Is BTL Immoral?

The-mouth-of-the-south

Cleaver wrote: »

The people who will be burnt are the 14% of people in private rental accomodation, as they would be turfed out on to the street.

Just one specific question: how would you see the millions of university students being housed in their third and second years if it isn't in private, rented accomodation?

The questions starts from a broken position - there are too many people going to uni doing worthless courses.

Cleaver

P!ss off to the beach and leave us alone. Mate.

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

The questions starts from a broken position - there are too many people going to uni doing worthless courses.

You haven't answered my question. It's a bit like me asking you for solutions to the issues in Iraq, and you telling me we shouldn't be there in the first place. Very true, but we're no further as to a solution.

Okay, let's say we agree that there are too many people doing worthless degrees. So now we've agreed on that, I'll ask the question again: how should they be housed?

The-mouth-of-the-south

they should move back to where they where living before uni (most likely there parents).
If there degree is going to be worthless they are better off pulling out after 2 years of racking up the debt than spend another year just watching the debt increase.

If they where not in uni they would normally be doing something along the lines of a trade/work placement/standard job.

someone on min wage should be able to afford a place of there own - it doesnt mean they will stay there forever but at least they would be paying into the home and wanted to move they would have some equity in it to take onto the next place.

Cleaver

P!ss off to the beach and leave us alone. Mate.

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

they should move back to where they where living before uni (most likely there parents).
If there degree is going to be worthless they are better off pulling out after 2 years of racking up the debt than spend another year just watching the debt increase.

Oh my god, are you being this thick on purpose?

Let's break this down for you. My parents live in Newcastle and I'm at Oxford University studying for a very useful degree in Medicine as I'm going to become a doctor. I need a place to live after the first year as I can't live in halls. You've banned private rental, so where you propose I live?

I'm not asking you whether it's a good idea that I'm doing a degree, or whether you'd live in Oxford or not. Nor am I asking for your opinion on the future of medicine. I'm simply asking where you propose I live in a world with no private rentals allowed. Can you just answer that?

kennyboy66_2

BTL is not immoral.

What is immoral is that the government taxes work at a higher rate than speculating on house prices.

The-mouth-of-the-south

Ideally Universities should house every student it teaches if required for the entire term of their stay.

The whole BTL market which existed in the past (pre boom) didn’t impact on the man in the street like I feel it has now days.

Times have changed and the rise of house prices has caused a lot of problems.

I know you want me to answer your question directly and I will - there is only one answer in your situation and it’s to rent as you plan to do. I know that goes against my "ban BTL" stance and in the vision of the greater good this idea would have to be introduced slowly to allow people like yourself who are doing very worthwhile degrees to continue there studies. The door should be shut though (on BTL) when the University has increased its housing levels (how they do that is a different debate for another time).


So it’s clear I don’t consider the Universities letting out university apartments for students BTL.

Cleaver

P!ss off to the beach and leave us alone. Mate.

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

Ideally Universities should house every student it teaches if required for the entire term of their stay.

<sigh>

<bangs head against wall>

<cries a little bit>

I know, you're right, that would be ideal. It'd be wonderful if they did wouldn't it? Amazing for students if they did. It'd be great. But... THEY DON'T THOUGH, DO THEY??!?!? SO AS THEY DON'T, AND YOU'VE BANNED PRIVATE RENTAL, WHERE DO THEY LIVE?

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

I know you want me to answer your question directly and I will - there is only one answer in your situation and it’s to rent as you plan to do. I know that goes against my "ban BTL" stance and in the vision of the greater good this idea would have to be introduced slowly to allow people like yourself who are doing very worthwhile degrees to continue there studies.

I'm not actually studying medicine at Oxford, it was just as an example. If I do go back to my University days though, my halls of residence in the first year was £52 a week, which obviously included bills. My private rental through a landlord in the second year was £36 a week, which didn't include bills, but we had no council tax so even with bills it didn't come to £52 a week.

Therefore, it was cheaper for me to rent a room in a house than a room with the Uni. I didn't want to live at Uni, I wanted to rent a room from a landlord. I was happy, he was happy and the university was happy. I guess you're not happy with this though, because it means you don't get to buy a cheaper house? Well, sorry about that. I'm happy though, as I have a £36 a week room. So who's happiness is more important, mine or your's?

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

The door should be shut though (on BTL) when the University has increased its housing levels (how they do that is a different debate for another time).

So, let's summerise your proposal. You want to ban BTL, but then universities would have to purchase new property in order to rent this to students (which you seem to think would be an answer). Are you starting to see a slight flaw in your plan? You haven't banned private rental, you've changed the landlord from Mr Jones to the University. And in my case, Mr Jones gave me a better deal per week than the University did.

So, let's ask the question just one more time and then I'll give up. You've banned all forms of private rental. All there is is social housing and owner-occupied housing. Let's say I'm someone who has no interest whatsoever in owning a house, but I earn £50k a year and obviously don't want to live in social housing. WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE I LIVE?

Sorry, it's not like me to break out the capitals, bold and red, I just feel they are necessary in this situation.

The-mouth-of-the-south

I gave you my answer and you didnt like it.

Cleaver

P!ss off to the beach and leave us alone. Mate.

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

I gave you my answer and you didnt like it.

No you didn't. In the university example, you said that in an ideal world the university would house them but you're not sure how. This didn't answer the question of what you'd actually do.

Shall I give you another go with a different scenario, this one real? We have friends (married couple) who probably earn about £100k between them. They are planning to move to Japan in two years time to teach English. They don't want to buy a house, as they'll be moving to Japan, so they rent one. They're very happy in the house they are in.

Again, you've banned private rental. Where would my friends live? Would the taxpayers fund a house for them? Or would you introduce a law that forces them to buy a property against their will?

C_Mababejive

Morality has nothing to do with it

Morality has nothing to do with it.

What does bother me is that BTL can facilitate parasites to live in nice homes,in nice areas without earning it and then maybe making the neighbours lives hell.