Vat on Independent school fees?

[Kazzydeyna]

Landlords are a big issue IMHO. Someone summed it up superbly on here the other week, buying houses they can’t afford and renting them to people who barely can (or words to that effect)

The government can do something here I think. I fancy they might in a year or two once they’ve got their feet properly under the table.

Personally I would tax rental income at 80% on third and subsequent homes. No deductibles allowed (mortgage costs, insurance etc).
Make council tax payable by the landlord on all second and subsequent properties, at a growing rate (double for second property, triple for third etc).
Make a wealth tax on third and subsequent properties, payable at a rate of 20% of market value annually.
All above monies raised to be put into a national social house building and local infrastructure fund.

We have to tax people away from hoarding property. There a housing timebomb on the horizon in this country.

Remember the 70’s when homelessness was so rare they everybody in your town knew the handful of homeless people in their area they were so rare?

 

[metalblue]

Personally I would tax rental income at 80% on third and subsequent homes. No deductibles allowed (mortgage costs, insurance etc).
Make council tax payable by the landlord on all second and subsequent properties, at a growing rate (double for second property, triple for third etc).
Make a wealth tax on third and subsequent properties, payable at a rate of 20% of market value annually.
All above monies raised to be put into a national social house building and local infrastructure fund.

We have to tax people away from hoarding property. There a housing timebomb on the horizon in this country.

Remember the 70’s when homelessness was so rare they everybody in your town knew the handful of homeless people in their area they were so rare?

That would certainly end the rental market overnight.

There is a case to have private rental properties in the UK. How large that needs to be is the main question (far too large now). The individual and state is handing money over like sweets - it’s not good for the government nor growth. We do need far far more social housing, Rayner won’t commit to how many of her 1.5m homes are going to be social - not even a ballpark figure. Currently we have about 1.7m people in privately rented homes that receive housing benefit. That is estimated to cost the state £70bn over next 5 years. Let me repeat that £70bn!!!!! Let’s borrow to invest in a huge building programme for these, the state will own the asset, it will create growth and finally will save the state money in terms of rents it pays out (and/or better control the rental market). I believe that right to buy should remain as it gives those renting social housing an opportunity to see the rent they paid return something to them and not just be lost money.

Student rental is another big issue, universities are saying they are struggling - so buy/build student accommodation for the full 3 years not just the first year. Then we can control the costs of going to university a bit more.

Overall my sense is that the private rental market has become a beast and is out of control with huge knock on effects and radical policy and investment is necessary - I don’t go as far as you do in terms of how radical that should be (your policy would be on the pile marked brutal) as I think there does need to be a private rental market of some description.

 

[bluenova]

That would certainly end the rental market overnight.

There is a case to have private rental properties in the UK. How large that needs to be is the main question (far too large now). The individual and state is handing money over like sweets - it’s not good for the government nor growth. We do need far far more social housing, Rayner won’t commit to how many of her 1.5m homes are going to be social - not even a ballpark figure. Currently we have about 1.7m people in privately rented homes that receive housing benefit. That is estimated to cost the state £70bn over next 5 years. Let me repeat that £70bn!!!!! Let’s borrow to invest in a huge building programme for these, the state will own the asset, it will create growth and finally will save the state money in terms of rents it pays out (and/or better control the rental market). I believe that right to buy should remain as it gives those renting social housing an opportunity to see the rent they paid return something to them and not just be lost money.

Student rental is another big issue, universities are saying they are struggling - so buy/build student accommodation for the full 3 years not just the first year. Then we can control the costs of going to university a bit more.

Overall my sense is that the private rental market has become a beast and is out of control with huge knock on effects and radical policy and investment is necessary - I don’t go as far as you do in terms of how radical that should be (your policy would be on the pile marked brutal) as I think there does need to be a private rental market of some description.

Right to buy is a lovely idea in theory, but it's just caused so much damage to the housing market, and is a significant reason that the government is "handing money over like sweets".

Many people got discounts so high, that they added up to more than they'd ever paid in rent, while over 40% of right to buy homes are now being rented out by private landlords (in Brighton it's 86%!). A large proportion of those people will be on housing benefit, and in areas where there's high housing need, a lot of them are rented directly by the local councils, in order to house statutory homeless people on the waiting list, that mostly exists because there isn't enough social housing :/

If I was Rayner, I'd worry that if Labour built 1m Council Houses over the next decade, that a future Tory government would come in, say thank you very much, and then gain the political good will from the buyers at the expense of pretty much everyone.

 

[metalblue]

Right to buy is a lovely idea in theory, but it's just caused so much damage to the housing market, and is a significant reason that the government is "handing money over like sweets".

Many people got discounts so high, that they added up to more than they'd ever paid in rent, while over 40% of right to buy homes are now being rented out by private landlords (in Brighton it's 86%!). A large proportion of those people will be on housing benefit, and in areas where there's high housing need, a lot of them are rented directly by the local councils, in order to house statutory homeless people on the waiting list, that mostly exists because there isn't enough social housing :/

If I was Rayner, I'd worry that if Labour built 1m Council Houses over the next decade, that a future Tory government would come in, say thank you very much, and then gain the political good will from the buyers at the expense of pretty much everyone.

I don’t disagree it went too far and wasn’t well guard railed. Doesn’t mean we should chuck the baby out with the bathwater, just reimagine what that should look like.

