From City AM:
THE GOVERNMENT has announced plans to force letting agents to publish the fees they charge tenants, both on their websites and prominently in their branches.
In a policy designed to take the wind out of Labour’s proposal to ban the fees charged to tenants, Nick Clegg revealed that the measures would help renters to shop around and get the best deal when moving home.
"Short-term gimmicks like trying to ban any fee to tenants means higher rents by the back door," housing minister Kris Hopkins said yesterday.
"Excessive state regulation and waging war on the private rented sector would also destroy investment in new housing, push up prices and make it far harder for people to find a flat or house to rent," Hopkins added.
Typical.
If these restrictions mean that the landlord pays the fees, but recoups them via slightly higher rents, then it will make no difference to anything.
If we had proper rent controls, i.e. waged a proper "war on the private rented sector", as the UK did for most of the 20th century (which included undercutting them with social housing), then he looks at the one side (fewer landlords buying and renting houses privately) but completely ignores the other half of the equation:
- The amount of housing coming onto the market being bought by former tenants who would rather be owner-occupiers, which is probably most of them would increase to match the fall in demand from BTl 'investors'.
- With less competition from BTL 'investors', house selling prices would fall.
It's up to you decide whether the benefits of lower houses for you to buy outright outweigh the fact that there will be less accommodation to rent.
Showing posts with label idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idiots. Show all posts
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Monday, 16 September 2013
"Clegg and Alexander reject Cable's warning over Help to Buy"
From The Guardian:
Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have dismissed a call by their Liberal Democrat colleague Vince Cable to restrict the second phase of the government's Help to Buy mortgage scheme to areas of the country with depressed property prices.
In a sign of tensions over the economic policy at senior levels of the party, Clegg and his close ally Alexander rejected Cable's warnings that Britain was facing a dangerous housing bubble.
Does not compute.
The justification for Help To Buy was that houses are too expensive and so first time buyers have to be "helped". The very existence of the scheme is the government's tacit admission that house prices are in a bubble.
If prices were "affordable" by whatever measure, then there'd be no need for such schemes. So Cable's idea about restricting it to "areas of the country with depressed property prices" is even more stupid than Clegg and Alexander's state of denial - because people don't need help to buy a cheap house.
The only way that any of this makes sense is if "Help To Buy" is in fact "Help To Sell", then it makes perfect sense from the point of view of a Home-Owner-Ist government trying to win a general election from a majority Home-Owner-Ist electorate.
H/t Alan at HPC.
Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have dismissed a call by their Liberal Democrat colleague Vince Cable to restrict the second phase of the government's Help to Buy mortgage scheme to areas of the country with depressed property prices.
In a sign of tensions over the economic policy at senior levels of the party, Clegg and his close ally Alexander rejected Cable's warnings that Britain was facing a dangerous housing bubble.
Does not compute.
The justification for Help To Buy was that houses are too expensive and so first time buyers have to be "helped". The very existence of the scheme is the government's tacit admission that house prices are in a bubble.
If prices were "affordable" by whatever measure, then there'd be no need for such schemes. So Cable's idea about restricting it to "areas of the country with depressed property prices" is even more stupid than Clegg and Alexander's state of denial - because people don't need help to buy a cheap house.
The only way that any of this makes sense is if "Help To Buy" is in fact "Help To Sell", then it makes perfect sense from the point of view of a Home-Owner-Ist government trying to win a general election from a majority Home-Owner-Ist electorate.
H/t Alan at HPC.
Monday, 5 August 2013
So what's the point of all this, George?
Daily Mail, 21 March 2012:
Families receiving child benefit were offered some relief today when George Osborne announced that the cut-off point will be £60,000. The Government had been previously wanted to scrap child benefit for anyone earning more than the £42,475 but the plans were met with criticism.
An increase in the threshold to £60,000 will lift significant numbers out of the child-benefit trap, but the anomaly of hitting one-earner families harder will remain as it is simply shifted higher up the income scale. Child benefit is currently worth £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 each for any more, regardless of the parents’ income.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that the move would have affected one in six parents – or a total of 1.2m families – and save the Government £1bn a year.
Daily Mail, 5 August 2013:
Families with incomes of up to £300,000 are to benefit from new tax breaks to help cut the cost of childcare.
Chancellor George Osborne visited a nursery today as he unveiled plans to cut bills by £1,200 per child. But he faced sharp criticism for using taxpayers’ money to help some of the wealthiest families in the country while snubbing stay-at-home mothers who will not benefit...
Critics said the policy was not 'sensible' and and 'inconsistent' with other polices to cut help for families where someone earns more than £50,000.
From 2015 families where both parents work will get help from a £1billion fund.
Families receiving child benefit were offered some relief today when George Osborne announced that the cut-off point will be £60,000. The Government had been previously wanted to scrap child benefit for anyone earning more than the £42,475 but the plans were met with criticism.
An increase in the threshold to £60,000 will lift significant numbers out of the child-benefit trap, but the anomaly of hitting one-earner families harder will remain as it is simply shifted higher up the income scale. Child benefit is currently worth £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 each for any more, regardless of the parents’ income.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that the move would have affected one in six parents – or a total of 1.2m families – and save the Government £1bn a year.
Daily Mail, 5 August 2013:
Families with incomes of up to £300,000 are to benefit from new tax breaks to help cut the cost of childcare.
Chancellor George Osborne visited a nursery today as he unveiled plans to cut bills by £1,200 per child. But he faced sharp criticism for using taxpayers’ money to help some of the wealthiest families in the country while snubbing stay-at-home mothers who will not benefit...
Critics said the policy was not 'sensible' and and 'inconsistent' with other polices to cut help for families where someone earns more than £50,000.
From 2015 families where both parents work will get help from a £1billion fund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)