No Fault Evictions

[trvlr]

in a way... the answer to the housing crisis is "simples".

Adopt the attitude and policies of early post WW2 when there was a serious shortage of housing. Many who had no where to live (as in a proper, secure home, resorted to squatting in former WW2 military places. That is until they were booted out and the properties rnedered unusable (usually removing the roof, the doors, and windows).

(Sir) Melvyn Bragg covers that whole era and its horrors and so on very clearly in his novel "The Soldiers' Return". It ought to be essential (dare I say compulsory) reading for all of school age; and similary all politicians. I suspect there is lot of his personal childhood experiences in that novel; certainly touched a few places for me as I can remember squatters as I described above.

A proper programme of social housing (aka council houses in those post WW2 days), with truly affordable rents is what's required. It worked in those post war years and reason why it wouldn't work now; other than that the few remaing builder companies much prefer to cater for the mega buck buyers. And if building "truly affordable for the potential (first time at least) buyer then ensure that its price is within the compass, range of the typical buyer; not again for those on mega buck incomes.

 

[Billy_wizz]

Wouldn't help at all if I didn't build them to start with.
In any case even if I could afford it I'd be in the same market as everybody else - buying development land or property at very high price with a high rent the only way to get a return.
The market that is way out of balance. It's a bubble with big property speculators in control. The question is how to deflate it without causing another crisis i.e. rapidly falling property prices, negative equity and so on.

The last time that was feasibly possible was when Blair and co took power! I think that's the problem everyone knows it's a problem but nobody can come up with a solution that's practical!

 

[niall Y]

The cost of houses in relation to earnings was last at this disproportionate level in the 1870's This was at a time when Britain was arguably one of the richest nations on earth. So what hope do we have now by comparison.?

In the following years it needed institutions like the Peabody Trust, and the LCC in London to take the initiative and build affordable rented homes for the poorer in society. If the need could not be met by market forces at a time when the country was richer than it is now, then how is it possible in the present moment. without similar initiatives?

Margaret Thatcher failed to realise that her ideal of a home owning democracy, would fail so quickly. And that all the housing assets would start to be owned by fewer and fewer people.

 

[Jacob]

.....If the need could not be met by market forces at a time when the country was richer than it is now, then how is it possible in the present moment. without similar initiatives?
....

Market forces aim to maximise profits; meeting needs is incidental.
The big operators and landowners are making a bomb and are also highly active lobbying Parliament and elsewhere. Housing shortage is highly profitable to those who don't need houses.

https://jacobin.com/2021/08/uk-parliament-landlords-housing-tenant-rights

 

[Ozi]

The cost of houses in relation to earnings was last at this disproportionate level in the 1870's This was at a time when Britain was arguably one of the richest nations on earth. So what hope do we have now by comparison.?

In the following years it needed institutions like the Peabody Trust, and the LCC in London to take the initiative and build affordable rented homes for the poorer in society. If the need could not be met by market forces at a time when the country was richer than it is now, then how is it possible in the present moment. without similar initiatives?

Margaret Thatcher failed to realise that her ideal of a home owning democracy, would fail so quickly. And that all the housing assets start to be owned by fewer and fewer people.

Which is why I think we need local plans that dictate what can be built AND a rise in income tax to make it possible to build at a reasonable profit and sell at an affordable price.

A lot of people don't like income tax, it is fair to say that any tax will be unfair on someone but personally I think income tax is the fairest we have. I admit I don't pay much 40% now but when I did I realized it was because I was fortunate enough to be able to.

 

[NorthernSteve]

Which is why I think we need local plans that dictate what can be built AND a rise in income tax to make it possible to build at a reasonable profit and sell at an affordable price.

A lot of people don't like income tax, it is fair to say that any tax will be unfair on someone but personally I think income tax is the fairest we have. I admit I don't pay much 40% now but when I did I realized it was because I was fortunate enough to be able to.

of course you actually pay much much more than 40%, the remaining 60%, which isn't 60% after NI is then taxed when you spend it, a further 20% VAT. That's if you don't require petrol, alcohol, or cigarettes, in which case you are taxed about 80% on the take home pay. Tax is not the answer. The Laffer curve explains this well.

 

[Jacob]

.... The Laffer curve explains this well.

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 **** 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.

 

[Ozi]

of course you actually pay much much more than 40%, the remaining 60%, which isn't 60% after NI is then taxed when you spend it, a further 20% VAT. That's if you don't require petrol, alcohol, or cigarettes, in which case you are taxed about 80% on the take home pay. Tax is not the answer. The Laffer curve explains this well.

True but things still need to be paid for. Every tax has a cost involved in collection, reduce the number of taxes and you improve efficiency. Tax as far as I am aware has two purposes, to bring in money and to change behavior. people don't like income tax a they see a big lump going from their wages but I still think it's the most efficient tax. By all means tax my alcohol it's a luxury not a right. VAT on items such as non luxury foods and safety equipment just seems wrong but what really makes me angry is when the rules don't seem to apply to everyone.

