America is not the greatest country in the world

Originally posted by redbarons
Buy 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 ca ...[text shortened]... le like her think I am a parasite because I make a small profit from my tenant the mind boggles.

You are driving up the price of housing.

Originally posted by finnegan
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.

What is a "social landlord"?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You are driving up the price of housing.

Not in the north east of England I bought my buy to let 10 years ago its only worth £3000.00 more than I paid for it/lets face it the uk government are not replenishing social housing,last year some councils in London were trying to get residents to leave their council homes and move to towns that could take them in this was because they could sell these properties for hundreds of thousands of pounds to private investors.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What is a "social landlord"?

Maybe this?

http://www.housingcare.org/jargon-registered-social-landlord.aspx

Registered social landlord

The new general name for not-for-profit housing providers approved and regulated by Government through the Housing Corporation. The vast majority of Registered Social Landlords are also known as Housing associations.

Housing associations are independent, not-for-profit organisations that provide homes for people in housing need. They are now the UK's major providers of new homes for rent. Many also run shared ownership schemes to help people who cannot afford to buy their own homes outright. Over recent years a number of local authorities have transferred all or part of their housing stock, including their sheltered housing, to RSLs.

Originally posted by redbarons
Not in the north east of England I bought my buy to let 10 years ago its only worth £3000.00 more than I paid for it/lets face it the uk government are not replenishing social housing,last year some councils in London were trying to get residents to leave their council homes and move to towns that could take them in this was because they could sell these properties for hundreds of thousands of pounds to private investors.

If your family weren't buying those homes the price would drop. You are keeping the price of housing artificially high.

Originally posted by JS357
Maybe this?

http://www.housingcare.org/jargon-registered-social-landlord.aspx

Registered social landlord

The new general name for not-for-profit housing providers approved and regulated by Government through the Housing Corporation. The vast majority of Registered Social Landlords are also known as Housing associations.

Housing associations are ind ...[text shortened]... have transferred all or part of their housing stock, including their sheltered housing, to RSLs.

not-for-profit is an interesting turn of phrase, I was interested to note that in the American not for profit hospitals that I looked at the CEO had a not-for-profit salary of $600,000. One gets the impression that if an organisation is not-for-profit they are almost considered a charitable organisation which could not be further from the truth.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If your family weren't buying those homes the price would drop. You are keeping the price of housing artificially high.

also his mortgage is being paid for by the sweat from some one else's brow! after 25 years his tenant is entitled to pick up his clothes and leave with nothing.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What is a "social landlord"?

It is the equivalent of a project in the US.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If your family weren't buying those homes the price would drop. You are keeping the price of housing artificially high.

Prices on homes appreciate, for the same reason other prices rise, the inflation of the money supply. Realistically, there is no reason a house is more valuable as it gets older. The land maybe, but not the building. If land is in short supply, due to dense population, housing prices tend to reflect that. Buildings on the land can become worthless, when the cost of demolishing them exceeds the value of the land. A famous project in Detroit recently came down, famous because it once housed several members of the Motown Supremes. The city paid to demolish those useless towers of the past.

Several things lead to blight. Renters who have no interest in maintaining their residence. Owners who take a short view of their investment. Governments which have little or no standards for property maintenance. Attempting to regulate who lives in a given area. Four years ago I visited my home town of Boston, and toured several formerly blighted areas. One was the Parker Hill area, one of the highest places in the city. It was changed from one of the most blighted area, to a really nice residential neighborhood. Expensive condos, and some older buildings rehabbed to high standards. It borders Boston's biggest medical center, so there was always demand for land there, but for decades local interest groups sought to prevent high end housing being built, asking that it be reserved for the people that brought on the blight. Only when that idea was tossed aside did the remake of the area happen. My old street along the border between Roxbury and Jamaica Plain including our old family home is completely renovated and appeals to higher class renters. The market spoke, and investors invested and improved neighborhoods resulted.

Where are the low income people living? Dunno, but they live somewhere. Point is that reserving land for them just kept certain areas going downhill, while opening them for redevelopment improved those neighborhoods.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
also his mortgage is being paid for by the sweat from some one else's brow! after 25 years his tenant is entitled to pick up his clothes and leave with nothing.

What does that have to do with anything. If the tenant just paid the rent, he got what he bargained for each month of residency. Perhaps more if as tenant he caused depreciation of the property.

The landlord, on the other hand invested in the property not to be charitable, but to earn a return. The renter could choose to live elsewhere if he were dissatisfied with the accommodations.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Not enough. Tax them more.

The tenant just ends up picking up the bill. The landlord needs to make a profit, otherwise why rent out the property? Increasing the tax will encourage home-ownership, not reduce poverty.

Originally posted by normbenign
What does that have to do with anything. If the tenant just paid the rent, he got what he bargained for each month of residency. Perhaps more if as tenant he caused depreciation of the property.

The landlord, on the other hand invested in the property not to be charitable, but to earn a return. The renter could choose to live elsewhere if he were dissatisfied with the accommodations.

Making money from the sweat of others is morally repugnant that's what its got to do with it. No one is claiming that he bought the property to be charitable and your other hypothetical scenarios are equally irrelevant to the point I was making. You capitalists are all about exploitation as long as its not you that's being exploited. You make me want to spew!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Making money from the sweat of others is morally repugnant that's what its got to do with it.

What do your think the government is doing by taxing your income directly?

Politicians decide how much money they are going take from you then pay themselves. Pretty sweet deal. People like you can't even see it.

Originally posted by Eladar
What do your think the government is doing by taxing your income directly?

Politicians decide how much money they are going take from you then pay themselves. Pretty sweet deal. People like you can't even see it.

Taxing my income directly? sir I have been self employed for almost 20 years, in what universe is the government taxing me directly other than national insurance contributions and council tax which go to pay for Roads, Schools, Health and Policing etc

and even if it was the case it does not mean that I am also doing the same thing making your assertions quite ludicrous. People like you should take off your tin foil hats prior to posting.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Taxing my income directly? sir I have been self employed for almost 20 years, in what universe is the government taxing me directly other than national insurance contributions and council tax which go to pay for Roads, Schools, Health and Policing etc

and even if it was the case it does not mean that I am also doing the same thing making your assertions quite ludicrous. People like you should take off your tin foil hats prior to posting.

You guys don't have an income tax? You get to keep all the money you make?