Best Of

Rachel Reeves story has made the BBC.

Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .

The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.

The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.

I rent a flat in Southwark and luckily knew about the requirement for a license (it is complicated - it doesn't even apply to all wards in the borough). I don't use a lettings agent so I did my own research into the regulatory requirements. The license is valid for 5 years so the cost is only £180/year or £15/month. The borough has a responsibility to ensure that landlords fulfill all their statutory responsibilities - to get the license you need to show that the property meets energy efficiency targets and has had gas and electricity safety checks - and enforcement costs money so it makes sense to have landlords not the general taxpayer meet the cost. In practice of course the cost will be met my the landlord and tenant combined. I don't think the regime is unreasonable - it was introduced to deal with specific rogue landlord type issues. As for Reeves, I think it is the letting agents' fault assuming she has a full management deal with them. They usually deal with regulatory requirements like the annual gas safety check.

In response to Cyclefree.

My point really is for women to not be made to feel like victims if they don’t actually feel that way. And they shouldn’t be forced to think they’re now damaged and need hours of therapy to get over an incident .

Yes, obviously they need to “man up”….

This site - not all posters, but certainly some - has been at its absolute worst over the last few days in terms of its attitudes towards women, and its belittling of violence against women.

Cyclefree and I may disagree on the precise definition of a woman, but on her substantive points raised downthread, and her frequent observations about men on this site repeatedly and systematically belittling women's so-called lived experience, I couldn't agree more.

Precisely so, and we've had a few erstwhile liberal semi-retired men rally round each other to support that this is just a political opinion being expressed. All because they want to be seen to back their side.

The ignorance is astounding, as is the behaviour.

Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.

That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.

Interesting if it's a straight fiscal swap or not. Cutting NICs by 3ppt and raising Income Tax by 3ppt sounds fair but would actually increase revenues.

Pensioners would not be happy, they pay income tax but not NI (maybe they should pay both but they don't now) so would be a clear tax rise for pensioners.

After the winter fuel debacle I suggest Starmer and Reeves avoid Skegness, Bexhill, Eastbourne etc unless they want to be pelted with rotten fruit

Separate IT tax rate for basic rate pensioners, held at the current level.

That would be an insanely unfair policy. And would lead us down an inevitable route to high taxes on the young and low taxes for the old, leading to the eventual economic collapse of the UK and possible civil war.

90% chance I reckon.

My money would be on the young, though some of the pensioners on their electric scooters could do some damage.

If it comes to drone warfare some of the elderly can certainly drone on pretty effectively too.

Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.

We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.

So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?

Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.

Why does the letting agent suddenly have a responsibility for this?

You are hiring them to find and manage tenants not to ensure you comply with the law (obviously Hampstead is a far more sensible council so you don’t need a licence)

Rachel Reeves story has made the BBC.

Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .

The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.

The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.

Agreed on the bureaucracy point.
On the latter question, an attempted answer:
Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality.
Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.

Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.

We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.

So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?

Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.

Why does the letting agent suddenly have a responsibility for this?

You are hiring them to find and manage tenants not to ensure you comply with the law (obviously Hampstead is a far more sensible council so you don’t need a licence)

I think at this point its just the two of us talking to one another!

Not true. I employ a full service agent precisely because they do the hard work of ensuring I am compliant with ever-changing regulations.