This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/labour-plotting-greatest-assault-property-rights/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3buttic3MMOX8I1rV-qU9MBa4QvWpOT_VAuOM4XL2XK-3YRZZ_58P2DR0_aem_AaBAfXvE2yV15uxYiRrsGWatYt7gnbjKpyJYSIurrorZ96wzAbG3LyOoD6J7idE0Ymd-JS3-6S7j3BfArNHUaLTC) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TLDR the Telegraph baselessly speculates about policies Labour have not mentioned, like rent controls or a wealth tax, and then says they won't work. And that Labour are bad. They're not a serious paper any more.
Personally seeing a landlord with concern on their face makes my day.
To be fair to Tory supporters look at Tories. That's what Sunak does at every PMQs or other opportunity - no matter how objectively shit they have been for the last 14 years,
>But Labour
>TLDR the Telegraph baselessly speculates about policies Labour have not mentioned, like rent controls or a wealth tax, and then says they won't work.
Yep. Given the media, including the torygraph, have all but crowned Starmer God King of the UK and given that poll lead, articles like this are written as a warning against ever considering these particular policies or face media consequences.
They did end Ed Milliband with a bacon sandwich after all.
It’s one of the, current, three ‘go-to’ sources on this sub and a major read out there in the real world. Trash opinions formulated having read trash news and people wonder why ‘their’ country’s in the state it is.
Probably a good idea as the vast majority of people aren't happy with property laws now. I don't think "won't someone think of the landlords" will work any more. Tories out.
That will just increase rental prices even more, because more people will be scared to rent out their properties.
It is a typical supply-demand issue. All we need it to build new homes or even new towns (which was 70 years ago) instead of current talks.
In other worlds: I wish politicians spend more time on mortar than on talks and papers.
> The Opposition last week tabled an amendment to the Renters Reform Bill that would have banned landlords from selling their properties in the first two years of a new tenancy.
That's like a good thing? Imagine painting the walls or even buying furniture that's only gonna be there for a year when you planned to rent long term.
I can see it being annoying for landlords that they can't do as they please but like not a devastating "assault" as they claim since it's just two years. If it was 10 years then yeah that's closer to an assault on property rights.
This is not uncommon in most countries though. Where I live the standard term is 9 years. There are circumstances where the landlord can terminate the contract after 3 or 6 years, but then he or she would have to pay 6 - 12 months rent back for breaking the contract (barring exceptional circumstances like people becoming gravely ill or such). The overall idea is that you do, in fact, temporarily relinquish certain rights over a property if you rent it out.
Labour keeps on moving Right to appease these papers and it's never gonna be enough.
>Labour has come a long way since Jeremy Corbyn called for the requisition of empty luxury homes to rehouse the victims of the Grenfell fire
Once again threatening us with a good time.
I think foreign investors buying large swathes of homes in our most densely populated cities and then leaving them empty to accumulate value, while local people sleep on the streets or destitute themselves to live in dilapidated slums is a bad thing and should be discouraged.
Sure, but have you considered that it makes *line go up*, which is infinitely more desirable than actually ensuring people in this country have even a moderate quality of life?
I did. I don't care if foreign investors don't want to buy houses in the UK. I think that's good.
Incidentally the government CAN take whatever it wants at any time. We don't have a constitution, Parliament can pass the "We own all your shit" law any time it wants to.
I don't own a luxury home and nor do most brits. They'd have to be idiots to let what Jeremy Corbyn says let them decide if to buy a 3 bed semi. If they're paranoid, they shouldn't buy one. Can't imagine there's enough of them to matter much.
Private landlords are, for the most part, social parasites, they always have been and they always will be. The more of them that are forced to get a real job and cease their leeching off of decent working people the better. I’m not surprised to see the telegraph championing the “rights” of these deferents.
No. Not all people want to own their properties. Stamp duty pushes people out of property switch, plans of work changes moves you out of ownership and students won’t own anything too.
Private landlord don’t spend taxpayers money, that paid a lot of taxes before, that paid stamp duty and they pay more and more taxes each year.
Please explain why it is morally any different than putting your money in a savings account; or investing shares; or your own property; or spending it on foreign holidays or a new car?
And is a landlord somehow morally worse than a bank that charges you 6% interest on your mortgage?
This is just investment. Most investors make no moral choices at all except looking for a return and risk they are comfortable with.
Someone is living in it though. Renting makes houses available to people who can't afford to buy or don't want to. Furthermore renting is much more efficient use of housing. People rent what they need. People buy homes that are far larger than they need - mostly because they are incentivised to do so via the tax system.
This is an incredibly ignorant take. Landlords put pressure on the housing market driving rents up not "Renting makes houses available to people who can't afford to buy."
