05 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganThe problem with so called market rents in London is similar to rent controlled apartments in New York city. In NYC section 8 makes up the difference between market and affordable. Thus the landlord doesn't have to reduce rates to attract market buyers. Places like London and NYC don't have a lot of vacant land, in areas people want to live. Even a place like Detroit which has many square miles of virtually vacant land, but in places where people no longer wish to live.
Well this is interesting. George Bush is now on the left is he? Welcome in, George, we like to operate a big, inclusive tent on the left. I'm told he is a very agreeable guy. George would also be welcome into the big tent of those opposed to unjust wars and to torture of innocent people that the C.I.A. dislikes.
The Democrats may represent a U.S. style ...[text shortened]... incomes require is affordable rented housing with responsible and imaginative social landlords.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignQuite right. What Britain has found historically is that it is poor economics to support housing for the poor by means of a housing benefit because this merely subsidizes unaffordable rents for the benefit of speculative landlords. It is a better and more sustainable investment in the long run to support the initial investment in producing and setting aside decent quality social housing to be rented at rents that are affordable for people on typical working wages in the area. Some housing benefit payments remain unavoidable - some people have zero income for periods of time - but many people also have a realistic prospect of being able to live without depending on benefits. Social housing also becomes a very attractive asset once its initial mortgage costs are met, especially given long term inflation in house prices, so that it becomes viable for social housing to operate as a business, borrowing against the rental value of its assets, so that social housing becomes a self sustaining and attractive part of the housing market, as it is in many countries in Europe and I'm sure elsewhere.
The problem with so called market rents in London is similar to rent controlled apartments in New York city. In NYC section 8 makes up the difference between market and affordable. Thus the landlord doesn't have to reduce rates to attract market buyers. Places like London and NYC don't have a lot of vacant land, in areas people want to live. Even a pl ...[text shortened]... s many square miles of virtually vacant land, but in places where people no longer wish to live.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganSocial housing has a long history in big US cities. Whether high rise multi-unit buildings the old typical project, or the newer townhouse style, the residents have little appreciation for what they are given, and tend to very quickly ruin the property and the neighborhood. Public social housing in the US tend to become centers of violence and criminal activity.
Quite right. What Britain has found historically is that it is poor economics to support housing for the poor by means of a housing benefit because this merely subsidizes unaffordable rents for the benefit of speculative landlords. It is a better and more sustainable investment in the long run to support the initial investment in producing and setting aside ...[text shortened]... ractive part of the housing market, as it is in many countries in Europe and I'm sure elsewhere.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignThe problem is that US society has decided they want poverty in their society, with all the problems that brings.
Social housing has a long history in big US cities. Whether high rise multi-unit buildings the old typical project, or the newer townhouse style, the residents have little appreciation for what they are given, and tend to very quickly ruin the property and the neighborhood. Public social housing in the US tend to become centers of violence and criminal activity.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't know how you get to that. There are plenty of antipoverty social programs, with poor results but good intentions. Poverty will exist in any society. It need not be the same individuals, and in the US it generally isn't, but people escape poverty, and others fall into it, or start their adult lives in poverty. Poverty in the US, as defined by the government is equal to the middle class in many other locals.
The problem is that US society has decided they want poverty in their society, with all the problems that brings.
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignWelfare programs here in the USA are used to prevent social unrest instead of doing it by adjusting minimum wage to long term inflation. The same thing with the earned income credit. The powers that be don't want parents to hate their government. They are counting on non-parents to accept it because their bills are less and can endure the burden for a while.
I don't know how you get to that. There are plenty of antipoverty social programs, with poor results but good intentions. Poverty will exist in any society. It need not be the same individuals, and in the US it generally isn't, but people escape poverty, and others fall into it, or start their adult lives in poverty. Poverty in the US, as defined by the government is equal to the middle class in many other locals.
The Federal Reserve System has screwed us over with inflation and high unemployment. People can't get a decent wage increase because of it. Supply and demand applies to jobs too. Only a low unemployment rate will increase wages without a minimum wage increase.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
06 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignBuy to let is a big thing in the UK I have 1 my sister has 2 we pay tax on our earnings but I had to laugh the other day the woman over the road from me told me she and her husband were moving to a cheaper rental she was paying £650.00 per month for a 3 bed detached she was moving to a 3 bed terraced house about a mile away costing £400.00 per month she casually said to me that she thought the government should give her the £400.00 per month so she could pay a mortgage on a similar property so I assume that both of the are unemployed and on benefits and thinks she shouldn't have a landlord and that the state should buy her a house I spent a lot of time and money renovating my buy to let and people like her think I am a parasite because I make a small profit from my tenant the mind boggles.
You don't think landlords are taxed?