered my question.

Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 14/12/2015 14:17

Seeing as 90% of people rent who want to buy, if btl people went bust then the ones that don't or can't buy will just rent from landlords that haven't borrowed to let.

Houses don't disappear if btl people go bankrupt.

It stinks, like people going to a casino with borrowed money.

OP posts:
ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 14/12/2015 14:51

What is the source of your 90% figure?

Generation Rent has a different one
www.generationrent.org/demand_a_queens_speech_on_housing

Stormtreader · 14/12/2015 15:43

Rental prices and house prices are not totally independent of each other. Its not the fact there every single private rental property is already being rented and theres none left, theres plenty of rental property available, just not at affordable prices for most people.

When BTL pushes up house prices, it makes the mortgages on the houses being bought higher. This means that the landlord has a higher mortgage bill to cover, so they increase their rental prices accordingly.

Boom? (not sure of the boom rules here)

Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 14/12/2015 16:06

This means that the landlord has a higher mortgage bill to cover, so they increase their rental prices accordingly.

Rental prices are dictated by the market, not the landlord costs. Boom.

You have to be snappy to boom IMO.

I see this argument wheeled out all the time, btl costs increase then rent will increase.

When btl mortgage rates dropped did they give lower rental prices? No. Will they when they increase, the over leveraged may try to don't think it will fly though.

OP posts:
Stormtreader · 14/12/2015 17:24

Actually, they arent, not 100%, so if thats the required standard to boom then I shall continue to do so with abandon, or you should stop, either is fine. The prices set by "The market" is not some kind of universal truth.

The local market is set how? By the rent they see other landlords charging. No landlord will rent at a loss so the minumum rent will be to cover their mortgage costs, they dont rent out houses as a public service. If they cant cover their costs and make some kind of profit, they will just sell.

Equally if they see other places being rented out for £800 and their mortgage is only £200, why on earth would they drop their rent? Theyll pocket the £600 profit. So that obviously leads to the situation where the bottom rent is set by their mortgage, but the top rate is set by "The Market"

Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 14/12/2015 19:12

No landlord will rent at a loss so the minumum rent will be to cover their mortgage costs,

During previous recessions plenty of landlord rented at a loss. With btl being taxed more many will either have to rent at a loss or accept voids. Boom.

OP posts:
StrawberryTeaLeaf · 14/12/2015 22:26

I'm going to need the booming rules DC Grin

StrawberryTeaLeaf · 14/12/2015 22:27

DS, even Smile

Stormtreader · 15/12/2015 09:27

In a recession where there are no house buyers, they may have to continue to rent, but houses are still selling so they wouldnt.

Im pretty sure the booming rules are "post something, be DyslexicScientist". Its less a boom and more a "smug fart".

Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 15/12/2015 10:21

Boom if its snappy.

So storm mortgage rates go up and your just increase rental price to cover your costs? Why not just increase them now?

In a recession where there are no house buyers, they may have to continue to rent, but houses are still selling so they wouldnt.

I haven't a fuck what that means. No house buyers but houses are still selling Confused. That's a wet fart.

OP posts:
harrasseddotcom · 16/12/2015 09:16

did anyone clear the issues raised with disabled children? How will they be catered for? Would they be exempt and still receive dla? Which kinda defeats the 'getting rid of administration' angle.

Stormtreader · 16/12/2015 09:24

Sorry, I didnt realise I needed to break it up into little bits for you, lets try and make it simpler.

"In a recession where there are no house buyers, they may have to continue to rent. But we are not in a recession, houses are still selling, so they wouldnt need to continue renting at a loss."

honkinghaddock · 16/12/2015 09:56

I think all mentions of disabled children have been ignored. I don't think it is getting through that if you give disabled people the same as everyone else (whatever it is ) then those people are always going to be worse off than everyone else.

Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 16/12/2015 10:13

But we are not in a recession, houses are selling

Lol. Housing transactions are at record lows, interest rates are at record lows, they've printed money and food banks are at record highs. If this isn't a recession its a depression. And likely to get a whole lot worse.

OP posts:
FannyTheChampionOfTheWorld · 16/12/2015 10:17

Several people have discussed giving a higher allowance to the disabled. It most certainly hasn't been ignored.

Original poster
DyslexicScientist · 16/12/2015 10:30

Countless people have fanny. People still keep going on about this one issue, wish people would say people unable to work rather than disabled. Plenty of disabled people work.

OP posts:
IceBeing · 16/12/2015 10:35

God knows why MNHQ thought this thread was especially goady...this is a recognized concept for improving benefits systems and we should all think about it.

Although the use of the word 'boom' has been spectacularly cringe-worthy.

You give every one 500 quid a month and you get it back from the people that don't need it by increasing income tax to cover it....if people need specific extra allowances for themselves or their children due to disability then your add that on.

If you can pay your rent, you move somewhere cheaper....and when everyone has done that, the rents in London will actually go down and generally rebalance.

It will be massively cheaper for the government in the long run and massively less demeaning for everyone involved.

BadLad · 16/12/2015 10:38

Several people have discussed giving a higher allowance to the disabled. It most certainly hasn't been ignored.

Well, the first post and thread title are about doing away with means testing and giving everybody £500 a month, so we can scrap all benefits, which would "cost about the same".

Then when it has pointed out that that would leave disabled people, single parents with several kids etc, the OP says that the system would have to give more money to the disabled, which rather pisses all over what she said to begin with, and negates much of the admin savings which are, apparently, enough to pay for this scheme.

Housing transactions are at record lows

Don't worry about giving any sources for that. We'll just take your word for it.

IceBeing · 16/12/2015 10:38

If you can't afford you rent you move somewhere cheaper...just like the people who have to match their rent to their income because they are working.

for reference you can rent a 3 bed house for £200 pcm around here.

honkinghaddock · 16/12/2015 10:40

Even those who work still have extra costs compared to people who are not disabled. Dla/pip has nothing to do with working. Unless you think those who can work shouldn't have the dla/pip or an equivalent?

How would the "higher allowance" work in practice? How do we decide who gets it? Does it vary according to severity of disability and so level of disability will need assessing? Or do we give everyone disabled the same high amount to make sure that no one is worse off than under the present system?

IceBeing · 16/12/2015 10:40

I see the main advantage of this in not filling landlords pockets and increasing the inflation of house prices out of the public finances.

longtimelurker101 · 16/12/2015 10:41

Well technically its not a depression, as we haven't been in a recession since 2010.

I'm not reading the whole thread but this is an awful idea, which yet again is bashing of those on benefits. £500 a month would not support a single family.

The BTL changes that you are all waffling on about are to combat those who are stupidly over leveraged and would not be able to withstand periods where their properties are unoccupied or any fall in house prices as their LTV ratio would make their debts and their interest much higher. Essentially they put the whole market at risk and are keeping out waiting entrants. Its why Mark Carney is concerned about them.

Ahh mumsnet economics is fun.