No Fault Evictions

[Jacob]

On the subject of dodging the question, who should pay for malicious damage to social housing?

Insurance top of the list, then normal legal processes should be applied - suing for damages, compulsory community service etc.

 

[Jacob]

People created the housing crisis. People who marry, have kids, divorce, need two homes instead of one. Sounds like a common theme, right? There would never be enough council houses;They would just allow more to break up and know they'd be given a roof.

So - er, get rid of people?

 

[Jacob]

...

The 'expert' opinion was in error. The Guardian...is the Guardian...enough said.

So you get your news from The Sun etc?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Insurance top of the list, then normal legal processes should be applied - suing for damages, compulsory community service etc.

The tenants won't be insured, and in any case tha insurer wouldn't pay up for deliberate damage. Sue for damages? They'll be penniless. Community service? They won't turn up. Any more brilliant ideads?

 

[paulrbarnard]

The tenants won't be insured, and in any case tha insurer wouldn't pay up for deliberate damage. Sue for damages? They'll be penniless. Community service? They won't turn up. Any more brilliant ideads?

How about alternative social housing run by HMP.

 

[TRITON]

How about alternative social housing run by HMP.

Isn't that currently happening ?. A large number of people are now in the process of moving out their houses and into His majesties prisons

 

[Diver Fred]

Except that rents went up, security of tenure went down, maintenance and care worsened, estates tended to become sink estates

I agree.

You don't understand the difference between AST's and Registered Tenancies do you?

With a Registered Tenancy the LandLord's responsibility is for the fabric of the building up to & including the boundaries and external decoration. Interior decoration, flooring, 'white' goods (cooker, fridge/freezer, washing machine and the like), servicing of heating & similar and glass repairs the tenant.
With an AST the landlord is responsible for the fabric of the building up to & including the boundaries, external and interior decoration. Floor coverings, make provision to supply curtains. The Landlord has to supply a Cooker, Vacuum cleaner, Lawn mower (where appropriate), may also supply a washing machine if appropriate. Has to pay for all servicing to heating.

An AST tenancy is for a minimum of 6 months, but twelve is more likely but then it can go to being a 'Periodic' tenancy which gives the tenant no change in rights - still 2 months notice from the LandLord, 1 month from the tenant to quit. Anyone who says the tenancy is for only the initial contracted period and creates a new contract is costing a long term tenant money (- it's favourite agent's trick to make more money).

A RT tenancy can be more 'secure' for the tenant but it also requires more responsibility on their part.

 

[Jacob]

You don't understand the difference between AST's and Registered Tenancies do you?

No but I get the general idea and the more the better, the longer the tenancy the better.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The Laffer curve is nonsense. it was just a vague idea sketched out on a napkin.
It's been looked at closely and best estimates say that if the theory worked then the optimum tax rate would be around 70%, but it's a big if!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
You are right about the indirect taxes being a burden. They have the result that low paid earners can end up paying a much higher % of their income than the much better off, as the less well off spend a greater proportion of their money on taxable items - necessities - it's not all fags and booze!
Lower VAT, NI etc, balanced by higher top rates 70% or more, could be fairer and bring in more revenue.
Tax certainly looks like the answer!
And there isn't another option.

I am an example of the Laffer curve, which you so easily dismiss, in action.

Fortunate to have been offered a redundancy package age 58 with pension kicking in at age 60.

I suspect as many in a similar position, finances associated with not finding another source of income were possibly marginal (not critical). I thought carefully - some sort of contract work was entirely feasible, or possibly a new full time appointment.

On reflection any income from work would rapidly move me into the 40% tax bracket + NI + travel to work costs + pension contributions etc. In total ~60% of all I might earn would never hit my bank account.

I decided not to bother and have enjoyed over a decade unencumbered by work.

Some inuitive and blindingly obvious points:

• desire for work as tax increases is diminished - unless they have no choice
• efforts put into avoiding tax increase as tax demanded increases

Simple sums - assuming a (say) 90% tax rate. To double net income requires either (a) gross income to double, or (b) avoidance (or evasion) reducing the overall tax rate from 90% to 80%.

Bluntly avoidance is much easier. Far from a nonsense the Laffer curve makes complete sense conceptually - the only uncertainty is the points at which behaviour changes and by how much.

 

[Jacob]

I am an example of the Laffer curve, which you so easily dismiss, in action.

No you are not.
The Laffer curve is a general theory about taxation and how it could work as policy on the macro scale.
Your own, or any other individuals reactions are dependent on personal circumstances and could be quite different from the average.

....Some inuitive and blindingly obvious points:

• desire for work as tax increases is diminished - unless they have no choice

May be intuitive but not at all obvious. It could work both ways - high tax could mean the need to work even harder to make ends meet (for the less well off), or just for the sake of more wealth (for the merely greedy).

• efforts put into avoiding tax increase as tax demanded increases

...and a great incentive for govt to expand and strengthen HMRC, making it more profitable.
Long overdue - HMRC has had pointless austerity cuts just like all other public services under the tories.