 

[monster]

The cost of houses in relation to earnings was last at this disproportionate level in the 1870's This was at a time when Britain was arguably one of the richest nations on earth. So what hope do we have now by comparison.?

In the following years it needed institutions like the Peabody Trust, and the LCC in London to take the initiative and build affordable rented homes for the poorer in society. If the need could not be met by market forces at a time when the country was richer than it is now, then how is it possible in the present moment. without similar initiatives?

Margaret Thatcher failed to realise that her ideal of a home owning democracy, would fail so quickly. And that all the housing assets start to be owned by fewer and fewer people.

One of the big drivers of house prices in more recent years has been the near zero interest rates, this has allowed folk to easily borrow ever higher multiples of their income, thus pushing up the market price.

 

[monster]

Market forces aim to maximise profits; meeting needs is incidental.
The big operators and landowners are making a bomb and are also highly active lobbying Parliament and elsewhere. Housing shortage is highly profitable to those who don't need houses.

https://jacobin.com/2021/08/uk-parliament-landlords-housing-tenant-rights

Market forces consist of the dynamic relationship between buyers and vendors - when demand exceeds supply the vendor is in the driving seat and can command a higher price, when supply exceeds demand then the buyer is in the driving seat and can drive prices down.

Both parties generally want to maximise their position - such is human nature!

Pricing in a market acts as a signalling system, so rising prices attract entrepreneurs who want to make money. In order to make money they must supply more of what is in demand, this leads to increased supply and when supply catches up with demand prices will naturally start to fall and those who were supplying the demand will turn their efforts elsewhere to make money.

The above is expressed in simple terms, and in reality we live in a highly regulated and centrally planned economy which places lots of obstacles in the way of those who wish to meet demand, further, in most markets there are powerful corporations who 'capture' regulation and skew it in their favour to monopolise markets and limit supply etc.

 

[monster]

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 **** 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.

How can the 'Laffer curve be nonsense'!

What Art Laffer merely states, is that: There is an optimum level to set tax rates at in order to maximise tax revenues!

That is self evident!

If the tax rate is set at zero then the tax revenue is zero.
If the tax rate is set at 100% then the tax revenue will again be zero as no one will bother working and or leave the country.

So if the tax rate is set low then tax revenues will be lower than they could be, but conversely if the tax rate is set to high then tax revenues will also be lower than they could be as the wealthy will leave and some of the productive will be de-incentivised and thus become less productive and investment will head overseas to a more friendly tax environment.

So there is clearly an optimum level that a gov can set taxes at to maximise its tax take, one that encourages people to work and be productive and to invest in the nation and doesn't scare people off, and this relationship is expressed as a curve, with tax revenue and tax rates as the axis.

 

[Ozi]

How can the 'Laffer curve be nonsense'!

What Art Laffer merely states, is that: There is an optimum level to set tax rates at in order to maximise tax revenues!

That is self evident!

If the tax rate is set at zero then the tax revenue is zero.
If the tax rate is set at 100% then the tax revenue will again be zero as no one will bother working and or leave the country.

So if the tax rate is set low then tax revenues will be lower than they could be, but conversely if the tax rate is set to high then tax revenues will also be lower than they could be as the wealthy will leave and some of the productive will be de-incentivised and thus become less productive and investment will head overseas to a more friendly tax environment.

So there is clearly an optimum level that a gov can set taxes at to maximise its tax take, one that encourages people to work and be productive and to invest in the nation and doesn't scare people off, and this relationship is expressed as a curve, with tax revenue and tax rates as the axis.

Stop talking common sense you know it upsets him.

 

[Jacob]

How can the 'Laffer curve be nonsense'!

What Art Laffer merely states, is that: There is an optimum level to set tax rates at in order to maximise tax revenues!

Because it is unproven and never been shown to work according to the hypothesis.

That is self evident!

If the tax rate is set at zero then the tax revenue is zero.
If the tax rate is set at 100% then the tax revenue will again be zero as no one will bother working and or leave the country.

Top tax rates were in the high 90s after the war. Only came down to 60% under Thatcher but no Laffer curve effect was noticed.
It isn't self evident.
A 100% flat rate obviously impossible but what you have missed is that tax systems are progressive.
Even a 100% top rate for the few could be survivable, though nobody is suggesting it. A moderate top rate of say 70% would undoubtedly be productive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

 

[Fergie 307]

It seems to me that building more houses, in a practical sense at least, ought to be relatively simple.

Step 1. Government get together some decent architects to design a range of houses, incorporating the most up to date construction methods and energy efficiency. There are plenty of award winning designs out there to take cues from.

Step 2. Identify areas for building.