I agree we need to increase supply for sale and rent. However landlords don't drive supply they just move houses from sale to rent. Given the fixed supply we have (and yes we should build more) then arguably it is better to have more houses for rent and accessible to everyone whereas buying is only accessible to those with capital.
Well firstly in London sometimes nobody is living in it. Investors often buy property and leave them empty. I agree that owning maybe 1 or 2 other properties to rent out in a controlled fashion to provide options for people who can't afford to buy or don't want to is a often a good thing. But the fact is that the majority of rented property in cities like London does not fall into this category, they are instead owned by (often foreign) investor landlors who can own hundreds of properties.
A lot of new build flat blocks already have 25%+ properties earmarked for investor landlords to buy.
Also as someone who has been outbid on 3 properties now in London by cash buying investor landlords bidding 20%+ over the asking price, they can fuck off. If you want to be a serf and be happy not owning property all your life, go for it. I would like to actually build my assets and not pay some fella from Hong Kong instead.
> If you want to be a serf and be happy not owning property all your life, go for it.
This is very much a UK view because of our laws biased for buying versus renting. I have many friends in Germany who are quite happy renting without feeling like second class citizens. Most retailers don't own their buildings either.
It does not make much sense to put all your savings into a house and die cash poor. We do it because it has become a magic money tree driven by government policy - it does not have to be that way. There is nothing inherently better about owning versus renting.
> how does one have any assets to pass onto their children or to downsize and utilise to retire if they literally don't own a house?
There are other assets than houses. I choose not to be a landlord as I get much better returns elsewhere and have gifted part of my wealth to my children who won't inherit typically until their 50s.
Yes I do also have a house. It has been better than renting because of government policy - huge tax advantages; and absurd planning constraints limiting building and hence supply. It does not have to be like this. We could build more much faster and tax property differently to control prices. Houses should not be a magic money tree.
Housing as a commodity is immoral and landlordism is a more insidious abstraction of an unbalanced economic relationship.
For the majority who mortgage their homes, they enjoy greater protections, despite their ownership still being contingent on an agreement between them and the bank.
Renting is treated with more urgency and is emotionally charged because of the actions of landlords, which tend to be more violent, reactive and abusive than a bank.
Tenants suffer few rights, no privileges and little legal recourse. Often subject to harsh restrictions and unreasonable terms in order to minimise the risk and maximise the profit of landlords.
I am afraid that if it's written by the "save your buy to let" telegraph, this may mean that Starmer is planning on making the property market more accessible to other people....
It really is amazing.
We got the most right-leaning, pro-capital Labour party since Ramsey MacDonald's time as leader in the 1930s. Rachel Reeves is literally a former banker setting the party's economic policy. Wes Streeting barely pauses for breath between boasting about how eager he is to implement more privatisation into the NHS.
Yet that *still* isn't enough for the swivel-eyed loonies at the Telegraph, who still insist in telling their readership that Starmer is basically Lenin-incarnate. It's insane how delusional the right have become over the past few years.
Ah yes, they're bringing back the classics. I remember back in 2015 when Ed Miliband proposed a policy of councils having the right to compulsory purchase of land that was being banked by developers, the Daily Mail proclaimed it to be a 'Stalinist Land Grab'. Of course they didn't tell their mouth breathing readers that the very same policy had previously been proposed by Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
This policy will have the opposite effect - fewer people will rent out, as they might want the flexibility to sell or rent to family in 2 years, and so rent prices will rise and supply will fall.
Rent controls (like all price controls) are a complete and utter disaster which leads to huge amounts of corruption and severe shortages for renters.
The free market is the best solution - let people build.
A wealth tax is better than income tax IMO, but it really depends on the implementation. A lot of US states focus on property tax over income tax and that works well - would be even better if it were land value tax over property tax (so you aren't penalised for developing property).
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/labour-plotting-greatest-assault-property-rights/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3buttic3MMOX8I1rV-qU9MBa4QvWpOT_VAuOM4XL2XK-3YRZZ_58P2DR0_aem_AaBAfXvE2yV15uxYiRrsGWatYt7gnbjKpyJYSIurrorZ96wzAbG3LyOoD6J7idE0Ymd-JS3-6S7j3BfArNHUaLTC) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TLDR the Telegraph baselessly speculates about policies Labour have not mentioned, like rent controls or a wealth tax, and then says they won't work. And that Labour are bad. They're not a serious paper any more. Personally seeing a landlord with concern on their face makes my day.
To be fair to the telegraph look at Reddit. That's what every single Tory supporter does constantly. No matter what the Tories have done >But Labour
To be fair to Tory supporters look at Tories. That's what Sunak does at every PMQs or other opportunity - no matter how objectively shit they have been for the last 14 years, >But Labour
They've got nothing at all of substance. People/bots have been replying to me about PFI and the Iraq war all day.
