BTL for my Baby

atush

phillsmit3 wrote: »

Totally understand what you are saying but if I put 10k in an jisa our daughter she would get it at 16/18. If I had a btl I could keep it until I believe she is responsible. Maybe Could be a wedding gift etc. She could spend the jisa irresponsibly so the same goes for both investments. But I could have paid the mortgage off by the time she is 25 and would be great for her.

Which is why I saved for my 3 in an investment trust savings plan. It was in mine name with their name as designee. I still control the money and the twins are 20 now?

kidmugsy

le_loup wrote: »

even the UK where it seemed to work very well from 1915 until Darling Maggie abolished it - no shortage of landlords making a fair return during that time.

Oh come now. British rent control was a disaster. There is no intellectually respectable case for it. All that your examples show is that politicians in different countries have spotted the opportunity to buy votes using other people's money.

le_loup

Oh, was it.
Sounds a bit like Mr Osborn's long term economic plan being brilliant. You have to provide some evidence, not just words.
My evidence is that there was no shortage of landlords at that time. The rental market worked for both parties.
But we do know your political leanings just as you know mine.
I have sympathy for tenants, you have sympathy for landlords.

colsten

le_loup wrote: »

I have sympathy for tenants, you have sympathy for landlords.

Renting or letting a house or a flat has nothing to do with sympathies. It is a business transaction. Business transactions should be regulated by supply and demand, or by industry regulators, but never by governments, and never by ideology.

kidmugsy

le_loup wrote: »

I have sympathy for tenants

But only sitting tenants it would appear. You're quite happy to much up the market for those people who want to become tenants.

N1AK

MARTYM8` wrote: »

I thought this thread was a joke when I read it?

Buying a buy to let for your baby?:eek: I suppose it just shows how our obsession with property as the sole way to invest for the future has got way out of control.

Perhaps something more liquid might be useful e.g. junior cash isa or investments?

Why does one person considering a BTL as a investment for a newborn show "our obsession with property as the sole way to invest"? I've never heard of anyone else even considering it as an option before, but other investment/savings options are often considered; which seems to entirely undermine your claim.

Although it isn't something I would recommend, liquidity argument seems like a particularly weak argument against it. If you have no intention of them accessing the asset for 18+ years then liquidity is a complete non-issue.

Drp8713

N1AK wrote: »

liquidity argument seems like a particularly weak argument against it. If you have no intention of them accessing the asset for 18+ years then liquidity is a complete non-issue.

It is always going to play a part when you want some of the money.


If you have a house worth £50k and need to access £5k urgently you have to sell the whole house and all the hassle and expenses that come with it.


If its in funds you can sell your £5k, usually with no dealing costs at the click of the button and keep the rest invested. Its also easy to top it back up with no costs.

enthusiasticsaver

phillsmit3 wrote: »

Maybe the answer is to make my own investments and help her out when and if required. It just seems a nice thing to save for her future.

Of course it is a nice and generous thing to do for your daughter and we have done the same over the years with money when they went to university, cars and their first homes but we always looked for commitment from them first. Striking a fine balance between helping them and over indulging is hard when you are a parent. As you say she could splash out with a JISA as well so maybe having caveats on either a property or an investment would be a good idea.

MARTYM8`

colsten wrote: »

Renting or letting a house or a flat has nothing to do with sympathies. It is a business transaction. Business transactions should be regulated by supply and demand, or by industry regulators, but never by governments, and never by ideology.

I agree in principle. But housing is also a social need - as we can't have kids sleeping on the streets in a civilised country?

In some very expensive areas now like Hackney and Islington and parts of Haringey over one third of people are claiming housing benefit.

The government is in effect the largest renter of properties in the UK - via its £25bn housing benefit subsidy - clearly governments therefore are a large part of the market as they influence the demand (via population growth, housing benefit, interest rates, QE) and control the supply (via planning laws and funding for housing projects).

I am all in favour of free markets - but there is nothing free about the housing market. Its one giant state industry which now exists to stop some of our largest state owned industries (banks) going bankrupt!

le_loup

[QUOTE=colsten;68320458It_is_a_business_transaction._Business_transactions_should_be_regulated_by_supply_and_demand,_or_by_industry_regulators,_but_never_by_governments,_and_never_by_ideology.[/QUOTE]


Oh, what a good idea, let's let business run our entire system - after all, the "market" knows best, as it did, for example, in banking! As for politicians - put their by voters (they call that democracy), having a say in how the country should be run - what an absurd idea.


Business is an important part of our system, but let it run wild and we have all seen the results.