Step 3. When the big housing developers come forward to seek permission to build X hundred homes, that permission is only forthcoming if they agree to build X number of the government homes, on a site identified at 2 , AT COST.
These developments should incorporate things like communal heat pumps and so forth. Importantly there should be an insistence upon a link between the rate at which the government homes are built, and their own. Fall behind the agreed schedule on the former and work on the latter stops.
Should be simple enough to incorporate that into the permission.

Step 4. Proper inspectors to ensure that the agreed standards and costs are being adhered to.

All ought to be perfectly possible, particularly with such a big majority in parliament, there should be little difficulty in bringing forward the necessary legislation.
How to pay for it is another matter, but you need to first have a plan, and as far as I can see so far there isn't much evidence that they do.

 

[Agent_zed]

I might have missed it in the last 20 pages so apologies if I am repeating but it seems to me that rather than blaming the small landlords that might have between 1 and a handful of houses to rent, and therefore make a small return (I think 5-6% was stated as the average return). It would seem to me to be a bigger problem allowing huge corporations to make millions on new houses along with selling leaseholds.

The CEO of redrow makes over a £1million https://gb.wallmine.com/lse/rdw/officer/1709850/matthew-pratt and according to their account docs they can now get a 150% of their salary bonus. Apparently to 'incentivise a high calibre of director'. Seeing as it's shooting fish a barrel in today's market I'm not convinced by this. Seems odd to be angry at landlords who are making a few thousand off rentals vs companies making 10s of thousands off houses, whilst somehow continuing to skirt under the need to fund any local infrastructure. At least 350 new houses went up in an estate next to me and there are no new schools or hospitals or leisure centres, just more people and cars.

Additionally the selling of land needs to be better regulated. My dad's always said if large areas of agricultural land are to be sold it should be sold to the government at a fair price and then the government can sell to the building companies. Rather than one farmer suddenly being able to sell their land for millions whilst the farmer down the road can't.

The other problem is AirBnB type renting which seems to be a problem across the world, hence the protests in many holiday destinations.

 

[Jacob]

.......
How to pay for it is another matter, but you need to first have a plan, and as far as I can see so far there isn't much evidence that they do.

We had a plan but it failed. It was the neo liberal free-market ideology adopted by Thatcher and followed consistently for 45 years, with a final immovable turd in the nest in the form of brexit
The alternative is state intervention and high taxation but the argument has not yet been won!
Starmer's solutions are vague and meaningless.

 

[paulrbarnard]

It seems to me that building more houses, in a practical sense at least, ought to be relatively simple.

Step 1. Government get together some decent architects to design a range of houses, incorporating the most up to date construction methods and energy efficiency. There are plenty of award winning designs out there to take cues from.

Step 2. Identify areas for building.

Step 3. When the big housing developers come forward to seek permission to build X hundred homes, that permission is only forthcoming if they agree to build X number of the government homes, on a site identified at 2 , AT COST.
These developments should incorporate things like communal heat pumps and so forth. Importantly there should be an insistence upon a link between the rate at which the government homes are built, and their own. Fall behind the agreed schedule on the former and work on the latter stops.
Should be simple enough to incorporate that into the permission.

Step 4. Proper inspectors to ensure that the agreed standards and costs are being adhered to.

All ought to be perfectly possible, particularly with such a big majority in parliament, there should be little difficulty in bringing forward the necessary legislation.
How to pay for it is another matter, but you need to first have a plan, and as far as I can see so far there isn't much evidence that they do.

Dare I say pre fabs. It was a solution after the war and the modern ‘kit’ houses are incredibly good. A friend just had one ‘installed’ and it went up in a few days, is very energy efficient and cost them less than a traditional build.

 

[Jacob]

Dare I say pre fabs. It was a solution after the war and the modern ‘kit’ houses are incredibly good. A friend just had one ‘installed’ and it went up in a few days, is very energy efficient and cost them less than a traditional build.

Concrete prefabs were still around when I was a kid. I had friends whose families lived in them. They weren't bad at all but coal was cheap.
Could be interesting to look again at horizontal cheap housing, like large "mobile" home parks, as compared to vertical towers which are fundamentally problematic

 

[graduate_owner]

I am sure most landlords could tell horror stories about tenants from hell. I was renting a first floor flat in a block of 4. The tenants paid absolutly nothing. They had their rent paid by the council, they had the gas meter clamped for non-payment, and they smashed the electricity slot meter and stole the money before just disappearing. Every stair had broken glass ground into the carpet. Nearly every light fitting was pulled down to waist height etc etc. There were some very decent tenants of course, but the experiences of bad ones is what affects.

I was very relieved when I was able to sell the place, and tthat was when it was possible to offset mortgage interest against rental income. These days I would not even consider renting out property, and I know of several landlords who are pulling out, selling off their premises.

K

 

[NorthernSteve]

Jacob, I can't work out if you are omniscient and infallible or ranthoneous and belligerent. Irrespective, I will refrain from further comment on this subject and return to my workshop to make progress in that regard.
Best wishes

Steve