BTL'ers are not evil are they??

CLAPTON

lukeh23 wrote: »

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.

The are many landlords providing rental accommodation.
They vary for a small landlord with one or two properties, to landlords with a small block of flats, to large landlords with hundreds or thousands of properties
Some of these specialise in social only housing and some don't cater for social tenants and some will cater for both social and non social tenants.
Some of the organisations are not for profit trusts and some are not.

As I understand it, you would like to impose 'special' taxes on all landlords other than those catering for social tenants.
As there is obviously a lot of people would need to rent but do not satisfy the criteria for social housing, I question why you wish to impose additional costs on these people.

TickersPlaysPop

Hi Lukeh23

Thanks for supporting my views by trying to explain the same thing.... please realise the the people you are discussing/ debating this with have biased view points... Most of those you have engaged with here are buy to let landlords.

I have been through exactly the same debate in the recent past.... please note they will only point out how wrong you are and will never agree with you. They like to maintain an air of authority by putting people in their place rather than elegantly and respectfully showing people the realities of the housing market.... Which they prefer to keep to themselves.

The housing market is not something to talk about in generalities with variations across the country. Also, the state it is in now is a situation that has gone too far, so we need to advocate a shift back to a controlled regulated market, something that is not a free commodity market. This shift need to be over the next 10-15 years to avoid sudden jumps in the market. A nice flat housing market below wage increases for a number of years is what we need, allowing families to buy their home, it will discourage profiteering in housing, and direct available cash into constructive sustainable business building to strengthen our economy.

Houses for homes not for profiteers....

.... Is a slogan I think very much annoys them ( buy to let landlords) because they know it will win votes and mobilise/ motivate a disaffected and apathetic youth that has been an untapped source of votes in recent years.

I would like to see a popular widely supported argument against this post.

chucky

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I would like to see a popular widely supported argument against this post.

I would like to see a reasonable sensible plausible post from you but all I see is soundbites jumbled together to make sentences.

I would get more sense from reading Moneyweek than your posts.

TickersPlaysPop

Cheers Chucky

The fact you have nicely demonstrated exactly what I said my post is very amusing. With the added hypocrisy regarding sound bites it is almost side splitting :-)

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Hi Lukeh23

Thanks for supporting my views by trying to explain the same thing.... please realise the the people you are discussing/ debating this with have biased view points... Most of those you have engaged with here are buy to let landlords.

I have been through exactly the same debate in the recent past.... please note they will only point out how wrong you are and will never agree with you. They like to maintain an air of authority by putting people in their place rather than elegantly and respectfully showing people the realities of the housing market.... Which they prefer to keep to themselves.

The housing market is not something to talk about in generalities with variations across the country. Also, the state it is in now is a situation that has gone too far, so we need to advocate a shift back to a controlled regulated market, something that is not a free commodity market. This shift need to be over the next 10-15 years to avoid sudden jumps in the market. A nice flat housing market below wage increases for a number of years is what we need, allowing families to buy their home, it will discourage profiteering in housing, and direct available cash into constructive sustainable business building to strengthen our economy.

Houses for homes not for profiteers....

.... Is a slogan I think very much annoys them ( buy to let landlords) because they know it will win votes and mobilise/ motivate a disaffected and apathetic youth that has been an untapped source of votes in recent years.

I would like to see a popular widely supported argument against this post.

The government or anybody else for that matter is prepared to provide property to rent and there was and never will be a position where you will only have people either owning their own properties or in social housing so if there is no BTL where are those properties going to come from.

TickersPlaysPop

Again, another example of a nit picking drama.... if you recall the numerous posts by me, I have clearly explained BTL is good .... yay... but only at a certain % of the market, with some areas needing more than others.

When demand for rental properties is high due to inability of many wanting to buy their home due to the stupidly high housing prices it has gone too far.

TickersPlaysPop

I think this is more a case of you really not liking this thread repeatedly coming up....

I'm sorry.... As predicted by some, I'm not going away, so please give up trying to make me look stupid, it is not honourable conduct.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Again, another example of a nit picking drama.... if you recall the numerous posts by me, I have clearly explained BTL is good .... yay... but only at a certain % of the market, with some areas needing more than others.

When demand for rental properties is high due to inability of many wanting to buy their home due to the stupidly high housing prices it has gone too far.

Property prices are high because there is a shortage the reason prices are rising now is not BTL but owner occupiers. There has never been a time when everybody who wants to own a house could. I'd like to see the government or some other large organization provide secure rental accommodation but there is no sign that they will. By the way property prices are not stupidly high everywhere.

MrRee_2

BTL is a situation forced upon those with money I'm afraid .... we would MUCH rather earn 7% having our money in liquid form in the Banks.

While we can only get 1% on our cash and 7% on our properties (with the added benefit of capital growth) then property is where the money will migrate to.

Let me assure you, if buying apples and oranges gave us 8% yield and a 10% capital growth we would leave the property market tomorrow and buy Apples .......

Of course, we would then be held as evil because the young couldn't buy the Apples for the price that their Grandpappy could buy them for ....

We simply follow the money in good old MoneySavingExpert ways .... and for that we should be applauded ....

chucky

ukcarper wrote: »

Property prices are high because there is a shortage the reason prices are rising now is not BTL but owner occupiers. There has never been a time when everybody who wants to own a house could. I'd like to see the government or some other large organization provide secure rental accommodation but there is no sign that they will. By the way property prices are not stupidly high everywhere.

I'm not sure why you take the time to explain this to him, it's been done so many times.

Either he can't understand what you're explaining or he doesn't get it.