We shouldn’t ignore the psychological aspect of it - If you know every time you pay rent some of that is going towards “a share of the home” (in theory) you’re going to want to take much better care of it.

I don’t disagree with the premise that Tory ideology would want them to sell the houses the moment they return to power - it needs some cross party discussions along with something enshrined in law that can’t be changed without something like 90% of the house agreeing.

 

[bluenova]

I don’t disagree it went too far and wasn’t well guard railed. Doesn’t mean we should chuck the baby out with the bathwater, just reimagine what that should look like.

We shouldn’t ignore the psychological aspect of it - If you know every time you pay rent some of that is going towards “a share of the home” (in theory) you’re going to want to take much better care of it.

I don’t disagree with the premise that Tory ideology would want them to sell the houses the moment they return to power - it needs some cross party discussions along with something enshrined in law that can’t be changed without something like 90% of the house agreeing.

The problem was that it was mostly bathwater and very little baby.

There are certainly plenty of benefits to home ownership, but plenty of research to suggest that right to buy left very few people better off.

I sadly don't see how you could ever get a law that required what would be a huge supermajority. Most of the current Tories would have been in a government which supported extending it, so it's unlikely they'd be on board.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

That would certainly end the rental market overnight.

There is a case to have private rental properties in the UK. How large that needs to be is the main question (far too large now). The individual and state is handing money over like sweets - it’s not good for the government nor growth. We do need far far more social housing, Rayner won’t commit to how many of her 1.5m homes are going to be social - not even a ballpark figure. Currently we have about 1.7m people in privately rented homes that receive housing benefit. That is estimated to cost the state £70bn over next 5 years. Let me repeat that £70bn!!!!! Let’s borrow to invest in a huge building programme for these, the state will own the asset, it will create growth and finally will save the state money in terms of rents it pays out (and/or better control the rental market). I believe that right to buy should remain as it gives those renting social housing an opportunity to see the rent they paid return something to them and not just be lost money.

Student rental is another big issue, universities are saying they are struggling - so buy/build student accommodation for the full 3 years not just the first year. Then we can control the costs of going to university a bit more.

Overall my sense is that the private rental market has become a beast and is out of control with huge knock on effects and radical policy and investment is necessary - I don’t go as far as you do in terms of how radical that should be (your policy would be on the pile marked brutal) as I think there does need to be a private rental market of some description.

Fair play mate. We don’t agree on much, or even this specific point, but you put forward your view coherently, fairly, and respectfully.
FWIW there’s a lot in what you say that I could get behind.
I like the idea of the state owning a decent housing stock again, it safeguards future generations as well as providing a ready income (and reducing benefit costs long term).
As for right to buy, I’m against it instinctively but that may be because of the way it was implemented the first time.
I’d be for it much more easily if there was a stipulation that councils had to replace each house sold with a replacement of equal quality and rent charges.
You make some good points which I may not agree with but I can respect your view and your choice to hold them.

 

[bluethrunthru]

We have to tax people away from hoarding property. There a housing timebomb on the horizon in this country.

If everything remains the same all those renters approaching retirement age will get housing benefit to help pay their rent ( thats you and me ) I suppose long term ( long after I am gone ) with a falling birth rate landlords will be falling over each other to attract the fewer renters that are out there - fucking bleak eh?

 

[metalblue]

Fair play mate. We don’t agree on much, or even this specific point, but you put forward your view coherently, fairly, and respectfully.
FWIW there’s a lot in what you say that I could get behind.
I like the idea of the state owning a decent housing stock again, it safeguards future generations as well as providing a ready income (and reducing benefit costs long term).
As for right to buy, I’m against it instinctively but that may be because of the way it was implemented the first time.
I’d be for it much more easily if there was a stipulation that councils had to replace each house sold with a replacement of equal quality and rent charges.
You make some good points which I may not agree with but I can respect your view and your choice to hold them.

Appreciate the response mate. I agree with you on replacement of social housing, we’ve seen what happens when we don’t do it.

I’d be quite happy to see the right to buy being linked to slightly higher rents as well for those who wanted the option. That would strike me as fair for those who have no interesting in owning it (lower rents) and also the state who will receive a bit more money from those who do.

As you rightly point out the priority absolutely has to be the state holding decent housing stock again, in that sense the mechanics of right to buy is not the biggest thing to solve right now and I’d have no issue if they mothballed RTB until housing stock levels improved.

If we built every one of the 1.7m houses needed it’ll cost between £200bn-250bn, I’d estimate it would take about 25-30 years for that to become self funding (in the sense we are just moving money around the state system rather than paying it away to private landlords etc). If houses last what 75? years then it will be easily pay for itself and our grandkids or great grandkids will thank us.

Get local builders to help build them as well… not just paying the monolithic home builders. This creates local growth. Then the government can help distribute new homes and the associate growth opportunities across the country. It will also be an opportunity to revitalise whole communities and high streets.

 

[bluethrunthru]

who will think of the vellum?

Private schools go without embossed stationery and new pools to cope with VAT

'Nice-to-haves' in independent education - 'the new swimming pool, the new AstroTurf pitch' - to be sacrificed as fees are taxed

inews.co.uk

 

[PPT]

10,000 kids from private schools back into the over stretched state school system already And this is just the start…