If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Housing problems
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What do you think of this? What can be done to solve it? And why are public sector workers any more "key" and deserving of afforable housing, than any other low-paid workers?
0
Comments
I think as a country we should provide affordable homes for a certain set of key workers (police, fireman, teachers, doctors & nurses). We need these workers for essential services within our cities. As for other public sector workers I think its a case how essential they really are.
Agree with the landlord point. There are very few genuine demands for rented accomodation (of course, students and people who's jobs mean they move around a lot do find it beneficial to rent rather than buy). The rest is created by landlords pricing people out of the market. It's funny that ticket touts are always considered scum, yet at the end of the day, no-one needs to buy a concert ticket. Everyone needs a house to live in. Imo, buying a house for this reason is the moral equivalent of buying up all the cancer drugs, just to sell them at an inflated price.
Yawn at your post.
but lets all condem BTL landlords instead of recognising what the actual problem is. its easier innit.
I think of it as a case of some public sector workers are more essential than others.
I wouldn't like to think of London without Police, Nurses, Fireman etc. I see these people as the most essential for any city or town. We need to ensure these people can live within the city they serve at an affordable cost.
Other workers such as shop workers, street sweepers etc, In my opinion are not as essential as police and nurses. Unfortunately the high cost of housing often means these less essential people have to commute into large cities for work. But then again so do many folk who work in the private sector. Thats life unfortunately.
:thumb:
Well obviously the answer is to pay people based on how "essential" they are, and based on the local economy in which they are working, rather than having a national rate, which means that nurses in poorer areas can live fairly comfortably, whereas those working in expensive areas are living in a shithole.
that worked last time didnt it
I'm not blaming the BTL landlords exclusively, but you can't deny that they are a big factor in the problem. In 1990, 1% of mortgage debts were to BTL landlords. Now that figure is 9%. Has their really been such a huge increase in people choosing that renting is a better option than buying, or have more and more people simply realised that they can make money without having to lift a finger? And I wouldn't want to say it confidently, but I would have a guess that the majority of these purchases are the exact houses that most first-time buyers would be interested in. There will never be a situation where the number of houses for sale grossly outnumbers those looking to buy, it's simply not practical, so you have to look for solutions to other factors that push prices up. And one of these is the huge increase in people buying to let.
The best way to reduce the cost of housing, would be to increase the supply. The reason housing is so expensive in London and the SE is because there is simply not enough houses being built.
I suppose paying workers in relation to their 'essentialness' is one way. However Gordon Brown isn't known for his generous pay awards to public sector workers.
The government should buy up some land, and keep it, don't sell it to a developer for a quick buck, but build affordable quality houses for those essential workers. Fair enough it may cost them a lot to buy this land, but how much money does the NHS, Met Police and London Fire Brigade loose from workers not being able to get into work on time. Surely the benefits of these essential workers living on the doorstep would outweigh the costs?
It cant, because it made it illegal for itself to do. This is what is causing the entire problem...
Yep, developers will only build expensive housing, because that's what makes the money.
Well they are the best people to make it legal again
yes, BTL are making lots of money and there are lots more of them.
wouldnt be surprising, because of a supply problem allowing them to make themself some money...
the rest of the continent doesnt have a problem with an adequate supply of housing, even when renting is the norm...
developers build on limited land therefore limited supply of housing therefore high prices.
But unless the supply is quite a bit more than demand, then it will still be profitable to BTL, so all the houses will still be snapped up by people who don't need them. Imo, they have to make it so that BTL isn't economically viable on lower cost housing (with perhaps the exception of student accomodation - and if this is the most profitable area, then more and more landlords would go this route, and students would get more affordable rental costs too).
for a marginal amount it will still be profitable. when demand equates to supply people will be indifferent between purchasing and renting a house. the key thing is though, house prices will not suffer form as much inflation therfore the poential profit in BTL profit would disappear
If the supply of houses outstripped the demand then surely the average rent would fall? BTL landlords could buy up the excess houses, however they are going to have to let at the new lower market rate.
Who do people rent from though if we don't have BTL landlords?
Whats that?
Bin drinking?
I feel better now, thank you
What can be done? More of a difficult one. BBC Have Your Sayers (a lovely bunch
EVERYONE (including those maligned BTL landlords) on this island rents from the same landlord.