Buy To Let Parasite

mustrum_ridcully

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Most of the resentment is probably driven by envy. Some of which is understandable considering how completely out of reach owning property is to lots of people. And I would agree, an awful lot do think that being a landlord is easy when they have never actually been one. What could be so hard about raking in hundreds of pounds of rent a month?

It's a bit more complex than just envy on the part of buyers. There's also anger from owners who have seen the negative impacts of having a transient population of neighbours due to houses/flats being sold for BTL.

I've seen the urban de-generation that can go hand-in-hand with flat conversions and HMOs which have been driven in-part by the BTL boom. I'm talking about things like litter/waste, crime, noise, ASB, loss of community spirit etc. Thankfully I've never lived in the area I'm talking about, but if I had I'd have been pretty pee'd off.

Hammyman

wastedtalent wrote: »

This just makes mew onder why, with freedom of movement, people don't just move and rent in Germany or somewhere similar.

Simple. Because they won't get their benefits innit? :D

Hammyman

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It's quite simple really.

Countries where people are happy to rent (Germany, Austria, France etc) have:

• 3 years fixed tenancy which only the tenant can break (with good reason ie. moving areas for work) unless the tenant hasn't paid their rent.
• Capped rates for rents (so tenants have lots of disposable income after rent without the taxpayer paying top-up rents too)
• Landlords are made to reduce rent automatically, if their property impacts on the tenants quality of life (slow/no repairs, digging up of roads). Landlords know they have to repair their properties quickly, or have to reduce the rent.
• These government laws have pushed the slum/bad landlords, out of their countries.
  

As a LL, I'd be quite happy to abide by that including the capped rate for rent because some of them are quite frankly ridiculous.

wastedtalent

Hammyman wrote: »

Simple. Because they won't get their benefits innit? :D

So...you're saying people want to have their cake, AND eat it? :eek:

propertyman

And yet in this recession the government is missing a huge opportunity to
a; start with "new" new towns, built in part with workfare
b; give tax and employment incentives
c; tear up the planning rules by making them not local planning authorities but development areas
and get us building out of town.

I am a right wing conservative, but government does have role here in directing economic development. I see 20 year old building in the city if London being torn down to "upgrade". If we simply say ok , but you cant increase staff numbers beyond a certain limit ( occupancy rate), then give the incentives then jobs will move away to other reqions.

By making it as competitive as the alternative to outsourcing abroad, if they say they will outsource to India and South Africa then it's time for a shareholder and directors levy tax. While some companies can simply close up and move abroad its disgusting that the likes of the big supermarkets can do this and get away with it.

Then landlords can rent homes having bought them at sensible prices for sensible rents not brought about by over demand.

propertyman

Hammyman wrote: »

As a LL, I'd be quite happy to abide by that including the capped rate for rent because some of them are quite frankly ridiculous.

Rent Act tried that and failed.

We need to address supply and local demand to ensure that prices/rents are proportionate. The market will sort it out if the framework is laid. A large part of the problem is the wrong type of government intervention

mustrum_ridcully

Hammyman wrote: »

Simple. Because they won't get their benefits innit? :D

Talking of benefits what about about housing benefit...

If the Mail or Express ever get a bee in their bonnet about LLs using tax payers money (i.e. housing benefit) to pay their mortgage and/or make money things will turn even nastier for BTL LLs.

DVardysShadow

Hammyman wrote: »

Perhaps if you don't like renting your home or people having more money than you then maybe you should get off your lazy backside and put in the hours I did instead of whining on a forum about how bad things allegedly are.

That is just an ignorant rant from an ignorant man.

No facts to sustain your baseless accusation that I am lazy. No basis [other than my posting times] to make any kind of statement about the hours I put in. And as for calling it whining, you have no basis to say that I am unhappy with my lot. So it seems that there is something about my post which touched a rather raw nerve.

There is more value out of my lazy back side than in your post there, my friend.

johnbusby

There is naturally a limited stock of houses so it is normal for people to be a bit !!!!ed off that people are buying up all this stock and then renting it back at extortionate prices. I already feel a bit !!!!ed off that, as someone that has just come into the employment pool Im having to pick up the pieces of the economy (low pay increases / high taxes etc) yet I did not see any of the benefit of the boom years.

I'm not lazy at all but the people of my generation have got it much harder than our parents who have seen tremendous wealth growth in recent years. For example, my parents bought a house twenty years ago for 20k and have ridden the property boom to now own a house worth in excess of 300k - this is something I will never be able to afford despite having a much higher paying job than either of my folks.

If I had my way I would tax second property owners a hell of a lot more and thus disincentive second home ownership, I know that is probably not a popular sentiment on here but something has to be done to stop the older generation (who have massive equity due to the housing boom) running roughshod over the younger generations.

Oh well, back to the grindstone....

DVardysShadow

johnbusby wrote: »

... If I had my way I would tax second property owners a hell of a lot more and thus disincentive second home ownership,

This cure could bring on a worse disease due to unintended consequences. You can be sure that corporations would retain tax incentives which private Landlords would lose. And then rental housing becomes the domain of the corporations.