 

[AJB Temple]

High tax rates just push smart people abroad into lower tax regimes. There are always a few vocal ones saying "I'll leave the UK if X happens" and they get pilloried in the media. But most just do it quietly. With no publicity or drama. It also encourages businesses to take steps to ensure profits are recognised outside of the UK. This is not so difficult for global trading operations (I've been a director of one) and easy too for hedge funds and commodity traders. Many very well off people have dual passports or dual nationality and already have a base abroad. Especially so if you married someone with a different nationality. The UK is no longer the powerful fiefdom that some, apparently including Jacob, think it is. The left wing delude themselves about tax policy and beefing up HMRC will most likely just hit the middle tier, with little if any benefit for the cost of collection.

 

[Jacob]

High tax rates just push smart people abroad into lower tax regimes.

So they say but most businesses are firmly based in particular locations and with particular work forces. The steady reduction of taxes since 1979 did not at any point attract people from higher tax regimes - except oddly enough the property market. Foreign investment with dodgy money is the main point of "the city", now a money laundering centre for the world

.....The left wing delude themselves about tax policy and beefing up HMRC

Do you think running down the HMRC has been a benefit in any way? If not why not?

will most likely just hit the middle tier, with little if any benefit for the cost of collection.

So they say but it would be perfectly easy to hit the upper tier and the Laffer curve is nonsense.
Interesting how people line up to defend the wealthy from the horrors of taxation! Do they expect some sort of reward at some point? In the hereafter? Or never never land?

"Criminal prosecutions, especially against big corporate legal teams, take time and money. Yet HMRC is chronically underfunded and understaffed. As we reported last year, a Parliamentary committee slammed the government for underfunding HMRC."
https://taxjustice.uk/blog/why-isnt-hmrc-prosecuting-companies-that-enable-tax-evading/

 

[williams1185]

took awhile to find the name of the journalist who commented on labour buying landlords properties his name is graham david the subject may have been discussed prior to labour coming to power

 

[Blackswanwood]

took awhile to find the name of the journalist who commented on labour buying landlords properties his name is graham david the subject may have been discussed prior to labour coming to power

If that’s the same Graham David who does political commentary on TikTok I wouldn’t give it much credence. He was waffling on some months ago about Labour encouraging banks to buy rental properties off landlords. It seemed to emanate from Lloyds Banking Group developing new properties for rental and he’d clearly not bothered to understand the high level facts let alone the detail. He’s after click bait revenue rather than reporting real news.

 

[AJB Temple]

To answer your points Jacob. I think HMRC is incredibly inefficient. The best people are attracted to the accounting firms (I used to be a partner in one of the international ones) or the tax departments of law firms. Tax is FAR too complicated and this does not help HMRC and plays into the hands of consultants. HMRC is broken and working from home civil servants are not helping.

I suspect when you say firms are in fixed locations, it suggests you have never worked in a global business at senior level. Many big businesses now are highly mobile and have a multitude of ways of shifting profits out of high tax regimes. I've worked mainly in financial services (commodities, hedge funds etc) and have seen close up at first hand exactly how easy it is for a determined, motivated and smart management team to shift costs / licences / IP / turnover / profits and people around.

Contrary to your assertion. It is not at all easy to hit the upper tier. The Laffer curve is irrelevant to the decision making process of the well off. I have personal practical experience of a complete business shifting all board operations and the vast bulk of profits out of UK jurisdiction in short order (weeks). Do you seriously think that people clever enough to make serious money from trading that is not tied to a physical location (ie practically all financial services) did not anticipate the labour victory, the ineptitude of Reeves, Rayner & Starmer, and make provision to shelter wealth ages ago? Some of the stuff the left comes out with in the tax the rich mantra is naive. In reality their easy target is middle class highish earners and soft targets such as less mobile pensioners.

I realise that debating it is pointless as people tend to have entrenched views, often based on belief rather than knowledge. So I commented merely to provide balance. Unfortunately the UK is much diminished as an economic power. I happen to think it would make far more money in tax revenue by becoming a low tax haven attracting inward investment. But labour tends to level down rather than up as it is blinkered by equality of outcome rather than opportunity.

 

[Jacob]

... HMRC is broken and working from home civil servants are not helping.

this is why HMRC needs beefing up.

I suspect when you say firms are in fixed locations, it suggests you have never worked in a global business at senior level. Many big businesses now are highly mobile and have a multitude of ways of shifting profits out of high tax regimes.

The ones that aren't mobile are easier to tax, the ones that are can be more complicated. No reason not to make the effort.

I've worked mainly in financial services (commodities, hedge funds etc) and have seen close up at first hand exactly how easy it is for a determined, motivated and smart management team to shift costs / licences / IP / turnover / profits and people around.

Contrary to your assertion.

I never said it was.

It is not at all easy to hit the upper tier.

Thats why HMRC needs beefing up.

The Laffer curve is irrelevant to the decision making process of the well off.

and everybody else too in general.

I have personal practical experience of a complete business shifting all board operations and the vast bulk of profits out of UK jurisdiction in short order (weeks). Do you seriously think that people clever enough to make serious money from trading that is not tied to a physical location (ie practically all financial services) did not anticipate the labour victory, the ineptitude of Reeves, Rayner & Starmer, and make provision to shelter wealth ages ago? Some of the stuff the left comes out with in the tax the rich mantra is naive. In reality their easy target is middle class highish earners and soft targets such as less mobile pensioners.

