I just rented out my flat - Council bribed me
Discussion
boyse7en said:
If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken.
How so? There are flats that will cost your£10,000 per month to rent, but how does that show that anything is broken?This is like saying that if a car can cost £1m then the car market is broken.
Gary C said:
£1100pcm rent
for a two bed flat
Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same
but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
It depends on how much the flat is worth. Also it's the equivalent cost of the interest only, not what it would cost to buy a 200k flat.for a two bed flat
Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same
but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
Do you not see the problem ?
I do see a problem with handing some people with money for rent while others have to work for it, yes.I also see a problem with the mindset that looks at the situation and manages to find a way to claim that the landlord is doing anything at all wrong.
Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.
BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
LowTread said:
Landlords like to see themselves as providing a service.
Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.
BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
I rented my flat out while working abroad for a couple of years. That’s not taking housing stock away from anyone.Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.
BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
That chippy little socialists don’t understand this is neither here nor there.
LowTread said:
Landlords like to see themselves as providing a service.
Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.
BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
Try those buying to airbnb/short term holiday let. Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.
BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
I'm interested in buying in a nice part of Calderdale. Currently there are over 500 airbnbs in that area.
Everything somewhere nice goes up for sale guess who you are competing against to buy those properties?
Those posts have several effects.
What do you think a 3rd world person makes of the perks the 1st world offers?
Those guys live in shags, have maybe 25 pound a month to spend.
Those news go through telegram channels, those don't speak of the issues every country has.
Only the free money, free health care among other perks.
What do you think a 3rd world person makes of the perks the 1st world offers?
Those guys live in shags, have maybe 25 pound a month to spend.
Those news go through telegram channels, those don't speak of the issues every country has.
Only the free money, free health care among other perks.
Tigerj said:
boyse7en said:
Interesting to note that among all the stories about the feckless benefit scroungers living like Lords on the taxpayers dollar, there is little comment about the OP renting out a flat for more than a working couple could afford.
If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken. Councils are forced by legislation to house people and landlords know that they can, to a certain extent, put a price on a property that normal working people cannot afford yet the councils cannot afford not to pay. Obviously this further drives up rental prices and the vicious circle continues.
Op says rent is £1100 per month. Monthly take home for a working couple on even minimum wage would be best part of £3.5k. If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken. Councils are forced by legislation to house people and landlords know that they can, to a certain extent, put a price on a property that normal working people cannot afford yet the councils cannot afford not to pay. Obviously this further drives up rental prices and the vicious circle continues.
LowTread said:
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
Do you not see the problem ?
I do see a problem with handing some people with money for rent while others have to work for it, yes.I also see a problem with the mindset that looks at the situation and manages to find a way to claim that the landlord is doing anything at all wrong.
Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.
BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
Rented property doesn't decrease housing stock. Its still there with one household in one home. The name on the deeds doesn't change that. If you belive your logic then the same applies to house buyers.
Gary C said:
£1100pcm rent
for a two bed flat
Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same
but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
short term fix as usual by councils. surely they could build a load of 2beds and 1 beds en mass with a huge economies of scale deal for themselves at a much lower cost to the normal market. they have to be council houses for 10 years and after 10 years of rent and being a good tenant you may get to buy your council house at 70% of the current market value.for a two bed flat
Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same
but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
Councl have 10 years of rent income plus a lump sum to buy/build more and people elevate themselves a bit up the social ladder.
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
Do you not see the problem ?
I do see a problem with handing some people with money for rent while others have to work for it, yes.I also see a problem with the mindset that looks at the situation and manages to find a way to claim that the landlord is doing anything at all wrong.
Its more that we are in the state that the going rate for rental is so high.
Nice if your on that side of things, not so good if your renting and trying to save for a deposit
boyse7en said:
Tigerj said:
boyse7en said:
Interesting to note that among all the stories about the feckless benefit scroungers living like Lords on the taxpayers dollar, there is little comment about the OP renting out a flat for more than a working couple could afford.
If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken. Councils are forced by legislation to house people and landlords know that they can, to a certain extent, put a price on a property that normal working people cannot afford yet the councils cannot afford not to pay. Obviously this further drives up rental prices and the vicious circle continues.
Op says rent is £1100 per month. Monthly take home for a working couple on even minimum wage would be best part of £3.5k. If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken. Councils are forced by legislation to house people and landlords know that they can, to a certain extent, put a price on a property that normal working people cannot afford yet the councils cannot afford not to pay. Obviously this further drives up rental prices and the vicious circle continues.
Full time minimum wage jobs tend to work longer hours. My son is a shelf stacker and 40 hours is normal, but he's often doing 50-60 hours a week.
98elise said:
Gary C said:
£1100pcm rent
for a two bed flat
Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same
but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
It depends on how much the flat is worth. Also it's the equivalent cost of the interest only, not what it would cost to buy a 200k flat.for a two bed flat
Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same
but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
No accusation from me
Just that we are in a bind.
