Is BTL Immoral?

The-mouth-of-the-south

Actually I did answer your question and then you got in a strop because you didn’t like it.
I have no problem with the Gov/uni letting homes as the money is going back into the system and benefits the greater good which is greater than you or I.

92203

Yes

I think you're quoting the OP out of context slightly....... I'm not of the opinion that there should be an outright ban on private rented accommodation, however there needs to be much closer regulation and increased taxation of it. It is very unfair that BTL landlords get tax relief on their mortgage payments, yet private mortgage holders have to pay full income tax on the money they use to pay off their mortgage each month.

Cleaver wrote: »

<sigh>
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? ...it was cheaper for me to rent a room in a house than a room with the

Although there is a limited role for private rented accommodation, I think that universities should act responsibly and build more purpose built accommodation. There would be cost benefits through economy of scale. In such a scenario it would surely possible to offer students safe and secure accommodation at comptetive rates.

This would benefit students in ensuring that their accommodation met minimum standards in terms of safetey and quality. It would also benefit the local economy by releasing more city centre flats and houses for key workers to live in, making it more affordable for WORKING locals to live in their town/city all year round.

The city I grew up in had a university built about 15years ago. A large citry centre suburb quickly turned into student bed-sits. While this was good for students and no doubt the land-lords, families who remained in the area became very unhappy due to the rowdy behaviour of the students now living in their neighbourhood, and also the fact that nobody took pride in looking after what were once family homes.

Cleaver wrote:

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?

I agree that there is a definite market for rental property, but believe that this market has been falsley expanded by priced out first time buyers.

There needs to be much closer regulation of buy-to-let and increased taxation to prevent it from being used to rob the young, as is currently the case.

I also personally believe that the government should be institutionally responsible for providing rented accommodation - ranging from social housing for poor people, through to "market properties" for professionals etc. This would put an end to people who were "there at the right time" making a quick buck from doing very little.

Although BTL is not wholly responsible for the idiotic levels of HPI seen over the last decade, it is one of the major causes of people being priced out. It is rather obscene that BTL has in a way, been responsible for heightening it's own demand and success..

kennyboy66_2

Cleaver wrote: »

Around 17.5 million owner occupied properties, 3.8 million privately rented and 4.5 million social houses. So only 14% of places are rented. Home-ownership is the highest it's ever been, unless I'm mistaken. This is after 10 years when every man and his dog seemed to want to become a landlord.


.

That's the problem with statistics.

Owner occupation as a percentage peaked in 2000 at 71% and has fallen slightly since.

There has been an actual fall in the numbers of people aged 25-34 who are owner occupiers (approx 350k less between 2001-2006). Now no doubt you will say this is due to university fees or polish plumbers, but probably the main reason is BTL landlords out competing this group for their first property.

I can now see why people in this aged group are a little peeved with the BTL model.

chucky

kennyboy66 wrote: »

BTL is not immoral.

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

this was because a large number of house sale transactions provide important revenue through the payment of stamp duty.

this seems like it was more important.

92203

Yes

chucky wrote: »

this was because a large number of house sale transactions provide important revenue through the payment of stamp duty.

this seems like it was more important.

And is exactly what is wrong with the way in which this country is managed. Short term gains to win cheap votes.......Maybe we'll save that discussion for another thread hey?:beer:

shane42

No

BTL is a business model, the same as selling stuff in a shop or hiring equipment to people who dont want or cant afford to buy them selves,how can it be immoral ? its ridiculas to say its immoral just plain stupid in fact

Cleaver

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

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

Actually I did answer your question and then you got in a strop because you didn’t like it.
I have no problem with the Gov/uni letting homes as the money is going back into the system and benefits the greater good which is greater than you or I.

Okay, you have finally answered my question: your solution would be to have the government own millions of homes and rent them out rent rather than private landlords. I can't begin to describe what an awful idea this, so I won't start.

92203

Yes

shane42 wrote: »

BTL is a business model, the same as selling stuff in a shop or hiring equipment to people who dont want or cant afford to buy them selves,how can it be immoral ? its ridiculas to say its immoral just plain stupid in fact

If you'd bothered to read the thread properly, you'd have read some reasoned arguments as to why this actually may be the case.

To save you the trouble of having navigate the entire thread, I'll give you a few pointers.

The concept of getting a mortgage to buy a house for rental purposes took off in the late 90s. Since then house prices have more than doubled, while wage inflation has nowehere near matched this.

Although not completely responsible for the house price boom, buy-to-let has played a major part in reducing the affordability of home owenership.

It is somewhat perverse, that the buy to let sector has actually inadvertantly engineered a situation which has placed it in high demand - eg pricing young people out of home ownership, thus forcing them into rented accommodation.

Many private landlords are "baby boomers" who were born into an era where jobs were secure and houses cheap.

To cut a long story short..... the buy to let phenomena has bred an intergenerational inequality. Young people are forced into renting due to unaffordable house prices, thus paying their wages to the baby boomer generation in the form of rent. They will also spend their working lives paying massive amounts of tax to fund the generous pension schemes bestowed upon many of baby boomers, when there is no hope that they themselves will receive such benefits themselves during old age.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Morality has nothing to do with it

92203 wrote: »

If you'd bothered to read the thread properly, you'd have read some reasoned arguments as to why this actually may be the case.

To save you the trouble of having navigate the entire thread, I'll give you a few pointers.

The concept of getting a mortgage to buy a house for rental purposes took off in the late 90s. Since then house prices have more than doubled, while wage inflation has nowehere near matched this.

Although not completely responsible for the house price boom, buy-to-let has played a major part in reducing the affordability of home owenership.

It is somewhat perverse, that the buy to let sector has actually inadvertantly engineered a situation which has placed it in high demand - eg pricing young people out of home ownership, thus forcing them into rented accommodation.

Many private landlords are "baby boomers" who were born into an era where jobs were secure and houses cheap.

To cut a long story short..... the buy to let phenomena has bred an intergenerational inequality. Young people are forced into renting due to unaffordable house prices, thus paying their wages to the baby boomer generation in the form of rent. They will also spend their working lives paying massive amounts of tax to fund the generous pension schemes bestowed upon many of baby boomers, when there is no hope that they themselves will receive such benefits themselves during old age.

Nonsense.

BTL was only responsible for prices increasing by around 7%. The rest was underlying demographic trends and shortage of supply.

92203

Yes

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nonsense.

BTL was only responsible for prices increasing by around 7%. The rest was underlying demographic trends and shortage of supply.

How can that communities document you keep quoting actually prove that the overall impact of BTL has only been a 7% increase in housing. I'll tell you - someone will have devised an unproven mathematical formula to reach this conclusion. It is NOTHING more than statistical conjecture!

You still haven't answered the question I asked in the other thread Hamish. Please see below and answer accordingly.

Out of interest Hamish, why do you take so much glee in other people's misery. Surely as a human being you should find it sad that young people who want to settle down and do things the proper way are being denied the opportunity to do so.

Everytime I log onto this forum, I see a smug post from you, rejoicing that house prices are going up and becoming less affordable.

While you may have gained through no personal endeavour of your own, other than being born into the right era, spare a thought for those of us who are young, relatively successful and hard working, but are completely priced out of owning a decent home.