BTL ..... who should pay?

macaque_2

BTL is now recognised as one of the UK's biggest risks to financial health and, quite rightly, mandatory wealth warnings are to be found on all mortgage products. Todays BTLs however were not always barking mad. When they took the habit up, very few people understood the risks and for this reason, they need our sympathy rather than judgement.

Where my patience runs thin however is when I see NHS resources being wasted on new BTLs. These people ignored all the wealth warnings. Why should overworked NHS dentists be paid to fit rubber bungs into the mouths of gobby BTLs? Why should ambulances have to carry tranquiliser guns when called out to 'savvy home buyers'? Why should owners of 'small property portfolios' be allowed to consume industrial quantities of Valium at the tax payer's expense?

I think we have a moral duty to help long standing BTLs but new ones should be made to pay for their treatment privately.

nearlynew

Are you feeling OK mac ?

Afriend_2

Raoul_Duke wrote: »

Side effects of cruising at the speed of life?

I see you've started working for Martin now.
I woke up to find this in my mailbox.

The Tart Alert. Tool of the Week. It's not just how, but when that counts ...
Lots of products are designed to be cheap for a short time, then the price shoots up; if you're not careful, you pay a fortune,

Cleaver

macaque wrote: »

BTL is now recognised as one of the UK's biggest risks to financial health and, quite rightly, mandatory wealth warnings are to be found on all mortgage products.

We have some of the biggest financial names in the UK that were on the verge of collapse, other financial institutions going up the wall, the government pumping hundreds of billions of pounds of fake money to buy crap assets and worthless stuff I don't get, a country going bust because of their banking system being eight times bigger than their GDP, a £1.3 trillion sub-prime mortgage industry in the US, a government seemingly hell-bent on throwing everything they can at keeping us afloat whilst not really looking at systemic issues, a credit default swap market that was worth an estimated $600 trillion worldwide (I have read and re-read what this market is and I don't get it. And it worries me that I'm a reasonably intelligent guy and I just can't get my head around what a $600 trillion industry actually is or what it does, especially as it's worth more than the world's assets. Mind boggling.).

So, in summary, with all this going on you feel that a relatively small amount of people buying some flats and houses, painting them white, and renting them out is "now recognised as one of the UK's biggest risks to financial health"? Are you sure?

macaque_2

Cleaver wrote: »

So, in summary, with all this going on you feel that a relatively small amount of people buying some flats and houses, painting them white, and renting them out is "now recognised as one of the UK's biggest risks to financial health"? Are you sure?

I was not expecting to be quoted too literally (irony needs elbow room around the facts).

My serious answer to your question however is that, "the relatively small amount of people buying some flats" are a continuum of the big problem. The "crap assets" of which you speak are for the most part linked to property. Everyone talks about the US sub prime market. The only difference between the US subprime market and the UK subprime market is that the US had their crash whilst their was still some money in the kitty to bail them out. When our property crash finally hits us we will be defenseless.

BTLs and property speculators have been bailed out of their foolishness (temporarily). I find it quite extrodinary that, rather than taking heed of the warnings' more BTL lemmings are using this lull in the storm to climb abord the as yet unlit pyre. That was the point of the OP.

Cleaver

macaque wrote: »

I was not expecting to be quoted too literally (irony needs elbow room around the facts).

My serious answer to your question however is that, "the relatively small amount of people buying some flats" are a continuum of the big problem. The "crap assets" of which you speak are for the most part linked to property. Everyone talks about the US sub prime market. The only difference between the US subprime market and the UK subprime market is that the US had their crash whilst their was still some money in the kitty to bail them out. When our property crash finally hits us we will be defenseless.

BTLs and property speculators have been bailed out of their foolishness (temporarily). I find it quite extrodinary that, rather than taking heed of the warnings' more BTL lemmings are using this lull in the storm to climb abord the as yet unlit pyre. That was the point of the OP.

You know what Macaque, I was guilty of replying before fully absorbing the point of your original post. Apologies for that, although I kinda stand by the point I was making which is that BTL is a drop in the financial ocean.

You make some good points though, as normal.

JonnyBravo

macaque wrote: »

BTL ..... who should pay?

The tenant!

Bleed them dry I say!

Bunch of dribbling idiots who never managed to save a penny in their lives. They don't know they're born.... lucky devils having us provide a roof over their heads whilst only charging a pittance in rent.

Tenants to pay everytime!

I trust that answers your question?

Thrugelmir

Cleaver wrote: »

So, in summary, with all this going on you feel that a relatively small amount of people buying some flats and houses, painting them white, and renting them out is "now recognised as one of the UK's biggest risks to financial health"? Are you sure?

The outstanding debt in the UK for residential property purchase is £1,200 billion. The comparable amount lent to companies on overdraft and loan facilities is around £450 billion.

Puts the risk into more perspective perhaps?

JonnyBravo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The outstanding debt in the UK for residential property purchase is £1,200 billion. The comparable amount lent to companies on overdraft and loan facilities is around £450 billion.

Puts the risk into more perspective perhaps?

Not really no.

What is the percieved value of the assets that the loans are tied to please?
That will put the risk into perspective a little better.

Thrugelmir

Raoul_Duke wrote: »

Why should someone who took a punt on a business gamble be persecuted more than the business that's just gone under owing 10s of thousands to local suppliers?

On what basis is BTL a business? What benefits does it produce for both the local and national economy? How much real wealth does it create?

JonnyBravo

Real wealth?
Are you trying to get at the fact that it needs to manufacture to be a business?
It supplies a service. It provides accomodation for those unwilling or unable to buy.