Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

BTL is in desperate need of reform

1235719

Comments

  • Turnbull2000
    Turnbull2000 Posts: 1,807 Forumite
    None of these reforms are going to happen, and more importantly, house building levels will remain below requirements for many, many years. The only hope for an improvement in house building and planning relaxation is that the new renter generation becomes a political and voting force in ten or twenty years time.

    Until then, BTL will likely remain incentivised by government and lenders alike, with rents as a proportion of income rising and supply constraints meaning house-sharing becomes more prevalent amongst under 35's and young couples. HMOs could be the next big money spinner.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    And how would this benefit anyone other than the individual landlord?

    Makes it easier for people to own a property and get on their bike looking for work without going through the costly process of officially moving main residence every time.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • StevieJ wrote: »
    Makes it easier for people to own a property and get on their bike looking for work without going through the costly process of officially moving main residence every time.

    Same question.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Same question.
    And how would this benefit anyone other than the individual landlord?
    Then again hospitals generally only benefit those that are ill or work in them, I am not sure what your point is as anyone could potentially benefit from the change depending on circumstances.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 25 April 2011 at 2:22PM
    I'm not trying to antagonise a situation here, but will probably do so anyway.

    But I can't actually see any reasons AGAINST the reform outlined. Just people who are currently BTL landlords, who don't particularly want it to happen.....with the main empahsis trying to be thrown back to "it will be bad for people renting as costs will rise". Everything = costs rising it seems.

    Is there actually any good reason for these sorts of proposals not to go through? Or do we have to continue down the "I'm a BTL landlord and I know what's best for you" while trying to push the regulation elsewhere and state it's not the issue.
  • StevieJ wrote: »
    Then again hospitals generally only benefit those that are ill or work in them, I am not sure what your point is as anyone could potentially benefit from the change depending on circumstances.

    Most of us are born in hospitals. The NHS means that we (and/or our employers) are not burdoned with the issue of private health insurance. Hospitals, and the wider NHS, also play a role in prevention as well as treatment and provide us all with the security of knowing that the service is there, even if we never need to make use of it. They also provide a huge source of knowledge to both government and the wider health "industry" to enable us to live healthier, longer, fuller and more illness free lives. In short, the reason you might not need to use a hospital is because there is one there.

    Now, how can ANYONE benefit from the tax free status you describe apart from the LL?
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    StevieJ wrote: »
    Then again hospitals

    Are you having a giraffe with this comparison?!
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISH
    HAMISH_MCTAVISH Posts: 28,592 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    But I can't actually see any reasons AGAINST the reform outlined. .

    Here's some.
    bring buy-to-let under the regulation of the FSA.

    Why? The FSA have proven themselves incapable of regulating a childrens tea party. Their proposed (and now abandoned) mortgage regulation would have resulted in the housing minister not getting a mortgage, let alone anyone else.
    the FSA should require buy-to-let loans to be written on a repayment basis. It's not only prudent, it puts them on a level playing field with first-time buyers.

    No, what FTB-s need to level the playing field is an increase in lending. That's what is stopping them from buying. Rents are already more expensive than mortgage payments.

    Increasing landlord costs, and thus rent, will not help more FTB-s to buy, it'll just make it harder for most FTB-s to buy as they'll be paying more rent instead of saving for a deposit.
    we need better protection for tenants, such as the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies, to be replaced with longer-term contracts and rules preventing landlords raising rents by more than inflation.

    Most landlords would be happy to offer long term tenancies.... But such an arrangement should offer equal security to the landlord as well as the tenant.

    Commercial leases are commonly written on 5, 10, and even 25 year terms, with annual increases by RPI. But there is no get out clause for the renter. You're locked in for that term, and must pay the rent regardless. The level of credit checks and security deposits required are far stricter than for residential leasing as well.
    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

    Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

    -- President John F. Kennedy”
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker

    Why? The FSA have proven themselves incapable of regulating a childrens tea party. Their proposed (and now abandoned) mortgage regulation would have resulted in the housing minister not getting a mortgage, let alone anyone else.

    So why don't you apply that "why" to a few more things? Why have FSA regulation at all? Why not just allow a free for all if that's the basis of your issues. Not a very strong basis, though, is it.
    No, what FTB-s need to level the playing field is an increase in lending. That's what is stopping them from buying. Rents are already more expensive than mortgage payments.

    Increasing landlord costs, and thus rent, will not help more FTB-s to buy, it'll just make it harder for most FTB-s to buy as they'll be paying more rent instead of saving for a deposit.
    There is no point going any further on what FTBs "need". You'll simply state they are wrong, and they need more lending. This goes straight back to my point earlier of suggesting you know whats best for others. You don't. You know what's best for you.
    Most landlords would be happy to offer long term tenancies.... But such an arrangement should offer equal security to the landlord as well as the tenant.
    This, i believe, is the first time this has been mentioned, and we are on page 3. All we have had so far is "I don't want this" in a nutshell.

    Not something I personally have a problem with btw, you'll find me stating the same thing on various threads previous to this one.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker

    Now, how can ANYONE benefit from the tax free status you describe apart from the LL?

    ANYONE can benefit because it would be availble to everyone. OK not everyone would be in a position to take it up only the 70% of households that are owner occupied.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.6K Life & Family
  • 254K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.