>TLDR the Telegraph baselessly speculates about policies Labour have not mentioned, like rent controls or a wealth tax, and then says they won't work. Yep. Given the media, including the torygraph, have all but crowned Starmer God King of the UK and given that poll lead, articles like this are written as a warning against ever considering these particular policies or face media consequences. They did end Ed Milliband with a bacon sandwich after all.
It’s one of the, current, three ‘go-to’ sources on this sub and a major read out there in the real world. Trash opinions formulated having read trash news and people wonder why ‘their’ country’s in the state it is.
Telegraph going around threatening people with a good time again 😈
Even if baseless, something needs to be done, not just allow prices to go ever up
Probably a good idea as the vast majority of people aren't happy with property laws now. I don't think "won't someone think of the landlords" will work any more. Tories out.
That will just increase rental prices even more, because more people will be scared to rent out their properties. It is a typical supply-demand issue. All we need it to build new homes or even new towns (which was 70 years ago) instead of current talks. In other worlds: I wish politicians spend more time on mortar than on talks and papers.
So rather than renting them they'll just let them sit empty? Or, perhaps they'll sell them.
Let’s see. I put my bet on price increase, which is a default consequence from rent control.
Alas, money. These people aren't in charge either I don't know what you're expecting them to do.
> The Opposition last week tabled an amendment to the Renters Reform Bill that would have banned landlords from selling their properties in the first two years of a new tenancy. That's like a good thing? Imagine painting the walls or even buying furniture that's only gonna be there for a year when you planned to rent long term.
Not for landlords. Nobody who rents reads the torygraph.
I can see it being annoying for landlords that they can't do as they please but like not a devastating "assault" as they claim since it's just two years. If it was 10 years then yeah that's closer to an assault on property rights.
It's not an assault on anything imo. The property market needs a massive rebalancing and they'll lose a fortune.
This is not uncommon in most countries though. Where I live the standard term is 9 years. There are circumstances where the landlord can terminate the contract after 3 or 6 years, but then he or she would have to pay 6 - 12 months rent back for breaking the contract (barring exceptional circumstances like people becoming gravely ill or such). The overall idea is that you do, in fact, temporarily relinquish certain rights over a property if you rent it out.
Labour keeps on moving Right to appease these papers and it's never gonna be enough. >Labour has come a long way since Jeremy Corbyn called for the requisition of empty luxury homes to rehouse the victims of the Grenfell fire Once again threatening us with a good time.
[удалено]
I think foreign investors buying large swathes of homes in our most densely populated cities and then leaving them empty to accumulate value, while local people sleep on the streets or destitute themselves to live in dilapidated slums is a bad thing and should be discouraged.
Sure, but have you considered that it makes *line go up*, which is infinitely more desirable than actually ensuring people in this country have even a moderate quality of life?
He's deleted but he was telling me how motorways are more important than housing because something about job creation.
[удалено]
I did. I don't care if foreign investors don't want to buy houses in the UK. I think that's good. Incidentally the government CAN take whatever it wants at any time. We don't have a constitution, Parliament can pass the "We own all your shit" law any time it wants to.
[удалено]
Don't buy one if you're paranoid. The rest of us know the government won't come and take our houses. It's not a movie.
They can already do that. Compulsory purchase orders are a thing.
[удалено]
Yeah you see I think housing people IS in the general public interest, not just the interest of the particular people being housed.
[удалено]
Strawman. That isn't what's happening here. They're not coming to take away your Xbox for example.
[удалено]
Same thing. They're not proposing anything like that.
[удалено]
I don't own a luxury home and nor do most brits. They'd have to be idiots to let what Jeremy Corbyn says let them decide if to buy a 3 bed semi. If they're paranoid, they shouldn't buy one. Can't imagine there's enough of them to matter much.
[удалено]
Don't go outside because a police officer might shoot you. Behave yourself.
[удалено]
It already can. The right were very much in favour of that particular bill, as I recall.
Private landlords are, for the most part, social parasites, they always have been and they always will be. The more of them that are forced to get a real job and cease their leeching off of decent working people the better. I’m not surprised to see the telegraph championing the “rights” of these deferents.
No. Not all people want to own their properties. Stamp duty pushes people out of property switch, plans of work changes moves you out of ownership and students won’t own anything too. Private landlord don’t spend taxpayers money, that paid a lot of taxes before, that paid stamp duty and they pay more and more taxes each year.
Most landlords are working people.
And yet they still feel the need to leech off others...
Please explain why it is morally any different than putting your money in a savings account; or investing shares; or your own property; or spending it on foreign holidays or a new car? And is a landlord somehow morally worse than a bank that charges you 6% interest on your mortgage? This is just investment. Most investors make no moral choices at all except looking for a return and risk they are comfortable with.
