Advertisement
by Marcurix » Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:16 pm
by WestRedMaple » Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:25 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
So you don't consider genocide, torture, theft, murder, etc to be unreasonable, huh? Frankly, that's pretty twisted.
Why are you not comfortable with admitting how much rent you charge?
"Sometimes bad people get into a position of power where they can enact their badness with military force OH NO"
Meanwhile the private sector has consistently proven its own self-servingness for centuries. Well I guess there are bad people in society, thanks for helping me realise this!
Why don't you admit what you charge? You brought it up.
by WestRedMaple » Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:40 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:50 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:"Sometimes bad people get into a position of power where they can enact their badness with military force OH NO"
Meanwhile the private sector has consistently proven its own self-servingness for centuries. Well I guess there are bad people in society, thanks for helping me realise this!
Why don't you admit what you charge? You brought it up.
Government has consistently proven it's own "self-servingness" for all of recorded history. Obviously that issue isn't your basis for not wanting someone to be in charge of setting prices.
So you still refuse to answer questions. Why is that?
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by WestRedMaple » Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:05 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
Government has consistently proven it's own "self-servingness" for all of recorded history. Obviously that issue isn't your basis for not wanting someone to be in charge of setting prices.
So you still refuse to answer questions. Why is that?
Mostly because, as Fartsniffage pointed out, you have no reason to suspect, believe or project that I do, did or will own private lettings.
Given my reasoning on the topic was made abundantly clear, mostly by me deriding the private sector as the personification of cuntishness.
I assume the one and only reason you concocted what you will now portray as an "argument" is "haha, you see! Your opinion is worthless!" when that's not how logical debate ever has, does or will work.
by Atlanticatia » Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:13 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:34 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:Mostly because, as Fartsniffage pointed out, you have no reason to suspect, believe or project that I do, did or will own private lettings.
Given my reasoning on the topic was made abundantly clear, mostly by me deriding the private sector as the personification of cuntishness.
I assume the one and only reason you concocted what you will now portray as an "argument" is "haha, you see! Your opinion is worthless!" when that's not how logical debate ever has, does or will work.
So you refuse to answer questions and all you can come up with of your own are assumptions.
It's pretty clear you don't have much of an argument to begin with
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by WestRedMaple » Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:21 pm
by WestRedMaple » Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:24 pm
by Dinake » Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:52 pm
Frazers wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11310826/Rent-controls-would-spell-disaster-for-thousands-of-buy-to-let-investors.htmlThe rapid growth of buy-to-let is hugely controversial, with private landlords now numbering over 1.2m. Buy-to-let investors are blamed for forcing up prices and preventing younger generations from being able to buy. There is also growing resentment toward the £9bn tax relief landlords claim on their mortgage interest - a form of tax relief not available to homeowners. Yet despite all these benefits enjoyed by private landlords, many are not generating cashflow significantly above their costs. They may be flush on paper, thanks to recently rising property values, and they may be managing month-to-month thanks to very low mortgage rates. But any significant increase in rates would push many into the red, as Telegraph Money argued first in this report last year.
If you now couple this with rent controls - as suggested by a growing number of commentators, politicians and, most recently, think tank Civitas - many in the private rented sector would find themselves losing money each month, and looking into a future where that situation would be unlikely to improve.
Civitas suggests that "once freely agreed between the tenant and the landlord, rents should not normally be allowed to rise above inflation." This cap would be coupled with tenants having the right to remain in the property as long as they wish.
Good idea or not, this could trigger cashflow nightmares for many private landlords. That is because landlords are currently borrowing at exceptionally low rates of interest.
Not only are all mortgage rates at rock bottom, but many landlords are still benefiting from "tracker rates" issued before the financial crisis. Tracker rates offered by now-defunct banks like Bradford & Bingley rise and fall in line with Bank Rate. Many landlord borrowers benefit from these still. They played a big part in helping landlords scrape through the difficult years of 2009 and 2010, and partly explain why buy-to-let repossessions are so low.
