Open house

Bantex_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

tell me
where do you think a young 18 year old European person, moving to London for their first ever job, should live?

-given a house by taxpayers for free
-given a rent free house until they build up a deposit to buy on a right to buy basis
-pay a subsidised rent in state owned property
-forced to buy with their no-existent deposit and their no-existent income

or what?

Hostel or cheap B & B.

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

Hostel or cheap B & B.

would these be run by landlords?

is a B&B cheaper than a flatshare?

are there sufficient hostels for all these people? who runs them : the taxpayer or evil landlords?

chewmylegoff

lukeh23 wrote: »

Big difference is none of your listed professions have a point where the 'business' would be automatically be notified to hmrc. Its impossible to know someone has started pulling in a bit of cash in hand cutting hair or installing a shower in someones flat.

That's very different to when someone applies for a substantial loan (which is a business loan essentially) with a large financial body such as a bank. If tescos can automatically inform the tv license body when someone buys a TV, I am sure lloyds/natwest/halifax can automatically inform hmrc of someone starting a BTL mortgage.

Not sure I follow. If I start working as a plumber (or any other form of self employment for that matter) the onus is on me to inform HMRC that I am doing so. There is no automatic notification made by some kind of plumbing tax monitor. In this regard a plumber is no different to a landlord.

mobfant

CLAPTON wrote: »

many of us have preference but
what do you actually propose as practical solutions ?

tax payer funded houses for everyone?

Not sure what the last point has to do with anything. The solution would be something that makes being a landlord less profitable (but still profitable) or more difficult, so worth the hassle for professional landlords or those who are particularly keen but not for someone who just wants an investment.

CLAPTON

mobfant wrote: »

Not sure what the last point has to do with anything. The solution would be something that makes being a landlord less profitable (but still profitable) or more difficult, so worth the hassle for professional landlords or those who are particularly keen but not for someone who just wants an investment.

what exactly is 'just wants an investment' and why is that a bad thing?

so if some-one buys a farm and produces food for profit is that 'just an investment'?

or if some-one funds the buying of a farm so a young person can produce food and (both ) make a profit is that 'just an investment'

if some-one funds a small start up company is that 'just an investment'

if being a landlord was less profitable then we would expect fewer properties available for rent
where would those renters then live?