I realise that debating it is pointless as people tend to have entrenched views, often based on belief rather than knowledge. So I commented merely to provide balance.

So you are saying that there is no point in taxing the rich?

Unfortunately the UK is much diminished as an economic power. I happen to think it would make far more money in tax revenue by becoming a low tax haven attracting inward investment.

We are that already. Massive investment in property especially in London and a major cause of the housing crisis. Many of our major businesses are foreign owned and often a total fiasco e.g. Thames Water.

But labour tends to level down rather than up as it is blinkered by equality of outcome rather than opportunity.

er - sounds like a handy but meaningless little cliche!
The more one hears doubt expressed about taxation, from the right, the well off and/or people such as yourself on that side of the fence, the less one believes it!
Same old dodgy reasoning and feeble excuses!
The clincher for me was the right-wing mass hysterical reaction to the brief ascent of Corbynism and a very real possibility of big changes in terms of tax and wealth distribution.
They clearly saw it as a real threat. I believe it probably was and not an impossibility in the way the right so confidently argue.
They are OK with Starmer - he is an old fashioned conservative and a timid little chap altogether!

 

[AJB Temple]

Jacob. I'm sure you're right and I bow to your superior knowledge of seemingly everything. I'm reminded of the quote credited to George Bernard Shaw "Never wrestle with a pig as you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it".

 

[Jacob]

Jacob. I'm sure you're right and I bow to your superior knowledge of seemingly everything. I'm reminded of the quote credited to George Bernard Shaw "Never wrestle with a pig as you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it".

Gratuitous insults and bad tempers are the often the last resort of someone losing an argument!
If everybody had believed the endless guff coming from the right we would still be in the middle ages. Then it was the divine right of kings, now a wider and easier target - the "untouchable" rights of the wealthy.
PS forgot to say - off-shore tax evading/avoiding wealth stashes are a subject of much interest. Where there's a will there's a way! (no inheritance tax pun intended)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40442595

 

[Ozi]

You don't understand the difference between AST's and Registered Tenancies do you?

With a Registered Tenancy the LandLord's responsibility is for the fabric of the building up to & including the boundaries and external decoration. Interior decoration, flooring, 'white' goods (cooker, fridge/freezer, washing machine and the like), servicing of heating & similar and glass repairs the tenant.
With an AST the landlord is responsible for the fabric of the building up to & including the boundaries, external and interior decoration. Floor coverings, make provision to supply curtains. The Landlord has to supply a Cooker, Vacuum cleaner, Lawn mower (where appropriate), may also supply a washing machine if appropriate. Has to pay for all servicing to heating.

An AST tenancy is for a minimum of 6 months, but twelve is more likely but then it can go to being a 'Periodic' tenancy which gives the tenant no change in rights - still 2 months notice from the LandLord, 1 month from the tenant to quit. Anyone who says the tenancy is for only the initial contracted period and creates a new contract is costing a long term tenant money (- it's favourite agent's trick to make more money).

A RT tenancy can be more 'secure' for the tenant but it also requires more responsibility on their part.

There are a lot of variations in AST contracts. Currently agents seem determined to reduce the tenants rights, I am constantly being told I don't need to provide white goods etc. or that if I do to tell the tenant should they fail they will not be repaired or replaced. Not only are rents rising but tenants are expecting to get less for their money. I always provide cooker, fridge freezer, washing machine / dryer and dehumidifier usually dishwasher depending on the space within the kitchen. It's getting to be an issue that tenants looking for more than 6 months contract don't expect this and often have their own, we end up storing appliances which is a pain. The other thing I am noticing is agents trying to get tenants to pay 6 months up front and expecting tenants to pay for maintenance issues that should be covered by reasonable wear and tare. This sounds a bit like blaming estate agents for gazumping, I think the thought process is if they don't maximize returns for landlords they will loose clients. Also we constantly have to check that they are not applying additional charges for things such as non existent 24 hour response plumbing etc. Any business abusing it's customers because it finds itself in a position to do so is on very thin ice

 

[Diver Fred]

There are a lot of variations in AST contracts. Currently agents seem determined to reduce the tenants rights, I am constantly being told I don't need to provide white goods etc. or that if I do to tell the tenant should they fail they will not be repaired or replaced.

My AST contract is very much in alignment with the RLA (now NRLA) model contracts. I did use an agent at one time - it was owned and ran by by a USA ex-pat. I had nothing but praise for her, as did several other LL's, she ran a very tight and 'Legal' business, her successors were very lax and only in it for the money. When we set up the contract to let via her company she took me though what was expected from myself, her company and the tenant(s).
Certainly the successor company convinced me that agents are a waste of money.

Any prospective landlord really needs to sign up to the NRLA or similar organisation and read their advice before letting. Agents telling the LL that they don't need to provide certain white goods probably don't provide such information in written form (or at least in a legally binding document).

The changes to letting law and the likely changes make letting an expensive nightmare - glad I'm finally getting out of the business.