Not a time to be a buy-to-let landlord

mwpt

westernpromise wrote: »

*boggle*

That's the first time I've heard "data" described as "emotional blackmail".

I appreciate that you're emotionally invested in being short property, but to add "emotional blackmail" to the list of the wrongs houses have done you is desperate stuff.

So really, you're just this great guy who is concerned for renters right? That's why you oppose the BTL measures from clause 24?

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

Rents will go up but not because leveraged landlords will be able to pass the tax increase on. They'll go up because owner-occupation reduces occupancy. So the rental sector, while shrinking owing to a number of marginal transfers to OO, will also have to accommodate more people than at present.

Apparently not.

Across England and Wales the average household size was 2.4 people. This figure was the same for owner occupied, but lower for rented households at 2.3 people.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-on-housing-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-detailed-characteristics.html

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mwpt wrote: »

Can you just re-read my posts because you've missed my point. Nowhere am I debating that rents will go up, or that they're driven by supply/demand.

I'm saying that for some reason, this westernpromise guy, and others, use this as emotional leverage to protect their HPI and/or BTL portfolios.

I really don't know what you mean by "emotional leverage to protect their HPI and/or BTL portfolios"?

HPI and BTL portfolios are not affected by emotional states nor moral arguments.

Simply by the cold hard laws of economics.

Pointing out that rents will rise, and tenants will pay a heavy price, for clause 24 isn't an emotional argument - it's just stating the facts.

And I see nothing wrong with the landlord community pointing out that fact.

As with any other business, the worsening imbalance between supply and demand will surely lead to inflation , and in this case the finger can be squarely pointed at Osborne.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how rents always go up. Rents go up while BTL sector expands. Rents go up while BTL sector shrinks. One thing is certain, property bulls will use renters as blackmail to protect their interests.

You guys are as ridiculous as the HPC nuts.

when it comes to regulation or taxation why would the interests of landlords and renters be opposed?

Lets say the government forced all landlords to install gold plated bathtubs and have a gas safety inspection every week or to pay 90% income tax. Do you think that would really benefit tenants?

The main different for landlords and tenants are probably that landlords should naturally want low house building and tenants high house building. However even that is wrong just look at this forum and all the landlords say yes more homes need to be built (while some renters say no we dont need anymore).



In a shortage situation (that is getting worse. population growth vs house building). An expanding rental sector will mean rents are lower than they otherwise would be and a shrinking rental sector will mean rents are higher than they otherwise would be. Neither says rents will be lower or higher just lower or higher than they otherwise would be

cells

antrobus wrote: »

Apparently not.

Across England and Wales the average household size was 2.4 people. This figure was the same for owner occupied, but lower for rented households at 2.3 people.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-on-housing-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-detailed-characteristics.html

the problem with statistics is, you really need to have a good understanding of the subject especially as a lot of stats on the surface will lead you to the wrong conclusion as there are often more than one variable. It is also not just about the math side its often trying to link different data sets to try and find out what you are actually looking for.

In this case....What you need to look at is, how renters and owners live for the same property type. If you dont do that then the fact that renters generally live in smaller properties will mask the figure and give you the wrong data as there is a notable difference in the types of properties renters and owners live in.

So you would need to look at 1 bed properties owners vs renters, 2 bed properties owners vs renters, 3 bed properties owners vs renters, 4 bed..... etc. If you do that you will likely find that for the same property renters live more dense


If that does not make sense maybe its easier to say, look at the floorspace for renters vs owners. If renters typically have 25 sqm of space and owners 33 sqm of space then a home going from owner to renter will see on average 30% more people living in it.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

...So you would need to look at 1 bed properties owners vs renters, 2 bed properties owners vs renters, 3 bed properties owners vs renters, 4 bed..... etc.

So go look at it then.

cells wrote: »

....If you do that you will likely find that for the same property renters live more dense...

Stop guessing. Find out.

