BTL'ers are not evil are they??

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

No problem as long as they build the places. Just shifting existing stock from owner occupiers to renters (with a chunk for the landlord) is bad for an area.

why is that?

how is it substantially different for a landlord to pricing owner occupiers out of new builds to pricing them out of existing stock?

lukeh23

CLAPTON wrote: »

when you say no-one should own more than two properties, presumably you mean that no SMALL landlord?
You are perfectly content for LARGE landlords to have a local monopoly of rented property?

Define large landlords. Do you mean housing associations / local council?

Bantex_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

why is that?

how is it substantially different for a landlord to pricing owner occupiers out of new builds to pricing them out of existing stock?

If they are building purely for rental. And the please can never be sold for OO.

CLAPTON

lukeh23 wrote: »

Define large landlords. Do you mean housing associations / local council?

you wrote

My belief is that no one needs more then two homes. If they do then they should be taxed more heavily.

I was querying what exactly you were proposing.

lukeh23

CLAPTON wrote: »

you wrote



I was querying what exactly you were proposing.

All with more then two properties, apart from those providing social housing (housing associations / trusts / council housing) should be taxed at a higher rate. It should not be more lucrative to buy up homes as 'assets', because they have a higher return then savings accounts. Especially when we have such a shortage of housing (both quantity and affordable).

CLAPTON

lukeh23 wrote: »

All with more then two properties, apart from those providing social housing (housing associations / trusts / council housing) should be taxed at a higher rate. It should not be more lucrative to buy up homes as 'assets', because they have a higher return then savings accounts. Especially when we have such a shortage of housing (both quantity and affordable).

confusing:

but you would have special taxation on housing associations or trusts or not for profit organisations if they committed the sin of renting out to ordinary people like young teachers, nurses etc. who were not 'social housing tenants'?

lukeh23

CLAPTON wrote: »

confusing:

but you would have special taxation on housing associations or trusts or not for profit organisations if they committed the sin of renting out to ordinary people like young teachers, nurses etc. who were not 'social housing tenants'?

Ermm, the group you list are know as 'key workers' who benefit from housing associations / trusts etc:

For the rest who cannot afford to buy a home or rent, there is meant to be council housing.

MrRee_2

It is simple market forces at work.

I often laugh at the little village granny saying on TV that the houses in the village should be for the young of the village ................ she then sells her thatched cottage which she bought for £10 to a London Banker for £750,000 !!!

Did she sell to her neighbours son who works in the fields for the £125,000 he can only afford?

NO she didn't!

Money talks and will drift to the point of highest returns .... taxing it could stem the flow, but would that really help those who can't afford to buy - to buy?

I doubt it.

CLAPTON

lukeh23 wrote: »

Ermm, the group you list are know as 'key workers' who benefit from housing associations / trusts etc:

For the rest who cannot afford to buy a home or rent, there is meant to be council housing.

no, not all young teachers, nurses, utility and shop worker etc are 'key ' workers but you would have special extra taxes on any organisation renting out to them?

lukeh23

And we are now back to my original question...please define these organizations?

I don't know which organizations you're referring to here, and also loosing sight of what you're driving at / where we are heading with this.