LowTread said:
Looked into this a while back as an "i'm sick of working" daydream thing.
You're limited to a certain level of cash (non pension) savings, but for us with 2 kids UC would pay out quite handsomely.
It doesn't take into account things like assets. So you could keep minimal savings to hand, and spunk any surplus on nice cars.
It also doesn't take into account owning your own home. We are mortgage free in a cheap to run house, so outgoings aren't too high. Could probably survive ok on UC and maybe a little part time work.
I don't think you can live like a king, but i do think as a country we've lost touch with what REAL poverty is.
Real poverty isn't about only having a 40" telly, or your kids not having the latest nintendo switch game, or only being able to afford a week abroad on holiday.
Sick of seeing sympathy pieces on the news of people pleading poverty and food banks, yet appearing on the news with new gel nails, freshly done hair, etc, moaning about having to make choices between eating and putting the heating on, yet carrying a spare 4st.
This is all another hangover from the Blair/Brown era. The worst government in history for selling us all down the river for short term political gain. Credit boom. Housing boom. PFI schemes. Non-jobs in public sector. Appointing people to top jobs based on diversity and not skills. The bloating of the welfare state. The explosion of right to buy. Selling off the gold reserves. Raiding pensions. Deregulation of the financial industry. 125% mortgages. Financial crash.
That said, the latest lot are just a continuation of that theme. Any attempt to bring down the welfare state bill is shouted down, like persuading people in council houses with more bedrooms than they need to downsize (seems sensible?), only to be labelled "bedroom tax" and quickly cancelled.
These are all reasons why now we have a situation where a single mum is being thrown money to put a roof over her head.
The lack of responsibility in this country is laughable.
/rant
There. That's better. I'm off to take some Rennie...
I think you'll find that the decline began much sooner than that with saint Maggie when everybody bought their council houses (a noble thing) but then didn't build any more properties to cover social housing. I must apply for 10 properties a month for clients who haven't a hope in hell of getting one, not even on medical grounds. Councils are actively encouraged to put our new friends into band 1 priority and the rest are left to fight for the one of two that are left, usually in the most dire sh@t holes that you wouldn't let your dog live in.You're limited to a certain level of cash (non pension) savings, but for us with 2 kids UC would pay out quite handsomely.
It doesn't take into account things like assets. So you could keep minimal savings to hand, and spunk any surplus on nice cars.
It also doesn't take into account owning your own home. We are mortgage free in a cheap to run house, so outgoings aren't too high. Could probably survive ok on UC and maybe a little part time work.
I don't think you can live like a king, but i do think as a country we've lost touch with what REAL poverty is.
Real poverty isn't about only having a 40" telly, or your kids not having the latest nintendo switch game, or only being able to afford a week abroad on holiday.
Sick of seeing sympathy pieces on the news of people pleading poverty and food banks, yet appearing on the news with new gel nails, freshly done hair, etc, moaning about having to make choices between eating and putting the heating on, yet carrying a spare 4st.
This is all another hangover from the Blair/Brown era. The worst government in history for selling us all down the river for short term political gain. Credit boom. Housing boom. PFI schemes. Non-jobs in public sector. Appointing people to top jobs based on diversity and not skills. The bloating of the welfare state. The explosion of right to buy. Selling off the gold reserves. Raiding pensions. Deregulation of the financial industry. 125% mortgages. Financial crash.
That said, the latest lot are just a continuation of that theme. Any attempt to bring down the welfare state bill is shouted down, like persuading people in council houses with more bedrooms than they need to downsize (seems sensible?), only to be labelled "bedroom tax" and quickly cancelled.
These are all reasons why now we have a situation where a single mum is being thrown money to put a roof over her head.
The lack of responsibility in this country is laughable.
/rant
There. That's better. I'm off to take some Rennie...
Edited by LowTread on Wednesday 19th June 09:39
I also see that we have plenty of the "those on benefits get everything" daily mail readers posting. For a start universal credit is capped at 2 children so those with 9 kids for benefits can crack on, they're not getting any money for them.
For a single person over the age of 25 it's 393.00 a month.
Local housing allowance in most of the country is very low, if you're in private rented accommodation you're knackered basically.
For a couple over 25 it's 617.00 a month.
Universal credit only really pays when you have disabled children as the severely disabled child component is 487.00 a month, I have clients who have a couple of disabled kids so they do ok.
Then we come to the 1940's Germany sanctions, non compliance means no money.
So a couple with no kids with a local housing allowance of 95.00 a week in private rented accommodation where the rent is £600 a month have basically £400 a month for food, gas, electric, partial council tax and toiletries. This is by far the majority not the I know somebody who knows somebody who's sister gets a million pounds a week and goes on 5 cruises a year to the Caribbean.
So if this is the life for you pack in work and join them.
I was working on an IT contract that came to an end about 15 years ago so I decided to take some time off. After a few months I decided to go on benefits as I was entitled, to make my money last a bit longer.
