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

mayonnaise

anchovy, for bitter, envious, nasty little creatures like yourself, wishing financial ruin on others, there's a much more suitable forum: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/

Enjoy.

mwpt

mayonnaise wrote: »

anchovy, for bitter, envious, nasty little creatures like yourself, wishing financial ruin on others, there's a much more suitable forum: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/

Enjoy.

I shouldn't do this, because I always get myself into a debate I probably don't want to be in... but...

Taking the opposing view in the debate, purely in the interest of debate:

If anchovy believes the BTL industry is morally repugnant, isn't his position logical and even morally correct, to wish that the "perps" lose their shirts? Note, I am not with this particular argument going into the rights or wrongs of BTL, I'm just looking at his view from a certain frame of reference.

In his own example, the same way that some may believe drug pushers are morally repugnant and wish they would "lose their shirts".

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

I shouldn't do this, because I always get myself into a debate I probably don't want to be in... but...

Taking the opposing view in the debate, purely in the interest of debate:

If anchovy believes the BTL industry is morally repugnant, isn't his position logical and even morally correct, to wish that the "perps" lose their shirts? Note, I am not with this particular argument going into the rights or wrongs of BTL, I'm just looking at his view from a certain frame of reference.

In his own example, the same way that some may believe drug pushers are morally repugnant and wish they would "lose their shirts".

Do you really think that he actually expected me to debate with him, about his hope that I lose everything in the next few years and that society does not need people like me? If you do, it might be a credit to your belief in human nature, but I'm more skeptical.

anchovypizza wrote: »

I hope that you lose your shirt in the next few years
Society does not need people like you in it

anchovypizza wrote: »

I am just trying to debate

lisyloo

mwpt wrote: »

If anchovy believes the BTL industry is morally repugnant, isn't his position logical and even morally correct, to wish that the "perps" lose their shirts?

i guess so in the same way some might wish the same slave traders, people traffickers etc.

I would point out to anchovy that

1) some of WANT to rent privately, my personal reasons are temporary work. I have no issue with a lanlord making a profit out of that because I have the fleixibility whilst they have the risk and upkeep. I'm very happy with the arrangement.

2) I've only had 2 landlords recently but both of them are not in it for the profit and wer merely retaining their home whilst THEIR circumstances took them elsewhere. These are not evil people just people pursuing their mobile business lives as I am pursuing mine.

Yes I'm sure there are some bad landlords out there as there are in any group of people, but personally I don't see anything evil about a trade I housing per se.

lisyloo

chucknorris wrote: »

Do you really think that he actually expected me to debate with him, about his hope that I lose everything in the next few years and that society does not need people like me.

why wouldn't you debate, especially if you feel your position is caste iron.
I'm a little confused as to why millionaires would come here if not to enjoy debate?

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes I'm sure there are some bad landlords out there as there are in any group of people, but personally I don't see anything evil about a trade I housing per se.

My position should be clear by now, but some people find it hard to understand.

I am in no way against the rental sector. It is absolutely vital in fact. What I am against in the housing market is huge transfers of wealth, boom and bust and the mechanisms that make this possible at the expense of late comers or "have nots".

My belief for the rental sector is that it should be more in line (but maybe not completely) with the German model. Investment in housing should not be seen as a risky speculation with huge returns. It should be more like bonds, very safe, low yield, low but steady capital gains, but also come with the additional responsibilities of housing people.

In order to facilitate that, additional stamp duty is a good thing. You have to be in the game for the long haul. Stamp duty write offs or discounts for investment to fund new builds. No interest only mortgages! Higher BTL mortgage rates than OO. Rental cover I would look at but unsure how to set this.

Biggest issue is tenancy agreements. It would be mandated, with lenders forced to comply, that every tenancy agreement issued was an automatic long term agreement on the landlords side. Tenant may terminate early with reasonable notice. Rent increases within the tenancy period tied to some inflation measure. Easier eviction of problem tenants (well defined definition of problem). Arbitrage disputes should landlord have a valid reason to retake possession of the property.

Of course there would need to be alterations to planning laws and some sort of incentives to new builds to get everything moving.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

My position should be clear by now, but some people find it hard to understand.

I am in no way against the rental sector. It is absolutely vital in fact. What I am against in the housing market is huge transfers of wealth, boom and bust and the mechanisms that make this possible at the expense of late comers or "have nots".

My belief for the rental sector is that it should be more in line (but maybe not completely) with the German model. Investment in housing should not be seen as a risky speculation with huge returns. It should be more like bonds, very safe, low yield, low but steady capital gains, but also come with the additional responsibilities of housing people.

In order to facilitate that, additional stamp duty is a good thing. You have to be in the game for the long haul. Stamp duty write offs or discounts for investment to fund new builds. No interest only mortgages! Higher BTL mortgage rates than OO. Rental cover I would look at but unsure how to set this.

Biggest issue is tenancy agreements. It would be mandated, with lenders forced to comply, that every tenancy agreement issued was an automatic long term agreement on the landlords side. Tenant may terminate early with reasonable notice. Rent increases within the tenancy period tied to some inflation measure. Easier eviction of problem tenants (well defined definition of problem). Arbitrage disputes should landlord have a valid reason to retake possession of the property.

Of course there would need to be alterations to planning laws and some sort of incentives to new builds to get everything moving.

maybe the German model works in Germany only because there is sufficient housing.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe the German model works in Germany only because there is sufficient housing.

Maybe there is sufficient housing because the German model works. Read my last sentence.

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

why wouldn't you debate, especially if you feel your position is caste iron.
I'm a little confused as to why millionaires would come here if not to enjoy debate?

I don't think that being a millionaire has any relevance (no offence intended). I don't want to debate with someone that approaches me like that, he was obviously fishing for an argument.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Maybe there is sufficient housing because the German model works. Read my last sentence.

It is indeed so that the egg could have come before the chicken or vice versa : that was exactly my point.

As I think the fundamental point in the UK market is the lack of sufficient housing I don't think anything other than building lot more will be effective.

Once we have another couple of million homes (up rated for any population growth) then it will be more meaningful to see what the problems are at that time.