When we looked previously at landlord's ability to afford interest rate increases we took as a reasonable mortgage rate Bank Rate (currently 0.5pc) plus 3.4 percentage points. That gives a pay rate today of 3.9pc. What would happen if - and when - rates rose, but rents remained the same?
Our calculations assumed Bank Rate climbed to 3pc (unlikely in the very short term, but still a historically low level).
In London, for example, the average buy-to-let property has a value of £291,500 and attracts a monthly rent of £1,121. An interest-only mortgage on 70pc of the property value (£204,050) at a rate of 3.9pc costs £633 per month, leaving an income for the owner of £458. But a mortgage rate of 6.4pc would cost £1,088 to service per month, dragging the post-mortgage return to the landlord to just £33 per month.
Rent controls would be fatal in such a scenario. It would not be a case of the landlord "limping through": the tentants' rights to remain in the property for as long as they wished would mean the financial straitjacket would be unlikely to ease. The landlord would probably consider cutting his losses and selling up.
Clearly, the buy-to-let borrowers most at risk are those recent buyers who accepted very low rental yields in the hope of making more return via a rise in prices or capital gain.
You could argue they would have been hurt anyway by the gradual return to a "normal" interest rate environment. But anything which prevents them passing on increased mortgage costs in the form of higher rents could be the last straw.
Rent control as a way to reduce costs for tenants is quite frankly a terrible idea. The evidence from last time round (Rent Act 1977) is that rent controls coupled with high security of tenture tend not to work. They reduce supply. The way to solve the problem of skyrocketing rents is to build more - which means planning relaxation and potentially some form of restrictions on foreign ownership. Increase supply of all types of tenures.
Any thoughts NSG?
by Fartsniffage » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:28 pm
by WestRedMaple » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:29 pm
by Fartsniffage » Mon Jan 05, 2015 3:28 am
by Ethel mermania » Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:53 am
greed and death wrote:Saiwania wrote:Rent control is a huge mistake, because it doesn't enable the owners of property to raise rents high enough to cover regular maintenance and the housing deteriorates over time. Most of the people who own rent controlled properties want to get rid of them by any means they can, including the commitment of arson to enable insurance fraud.
Most refurbish the apartments to be luxury apartments which are typically exempt from rent control.
Manhattan has a large number of empty luxury apartments that the landlord would rather have as empty than to have affordable housing that they can actually rent because of the risk of rent control.
by WestRedMaple » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:45 am
Fartsniffage wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
Yes, it is.....and you're avoiding the question
IR clearly said that he believes private sector of landlords are "the personification of cuntishness" and yet you continue to insinuate that he is a private landlord.
Given you say that English is your first language, you must have understood those words. So I ask again, why are you calling IR a cunt?
by Fartsniffage » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:53 am
WestRedMaple wrote:I'm not insinuating any such thing. I'm just asking a question.
WestRedMaple wrote:So far as English being a first language, is it ANY of yours? Your question has already been addressed, which you would very well know if you were willing and able to actually read my post.
WestRedMaple wrote:You, on the other hand, have not answered the question you were asked
by WestRedMaple » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:51 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:I'm not insinuating any such thing. I'm just asking a question.
viewtopic.php?p=23023963#p23023963
viewtopic.php?p=23024063#p23024063
viewtopic.php?p=23024483#p23024483
viewtopic.php?p=23026141#p23026141
Liar.WestRedMaple wrote:So far as English being a first language, is it ANY of yours? Your question has already been addressed, which you would very well know if you were willing and able to actually read my post.
I don't believe it has. You've lied to try and pretend you aren't doing what you are, but that isn't really an answer. Let's try again, why are you calling IR a cunt?WestRedMaple wrote:You, on the other hand, have not answered the question you were asked
Which question was that?
by Fionnuala_Saoirse » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:56 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:59 pm
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Greater-London » Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm
by Fartsniffage » Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:19 pm
by Greater-London » Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:23 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Yeah, countryside is boring.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: America USA USA, Asherahan, Big Eyed Animation, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hidrandia, Jerzylvania, Juansonia, Kostane, Lycom, Niolia, So uh lab here, Stellar Colonies, The Lund, The Two Jerseys
Advertisement