Lower property prices should be the objective of the next government, Generation Rent director Alex Hilton has said.
Hilton said that the nation needs to be “weaned off an addiction to capital gain”.
Hilton also called for private landlords to be taxed to the tune of £9bn to raise money for a house building programme.
He said that landlords were the main beneficiaries of today’s housing crisis, saying that without action, “millions” of tenants would be living in exploitation.
Hilton, writing for Inside Housing, said that whatever the colour and composition of the next government, its housing programme “will be woeful”.
He criticised all the major manifesto pledges, dismissing them as bribes to housing association and private tenants that were “marginally more useful than a chocolate teapot”.
He said no major party has a plan or a leader articulating what ending the housing crisis will really mean.
He said: “But we know something else about the new government. It will be weak; either a fragile minority or coalition government or possibly a small majority – but weak either way. And that’s the right time to make real demands from a Prime Minister. When they’re weak.
“I’m fed up of hearing that there’s no easy way to end the housing crisis. We’re not short of options, we’re short of direction and leadership, and rectifying this is easy.
“We actually need only three clear objectives to solve the housing crisis. The first is regulation of housing. I don’t want to live in unregulated housing any more than I want to eat unregulated prawn sandwiches or have unregulated water coming out of my taps.”
He said the second objective was cheaper house prices; and the third a “big pile of cash” to build more homes more quickly.
He said Generation Rent want a private rented sector “rent tax”, raising £9bn from private landlords, whom he described as the principal beneficiaries of today’s housing crisis.
Hilton also called for a Secretary of State for Housing.
He argued: “We need to know the name of the person responsible for ending the crisis, and whose career hangs on the success or failure of that mission.”
“These demands, thematic and broad, are what’s missing from the Homes for Britain campaign.
“These are the demands of a weak government and a weak prime minister behind which the whole housing sector should muster their strength, because the alternative is inaction and vacillation. And the consequence of that will be millions of people living in exploitation, still waiting for the end of the crisis a generation later.”
Last month, Generation Rent quit the Homes for Britain campaign.
Comments (7)
A small point I have mentioned before an SA105 land and property form completed by every landlord due to complete one (back dated) would bring in enough money each year to build 25,000 x 500 sqft starter homes each year which is about 30,000 by the time corporation tax is collected.
The tax system to collect tax from landlords exists, the only problem is; at the moment it is effectively a voluntary opt in system rather than an obligation.
Alex is a decent chap. In his own words ‘Not listening is not an option’ hence some of his provocative ‘grenades’.
It isn’t impossible to solve the housing crisis. Build more homes. Putting investors off will stifle this solution. The more onerous burdens on Landlords, the less attractive this type of investment becomes and securing funding will become harder.
Make BTL investments from pension pots more attractive and boost PRS stock. These investors will typically invest in just one property and will look after their investment & their tenant.
Get rid of the not fit for purpose s106 requirements and get builders building. Banks dont like lending in biger sites where there is an onerous s106 requirement. 10% of something would be better than 30% of nothing. Just look at the acres of undeveloped land in the Royal Docks policed by the planners in left wing Newham. Making BTL risky with decreasing net yields will drive landlords out of the market and reduce the quality of stock, repairs and maintenance.
“The first is regulation of housing. I don’t want to live in unregulated housing
He said the second objective was cheaper house prices; and the third a “big pile of cash” to build more homes more quickly.”
We have regulation in the safety of properties that are let out, we have redress for agents. Cheaper house prices – we do already – some houses are cheaper then others. Big pile of cash – sorry this was spent by Labour. Who wouldnt want a big pile of cash just given to them ? I would , but we generally have to work hard for it and provide a service/sell/make something people will buy …..like as in a real job and not working for a lobby group.
.
Mr Hilton should run for the raving looney party. As Gloslet has said we pay tax at every stage of this type of investment. In fact landlords are even taxed on improving property for their tenants!!!! as improvements are not tax deductible. Are these people so thick they do not understand basic economics. The problem is lack of supply due to unprecedented growth in the population, much from migration. It is simple to resolve the issue you either reduce demand or increase supply. The other option would be for all private landlord to evict their tenants and sell their properties – how would Mr Generation Rent like that as a solution?
Hilton’s comments are immature
Spot on Gloslet. The only tax break landlords get in the 10% wear and tear allowance which has all but disappeared with the demise of furnished tenancies.
Correct me if I’m wrong but a landlord operating in the buy to let sector is likely to pay stamp duty to buy the property, income tax on the rent received, vat on the expenses paid and CGT on any capital gain with a sale.
There is already plenty of tax being paid by landlords. Whether the Government choose to spend it on new housing (rather than subsidising right to buy) is another matter.