BTL, vile lowlife business, nobody wants to be living under their roofs

System

The_Fox wrote: »

Same old tactics, run away and find a survey or some graph or excel speadsheet that "proves" your point.

Haha!

"Same old tactics, use facts and statistic to prove me wrong, PFT as if THAT will work!"

You can't make this kind of stuff up, some people are just a waste of carbon.

IveSeenTheLight

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Hah, can you imagine little Foxy if it was still 75%, poor chap would be self harming or something.

The thing is I've shown that the rented market is approx 32% of the total market at present, but I think this is only likely to increase in the coming years.

He's not going to like that is he?

holderness

Quite an emotive OP and I can understand where you are coming from, but we live in a so called free market economy. You have as much right to buy or to rent as the next man. Can't afford it? Well thats capitalism for you and it is what it is. Unfortunatly Marxism was eventually found to be just as flawed. The rental market is heavily regulated and both tenant and landlord have rights in law, and ideally both behave in an adult and socially responsible way, and I'd suggest the majority have no real problems.

From an investment point of view BTL is currently performing better than most comparable investments - where else can you get circa 8% return on investment paid monthly AND a growth bonus if you sell?

Personally I think shares and / or precious metals are a better medium to long term investment.

IveSeenTheLight

The_Fox wrote: »

Who then ends his little statement with an emotive BS such as "some people you just can't reach"...Oh get over yourself mate.

It's a quote from a great Paul Newman Film "Cool Hand Luke".
It's also used in the begininning of GunsNRoses Civil War

full quote: -
"What we've got here is failure to communicate
Some men you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week
Which is they way he want's it
So he get's it
I don't like it any more than you men"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_we%27ve_got_here_is_(a)_failure_to_communicate

I included it in my signature for another poster, but if you think it applies to yourself then that's fine

IveSeenTheLight

holderness wrote: »

Quite an emotive OP and I can understand where you are coming from, but we live in a so called free market economy. You have as much right to buy or to rent as the next man. Can't afford it? Well thats capitalism for you and it is what it is. Unfortunatly Marxism was eventually found to be just as flawed. The rental market is heavily regulated and both tenant and landlord have rights in law, and ideally both behave in an adult and socially responsible way, and I'd suggest the majority have no real problems.

From an investment point of view BTL is currently performing better than most comparable investments - where else can you get circa 8% return on investment paid monthly AND a growth bonus if you sell?

Personally I think shares and / or precious metals are a better medium to long term investment.

Very true.
I previously had tried investing in shares and lost my investment in that way.
Some shares may proove to provide a better return than property, however property from my experience provides a far safer investment option.

Percy1983

I do believe the drop in the rental market is more due to the wealth of the county increasing rather anything else and the point is that drop would have been further if BTL's hadn't mad there own market driven by greed.

As for it being a good investment I really can't argue, but it does seem to be an investment type which was only available to one generation as us younger ones can barely afford one house and then don't have a massive equity form nothing to then cash in and buy more.

I can see argument of pensions have collapsed etc but if all the money LL's have chucked at housing was paid into pensions would they have been in such a bad way?

In short I think socially and morally there should be much higher tax's on the LL's to make it not so attractive, in short it should cost you money along the way if you expect ownership of the property at the end. Yes there would still be the BTL market as some would see it as making a loss for 25 years and then a good investment afterwards, but I doubt everybody would jump on the band wagon.

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

I do believe the drop in the rental market is more due to the wealth of the county increasing rather anything else and the point is that drop would have been further if BTL's hadn't mad there own market driven by greed.

It was not greed that dictated the private rental market, but largely due to the social housing sell off (RTB)

Percy1983 wrote: »

As for it being a good investment I really can't argue, but it does seem to be an investment type which was only available to one generation as us younger ones can barely afford one house and then don't have a massive equity form nothing to then cash in and buy more.

This is largely down to personal experience with the specific local area an aspect as well.

I know many young people who have been able to buy properties.
Some bought only a couple of years ago 2007 / 2008 when they were early 20's

I also know another just turned 30 this week that owns two properties and his girlfriend also owns her own one (three properties now in that relationship)

Percy1983 wrote: »

I can see argument of pensions have collapsed etc but if all the money LL's have chucked at housing was paid into pensions would they have been in such a bad way?

Can't agree with that.
We've seen people pay massive fortunes into pensions only to see the businesses fritter them away.

It's because of the poor pensions return experienced by others that some investors have turned to property

Percy1983 wrote: »

In short I think socially and morally there should be much higher tax's on the LL's to make it not so attractive, in short it should cost you money along the way if you expect ownership of the property at the end. Yes there would still be the BTL market as some would see it as making a loss for 25 years and then a good investment afterwards, but I doubt everybody would jump on the band wagon.

It's been shown before that BTL already pay higher than other businesses in terms of tax paid

Spartacus_Mills

From 1991 to today, in percentage terms, that is a pretty steep increase in BTL from the chart provided. From 9% to what, 13% ?

Having said that the housing market needs owner occupiers, social housing and private landlords to function.

For every Fergus and Judith Wilson I bet there are hundreds of private landlords just getting on with the job.

Without them people would not have the flexibility and the ability to move around relatively quickly. Owning is fine but so is renting. Both are perfectly valid choices.

There is no evidence that BTL Landlords have driven the price of property upwards.

IveSeenTheLight

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

From 1991 to today, in percentage terms, that is a pretty steep increase in BTL from the chart provided. From 9% to what, 13% ?

Having said that the housing market needs owner occupiers, social housing and private landlords to function.

For every Fergus and Judith Wilson I bet there are hundreds of private landlords just getting on with the job.

Without them people would not have the flexibility and the ability to move around relatively quickly. Owning is fine but so is renting. Both are perfectly valid choices.

There is no evidence that BTL Landlords have driven the price of property upwards.

The steep increase from 9% to 13% is far lower than the decrease in social rented property from 1991.

It's easier to see that owner occupancy has increased from 1991

Other than that, totally agree with your post

Percy1983

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's been shown before that BTL already pay higher than other businesses in terms of tax paid

I did say socially and morally, not financially for the country (by all means the extra income would help)

My point is if I buy a car and rent it out in will devalue but of course the overall sum is the income form the rental will cover that so I will have a pile of money and a knackered car by the end of it which overall lead to a profit.

But a house generally doesn't loose value through use to which rent should either be cheaper than a mortgage or it should taxed so the LL gets less than the mortgage, basically there should only be profit to be made once the asset is paid for as tere is no depreciation on a house (generally).

The biggest problem I have seen locally is the BTL landlords have been going for the same properties as the FTB's to which that has to push prices up at the bottom end of the market.

In short the BTL cash cow shouldn't be as attractive as it is, to be honest I can't blame people the people milking that cow right now if I was born 5 years earlier I may have made the same choices.

As for saying there is people in there 20's with multiple properties, of course there is as there is high flyers in every generation, my point is any boomer who bought there house in the early 90's (or before) had a massive equity from nothing during the boom which meant nearly any of them could have bought a second property with said equity (thank go they didn't all realise that) where as now the average 25 year old on average wage doesn't have that same opportunity.