We owned our house with a mortgage and they were happy to pay the interest on the mortgage. I did this for about six months and it was great, we had Merlin passes and we were going to Chessington world of adventures with the children (they were 3 and 4 at the time, we lived up the road) at least once a week.
I was also going to car boot sales on the weekends and buying old Consoles, Lego, DVDs etc. and was making another £100+ a week without trying.
Basically with the benefits and the money I was making selling stuff on eBay I was bringing in the same as I was bringing home in doing a full time job after tax. They even offered me other sorts of benefits such as free school meals and milk vouchers that I just couldn't bring myself to take.
In the end I was so worried that I would never get back into the world of work so took a full time IT job. After I had paid the train fare etc. to get there I was actually no better off that being on benefits.
I can see why people do it, I could have quite easily carried on that lifestyle if I wanted and not really been any worse off as my ex wife wasn't working at the time.
15 years on I look back and think am I the stupid one for working? My ex wife's family have never worked a day in their lives, life was just one big retirement since they left school.
We owned our house with a mortgage and they were happy to pay the interest on the mortgage. I did this for about six months and it was great, we had Merlin passes and we were going to Chessington world of adventures with the children (they were 3 and 4 at the time, we lived up the road) at least once a week.
I was also going to car boot sales on the weekends and buying old Consoles, Lego, DVDs etc. and was making another £100+ a week without trying.
Basically with the benefits and the money I was making selling stuff on eBay I was bringing in the same as I was bringing home in doing a full time job after tax. They even offered me other sorts of benefits such as free school meals and milk vouchers that I just couldn't bring myself to take.
In the end I was so worried that I would never get back into the world of work so took a full time IT job. After I had paid the train fare etc. to get there I was actually no better off that being on benefits.
I can see why people do it, I could have quite easily carried on that lifestyle if I wanted and not really been any worse off as my ex wife wasn't working at the time.
15 years on I look back and think am I the stupid one for working? My ex wife's family have never worked a day in their lives, life was just one big retirement since they left school.
boyse7en said:
No it wouldn't. Two minimum wage jobs working 35 hrs a week, 52 weeks a year would be £41620, which is £3468 per month gross. Out of that you have to take national insurance, income tax and pension contributions. I can't be bothered working it out exactly but take home will be a lot less than £3500.
Most full time jobs are 40 hours. Even taking into account tax it’s as like 3420 quid a month. Stuff is expensive don’t get me wrong. But if you work you can still get by.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I was working on an IT contract that came to an end about 15 years ago so I decided to take some time off. After a few months I decided to go on benefits as I was entitled, to make my money last a bit longer.
We owned our house with a mortgage and they were happy to pay the interest on the mortgage. I did this for about six months and it was great, we had Merlin passes and we were going to Chessington world of adventures with the children (they were 3 and 4 at the time, we lived up the road) at least once a week.
I was also going to car boot sales on the weekends and buying old Consoles, Lego, DVDs etc. and was making another £100+ a week without trying.
Basically with the benefits and the money I was making selling stuff on eBay I was bringing in the same as I was bringing home in doing a full time job after tax. They even offered me other sorts of benefits such as free school meals and milk vouchers that I just couldn't bring myself to take.
In the end I was so worried that I would never get back into the world of work so took a full time IT job. After I had paid the train fare etc. to get there I was actually no better off that being on benefits.
I can see why people do it, I could have quite easily carried on that lifestyle if I wanted and not really been any worse off as my ex wife wasn't working at the time.
15 years on I look back and think am I the stupid one for working? My ex wife's family have never worked a day in their lives, life was just one big retirement since they left school.
I think you'll find that the system and it's assessments have changed a lot since 2009.We owned our house with a mortgage and they were happy to pay the interest on the mortgage. I did this for about six months and it was great, we had Merlin passes and we were going to Chessington world of adventures with the children (they were 3 and 4 at the time, we lived up the road) at least once a week.
I was also going to car boot sales on the weekends and buying old Consoles, Lego, DVDs etc. and was making another £100+ a week without trying.
Basically with the benefits and the money I was making selling stuff on eBay I was bringing in the same as I was bringing home in doing a full time job after tax. They even offered me other sorts of benefits such as free school meals and milk vouchers that I just couldn't bring myself to take.
In the end I was so worried that I would never get back into the world of work so took a full time IT job. After I had paid the train fare etc. to get there I was actually no better off that being on benefits.
I can see why people do it, I could have quite easily carried on that lifestyle if I wanted and not really been any worse off as my ex wife wasn't working at the time.
15 years on I look back and think am I the stupid one for working? My ex wife's family have never worked a day in their lives, life was just one big retirement since they left school.
boyse7en said:
No it wouldn't. Two minimum wage jobs working 35 hrs a week, 52 weeks a year would be £41620, which is £3468 per month gross. Out of that you have to take national insurance, income tax and pension contributions. I can't be bothered working it out exactly but take home will be a lot less than £3500.
The idea that if you are on minimum wage that you should choose to only work 35 hours a week is risible.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff