If you actually all read the original article and the linked article you will see the concept it only to link rent payments to percentage of income, which makes life livable and debt repayments sustainable. If you lend people money that have low income you have to either pay them enough to pay it back or make the cost of living low enough for them to pay it back. There is no justification for linking rental prices to the price of mortgages unless a mortgage has to be paid off, which is not fair because the only reason the landlord could buy the house is because the bank lent them money over the renter. If you do not pay people you lend money to enough money to pay you back and if you make the cost of living so high they cannot live and pay the debt back the debt will default and you will lose everything. An income linked rent control is a small concession to enable the huge outstanding debt to be paid off. There has to be some concession to people to be able to pay debt back expecially when it is your savings and pensions they are paying. Your responses make me think you have not got a real grasp on the banking system if people lend money other people have to pay it back. They have to enough money to pay it back or they can't. Getting them into further debt will make it worse. Printing money will create inflation. So what other suggestion do you have. The rents in the UK, if not the US, are extortionate and surpass the cost of a mortgage. The reason the price has been so high is low interest rates and central bank intervention.
An amish family went to the mortgage company to buy a farm. The price of the farm was $264,125. The amish farmer looked at the papers and nodded to his wife who pulled out an old tin can and they set it on the desk. The astonished broker looked in the can and it was full of cash. He counted out the cash and then red faced had to tell the couple, "I'm sorry, the price is $264,125 and all you have in the can is $264,122." The farmer glared at his wife and said, "I told you, you brought the wrong can."
"Their growth may also be attributed to a surprising immunity to the real estate woes the rest of us face, Donnermeyer said. "They are often purchasing land at good market prices," he said. "They are buying land that no one else wanted to buy. Generally speaking, the Amish are a good economic value for the rural communities. They have business startups and they are more likely to buy local." http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/371...m-ohio-state-university-population-growth.htm i suppose you see the connection to investing in the market.
nobody mentions the real reson why is this so. uk has no industry and created property sector as primary industry. money from people retirment savings is used to buy and lock away property (empty) to create illusion of not enough properties. That forces large mortgages and therefore money creation. game lasts until it lasts. but it is towards end of the game.
Of course it's "morally right". The landlord is the responsible party to the bank.... doesn't matter where the money for the mortgage comes from.
If you actually all read the original article and the linked article you will see the concept it only to link rent payments to percentage of income, ------------------------------- In the US we do have this system, it's called public housing, where people are sorted by income. This system keeps all the poor people together and no money in the community. Rather than puttin the burden of poor economy on the landlord (mortgage), how about we put the burden on the taxing authorities? A reduction in taxes.
Actually the renter has the real responsibility as they have to earn it. If the responsibility of the mortgage is the landlords then they have to accept they may lose the property if the renter can't pay and default. They seem to be unwilling to do that.