You could start here.:)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/overcrowding-and-under-occupation-in-england-and-wales/rpt-overcrowding-and-under-occupation-in-england-and-wales.html?format=print

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

The HPC argument that when they lose money because they were wrong, those they lost it to are somehow morally at fault for having been right is an, er, interesting one.

They must be livid with successful fund managers, whose profits clearly come at the expense of unsuccessful fund managers, and who are therefore immoral.

I have a lot of sympathy for HPC hopefuls. I think overall they are an ok bunch and some of them are reasonably cleaver at least enough to have a view on the subject (majority of people dont care or think about house prices one way or the other)

The problem for the majority of the HPC hopefuls is that they earn too little to be able to buy what they want where they want and mostly all by themselves. Well that is a losing idea as couples will outbid them and people on higher wages will outbid them irrespective of what the price level is.

They have had an even worse time of it as there are now nearly 5 million more people vs 10 years ago who can outbid them and also a lot more divorces and other demographic factors/people that can outbid them.


They should get their act together and protest for more home building rather than a crash no one else wants. They should look into alternatives eg get into a relationship so two wages can be bid. get better paid work. move to a cheaper town. etc etc

Wishing houses to go back to below build costs is going to be a long time coming

cells

antrobus wrote: »

So go look at it then.



Stop guessing. Find out.

You could start here.:)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/overcrowding-and-under-occupation-in-england-and-wales/rpt-overcrowding-and-under-occupation-in-england-and-wales.html?format=print

If I had the raw data it wouldn't be a difficult or time consuming task but to find the raw data would be time consuming so I have not tried

I do have my own data which is for renters 17sqm- 26sqm per head and a mean of 22.2 sqm.

I can also try to estimate the national average. 28 million homes 65 million people ~70 sqm for the average house = about 30 sqm per capita (this is a rough estimite depends mostly on how big the average house is)

Anyway 30 sqm vs 22 sqm puts renters at 36% more dense.

That would be a very rough estimate. I would really need a bigger renters sample set. I would need to find out the true average size of homes for the social rental and owner stock. etc etc

cells

antrobus wrote: »

So go look at it then.

Stop guessing. Find out.

You could start here.:)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/overcrowding-and-under-occupation-in-england-and-wales/rpt-overcrowding-and-under-occupation-in-england-and-wales.html?format=print

That doesn't really help also I am not too confident about the reliability of the data. There is also the factor of renters in owners home. One of the homes on this street is an owner lady with two lodgers. How is that counted?

If you could find a sample set of say 500 rentals and the landlords knew their size and number of people you could work out a reasonable guess for the floor area renters use. Likewise for owners maybe a sample of 500 homes would be sufficient. And compare the two. Smaller samples would be fine if we knew the proportion of 1-2-3-4-5 bed homes in each group so as to sample the correct amount of each group

So far I am sticking with my 36% more dense until I have better daa (PS This is for London which is probably a higher figure than the r.England).



EDIT: I think using the london figure would be better. London is 3.5 million homes 8.6 milliom people. If average 70sqm gives ~28.5 sqm vs my renters sample of 22 sqm. Gives London renters living 30% more dense than the average Londoner. However this assumes rentals and owned homes are the same size on average which is probably wrong. It also does not differentiate between social private rental and owners. It also assumes my sample set is representitive of the London rental stock which is definitely a high error estimtie. All these would suggest its actually probably higher than 30%

So I will go with. London renters live 30% more dense with quite a large margin of error (probably 10% to the downside and 20% to the upside)

cells

mwpt wrote: »

So really, you're just this great guy who is concerned for renters right? That's why you oppose the BTL measures from clause 24?

I dont know about him but Clause 24 is just plain stupid it just screws up accounting rules and regs. Just deciding that one cost is no longer to be a cost but instead some BS about lower and higher rate reliefs and credits

What next, government decides replacement washing machines are not a cost but you can claim 20% back as a credit, unless the washing machine is pink in which case its 40% and if its a samsung its 45%?


If the government thinks its a good idea to tax industry X more than do it in a non stupid way eg like the additional stamp duty