PRS will drop £224bn in value if ‘accidental landlords’ leave

There is definitely a government plan which is in cahoots with the banks to demonize private landlords to make us exit the BTL market to provide large CGT profits for this government.
Selling also provides new loans for the banks with new high rate mortgages (keep us selling and buying to boost their profits) meanwhile landlords are forced to give up on good properties with good tenants which should be good a business for all including governments with long term plans for our country, but this government wants big money (CGT) now and don't care about the tenants or the long term tax money that is paid by landlords every year to the government because this government is filling its pockets while its in power.
Question ; What are the labour party gonna do? increase CGT in line with wages? if so please tell us so we can boot yet more happy tenants on to the streets before you get in because if I sell up, all my properties will go to owner occupiers (who pay no tax to the coffers that support the nurses, police, roads, etc). I could go on and on and on but the answer is simple - BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND STOP ATTACKING PRIVATE LANDLORDS! this probably applies to most hard working businesses throughout the country. What a waste of a good working Country. In the mean time I am trying my best not to sell, I really feel for those that are forced to but for now as Malcolm X says - NO SELL OUT.

It's not a housing crisis, it's an immigration crisis.

Most people migrating to live in the UK move into rental property when they arrive.

This govn't are boosting the demand to an unprecedended level whilst throttling the supply with their war on private landlords.

Legal net migration 500k a year +illegals.
= 4000 new homes needed every week !

But they shouldn't permit concreting over more English countryside with 20/acre homes.

They need to control immigration properly.

I have nothing against legal migration. But it now needs to be in balance. One in one out. We're full.

I agree with the sentiment of this article, but I think the argument would have more weight if it focused on the impact on renters, rather than artificial figures of loss of value. The PRS is not an entity with a balance sheet and the properties themselves would not lose value through the move.

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 08/03/2023 - 08:21
Yet the UK has the lowest unemployment levels in 50 years, almost 25% of the working-age population is not actively seeking employment (students, early-retirees, long-term sick) and there's an acute labour shortage. The UK economy is predicted to be the slowest-growing economy in Europe. And we're a long way from being "full" (whatever that means). We need immigration.

None of this fixes the current housing shortage, but to blame it on immigration is naive and short-sighted.

Reply to the comment left by Keith Owen at 08/03/2023 - 19:16
"there's an acute labour shortage"
1.5m unemployed ?

Importing more people means people no more GDP/capita. Just ever denser living.
For most people having to compete with millions more people for housing & jobs it means working harder & longer.

Question 1] Do you like more traffic jams & more countryside concreted over ?

Arguing that net migration running at a population the size of Bristol each year, isn't the main reason we don't have enough housing & our motorways can't cope even with hard shoulders converted at vast expense for the extra traffic, is the equivalent of arguing the reason a bucket's overflowing is nothing to do with someone continuing to pour water in when it's filled to capacity

England is now the most densely populated country in Europe.
You say we're not full.
So build where then ?
2] Farmland?
= More mouths to feed & less land to grow food
3] Flood plains?
= More flooding & more nitrate burden on our waterways.
4] Woodland, parkland, conservation areas, so you have no respect for nature, wildlife & amenity?

Only the 1% benefit from population increase
Tories are pro Ponzi growth.
Import millions of people & keep building houses & infrastructure.
Tory chums & donors like Bloor Homes love it.

Global infrastructure companies, builders, landowners, employers who can't be bothered to train people or want cheap labour who are low paid so aren't net contributors, so we subsidise this with more council housing, schools, infrastructure etc.

Greenbelt protection relaxed. Housing quotas imposed on councils thus undermining the local democratic planning process. Tories are selling England by the pound.

Example: E.Europeans undercutting local drivers so our parcelforce delivery driver's round is taken so he's going to lose his overtime. I know of many other examples.

Too bad our countryside & quality of life's degraded by resultant ever denser living.

Semi rural towns like Romsey near me, now surrounded by large new estates of 20 per acre habitation boxes on greenbelt & ever increasing traffic congestion.
The semi rural character of the area is gradually being ruined. And £millions having to be spent on flood alleviation work.

5] And for what?

This country thrived in 1950 when our population was 18 million less. It's a joy to wander through some of our unspoilt wilderness. Why would we want to sacrifice it to host millions more people?

As I say I've nothing against legal migration, but in balance. One in one out, so it no longer increases our population.

6] But how many people's here enough for you. 100m, 200m 500m or 1bn?
How much more densely do we have to live before even you think enough's enough?

If you want England to finish up like Hong Kong then why don't you go live there & let us enjoy what's left of our countryside.

Look forward to your replies to my questions numbered 1 to 6.
Though if you want to duck & dive like a politician then I won't be replying to you any further.

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 08/03/2023 - 20:36
The 1.5m registered as unemployed as you say may not have the talent or the will to work where there is employer demand, such as for doctors in the NHS or crop pickers in agriculture.

Housing density could be increased. For example, bungalows could be replaced with two storey houses or with a block of flats. Ealing, in London, has very low density due to the number of houses with front and back gardens built there historically; blocks of flats could be built there, replacing some of the houses, for instance, without touching the Green Belt.

The immigration vicious circle..

We rob other countries of their nurses & doctors etc. Then we need more homes & infrastructure. So then we need to import more builders.
But the bricklayers & builders & their families use the NHS.

So then we need to import more nurses & doctors etc, plus more builders to build more homes & infrastructure for the builders & the doctors & nurses plus more of every other type of worker etc

So then we need to import more builders & bricklayers etc.

Then they all get old thus increasing the size of elderly population to more than it would have been. So then we need to import carers !

Then the carers eventually get old so we need to import more carers to care for the imported carers.

End result after 70+ years of this..
UK population in 1950 was 50 million, now 68m = 18 million more people
Equal to adding a combined population of Austria & Hungary mostly squashed into England now the most densely pop'd country in Europe.

I'm old enough to remember England in the 1960's. A much quieter nicer place to live.
I recently drove past Romsey to Braishfield a few miles from me. Rather depressing.

The greenbelt between Romsey & the Hillier Arboretum has all but disappeared in the last 10 years. Romsey used to feel like a nice semi rural town. But it's now surrounded by new housing estates of houses crammed 20 to the acre & ever worsening traffic.

The whole character of the area is slowly & relentlessly being ruined. And flood alleviation works required as it's mostly land that floods.

Same with Allington lane at Fair Oak.
Greenbelt around Fair Oak disappearing. Feeling less & less semi rural. Everywhere's beginning to feel like a London suburb !

The character & environment of England is being ruined

Legitimacy requires the consent of the governed. We never consented. We were never asked. We do not want ever denser living.
Annual legal net migration = 500k + illegals = 4000 new needed homes a week

Denser living means no more GDP/capita.

Population expansion only benefits a few people such as land bank owners, developers, big banks, global infrastructure companies, low wage employers.

Such as Amazon who seem to have managed to replace almost every Brit delivery driver with East European drivers on lower wages who we then subsidise with more council housing, schools. NHS etc as they pay next to no net tax as they're low paid.

Isn't Jeff Bezos rich enough already ?

Stacking people higher reduces the footprint of the new buildings.
But you still need to build more.

And it doesn't solve the problem of ever more overburdened roads, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, additional nitrate burden on our waterways etc etc

We don't need population growth. It just causes massive problems.

So we subsidise low wage employers & in the process have to endure ever denser living, more countryside concreted over & more traffic jams.

This isn't rocket science. It's merely application of a little common sense.