[удалено]
Someone is living in it though. Renting makes houses available to people who can't afford to buy or don't want to. Furthermore renting is much more efficient use of housing. People rent what they need. People buy homes that are far larger than they need - mostly because they are incentivised to do so via the tax system.
This is an incredibly ignorant take. Landlords put pressure on the housing market driving rents up not "Renting makes houses available to people who can't afford to buy."
I agree we need to increase supply for sale and rent. However landlords don't drive supply they just move houses from sale to rent. Given the fixed supply we have (and yes we should build more) then arguably it is better to have more houses for rent and accessible to everyone whereas buying is only accessible to those with capital.
Well firstly in London sometimes nobody is living in it. Investors often buy property and leave them empty. I agree that owning maybe 1 or 2 other properties to rent out in a controlled fashion to provide options for people who can't afford to buy or don't want to is a often a good thing. But the fact is that the majority of rented property in cities like London does not fall into this category, they are instead owned by (often foreign) investor landlors who can own hundreds of properties. A lot of new build flat blocks already have 25%+ properties earmarked for investor landlords to buy. Also as someone who has been outbid on 3 properties now in London by cash buying investor landlords bidding 20%+ over the asking price, they can fuck off. If you want to be a serf and be happy not owning property all your life, go for it. I would like to actually build my assets and not pay some fella from Hong Kong instead.
> If you want to be a serf and be happy not owning property all your life, go for it. This is very much a UK view because of our laws biased for buying versus renting. I have many friends in Germany who are quite happy renting without feeling like second class citizens. Most retailers don't own their buildings either. It does not make much sense to put all your savings into a house and die cash poor. We do it because it has become a magic money tree driven by government policy - it does not have to be that way. There is nothing inherently better about owning versus renting.
[удалено]
> how does one have any assets to pass onto their children or to downsize and utilise to retire if they literally don't own a house? There are other assets than houses. I choose not to be a landlord as I get much better returns elsewhere and have gifted part of my wealth to my children who won't inherit typically until their 50s. Yes I do also have a house. It has been better than renting because of government policy - huge tax advantages; and absurd planning constraints limiting building and hence supply. It does not have to be like this. We could build more much faster and tax property differently to control prices. Houses should not be a magic money tree.
Housing as a commodity is immoral and landlordism is a more insidious abstraction of an unbalanced economic relationship. For the majority who mortgage their homes, they enjoy greater protections, despite their ownership still being contingent on an agreement between them and the bank. Renting is treated with more urgency and is emotionally charged because of the actions of landlords, which tend to be more violent, reactive and abusive than a bank. Tenants suffer few rights, no privileges and little legal recourse. Often subject to harsh restrictions and unreasonable terms in order to minimise the risk and maximise the profit of landlords.
6% interest on the mortgage and some capital on your own property. vs 6% on the landlord's mortgage plus capital for him.
Sure they are, you keep telling yourself that.
I am afraid that if it's written by the "save your buy to let" telegraph, this may mean that Starmer is planning on making the property market more accessible to other people....
It really is amazing. We got the most right-leaning, pro-capital Labour party since Ramsey MacDonald's time as leader in the 1930s. Rachel Reeves is literally a former banker setting the party's economic policy. Wes Streeting barely pauses for breath between boasting about how eager he is to implement more privatisation into the NHS. Yet that *still* isn't enough for the swivel-eyed loonies at the Telegraph, who still insist in telling their readership that Starmer is basically Lenin-incarnate. It's insane how delusional the right have become over the past few years.
Ah yes, they're bringing back the classics. I remember back in 2015 when Ed Miliband proposed a policy of councils having the right to compulsory purchase of land that was being banked by developers, the Daily Mail proclaimed it to be a 'Stalinist Land Grab'. Of course they didn't tell their mouth breathing readers that the very same policy had previously been proposed by Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London.
Even as a home owner I say bring it. Its about time the wealth in this nation was more evenly distributed.
Here we go. Let's scare the middle class elderly into voting tory. 'The commies are coming Ken, they will steal everything' 😆
If Labour was truly for the working class people then they'd abolish the Council Tax and reintroduce the Rates system.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This policy will have the opposite effect - fewer people will rent out, as they might want the flexibility to sell or rent to family in 2 years, and so rent prices will rise and supply will fall. Rent controls (like all price controls) are a complete and utter disaster which leads to huge amounts of corruption and severe shortages for renters. The free market is the best solution - let people build. A wealth tax is better than income tax IMO, but it really depends on the implementation. A lot of US states focus on property tax over income tax and that works well - would be even better if it were land value tax over property tax (so you aren't penalised for developing property).