Why do people resent buy-to-letters so much?

cells

HENRY78 wrote: »

Every graduate I have known who has secured a job in London. Would prefer to buy if they have made that decision to work and live in the city.

This is a totally empty statement, like saying everyone I know would prefer iphones. Tells you virtually nothing

A lot of the rental market in London is sharers. For example I have one house with 4 new-ish teachers. They could afford to buy if they all bought together. Ask them if the four want to buy that or any house together and the answer is 99% No. Of course they would like to buy a house or flat for themselves or with their partners but they dont want to buy with a group of 4 friends but are happy to rent like that.

What this means is that renters outbid owners in London via their landlords. This makes logical sense as 3-4-5 wage earners in inner London is a more efficient use of the stock and transport system. There is simply no way that renters as a whole can go from living at 3-5 persons per rental to living at 1-2 persons per rental not unless you can double the number of homes in inner London (while keeping the same number of people)

So the question should not be a almost totally worthless. Would you like to rent like the way you are or buy like the way you imagine it is in your head to own your own home.

The question should be to renters. If you had the deposit would you like the opportunity with your fellow renters in the house to together buy the property from your landlord. And in the majoirty of cases the answer would be no thanks.

of course if its renting 4 to a house and someone asks would you rather have a massive house all for yourself then the answer is a clear but impossible yes

cells

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Well, I would argue that BTL landlords still have unfair tax advantages, and all HMRC has done is to close off some of the tax avoidance. Obviously a BTL landlord will not see it in those terms, and will go on about the value they add to the economy, and how they work their little socks off all so that some nice person can rent their lovely flat at a surprisingly fair rent, cos they do not want the hassle of bothering theur pretty little head with the difficulties of ownership.

like so many people you think a £1,000 per month rent is for the work in changing a broken light bulb or painting a wall or having tenants sign an AST.

The work is the ~ 10 years of labor (£250,000) to buy/build a house

How much would you charge me to rent a house you need to build from scratch that will take you at least 20,000 hours of labor to design and build? 100 hours a month sound fair on your 20,000 hours of labor? Well that is a £200,000 house rented for £1,000pm

cells

BananaRepublic wrote: »

And how many do that? A tiny number. Odd how this thread has been swamped by what must be BTL landlords describing the saintly behaviour of BTL landlords.

What Landlords do is bring capital to the table.

I might not be able to buy a new car but I can rent one, thanks to someone else putting the capital on the table for that to happen.

Mortgages allow a way for people with little capital but a steady income to also join in. In this respect owners have it far easier able to get ok deals for 5 or 10% down

If you want landlords to go away there needs to be someone else to bring in this capital, governments or FTBs. In this respect mortgage regulation has gone too far and we should return to Interest only 5% down mortgages for owners (at least a hybrid system eg 5-10 years IO 20-25 years repayment).

mwpt

cells wrote: »

like so many people you think a £1,000 per month rent is for the work in changing a broken light bulb or painting a wall or having tenants sign an AST.

The work is the ~ 10 years of labor (£250,000) to buy/build a house

How much would you charge me to rent a house you need to build from scratch that will take you at least 20,000 hours of labor to design and build? 100 hours a month sound fair on your 20,000 hours of labor? Well that is a £200,000 house rented for £1,000pm

So, it must have taken the Wilsons 10000 years of labour to own those 1000 houses of theirs then.

HENRY78

I bought my first house at 21 in Hertfordshire some 20 years ago. I didn't go down the University route. But managed to work my way up relatively quickly in the financial sector in London. Think I was on about £20k p/a then and managed to scrape together a £10k deposit and obtained an £80k Mortgage, For £90k I managed to buy a 2 bed terraced house.


At that time of course I could only dream of living in certain parts of London eg Kensington, Hampstead etc. However some of the outskirts at that time eg Clapham, Dalston were affordable for people like me.


A bright graduate who has secured himself a good well paid job in the London area should be able to buy somewhere in the area. Quite simply this is not possible for many. And its wrong!


To be honest the more I read people on here it does seem to be a London/South East problem more than entirely a UK problem.

chucknorris

HENRY78 wrote: »

I bought my first house at 21 in Hertfordshire some 20 years ago. I didn't go down the University route. But managed to work my way up relatively quickly in the financial sector in London. Think I was on about £20k p/a then and managed to scrape together a £10k deposit and obtained an £80k Mortgage, For £90k I managed to buy a 2 bed terraced house.


At that time of course I could only dream of living in certain parts of London eg Kensington, Hampstead etc. However some of the outskirts at that time eg Clapham, Dalston were affordable for people like me.


A bright graduate who has secured himself a good well paid job in the London area should be able to buy somewhere in the area. Quite simply this is not possible for many. And its wrong!


To be honest the more I read people on here it does seem to be a London/South East problem more than entirely a UK problem.

Cells recently posted a very interesting post about how London was under priced then, due to London's population being much lower back then. I must say though that I seem to remember Clapham being much more expensive than Dalston back then (but maybe I have got that wrong?)

Graham_Devon

mwpt wrote: »

So, it must have taken the Wilsons 10000 years of labour to own those 1000 houses of theirs then.

It's a well known fact.

They also made do without iphones in the 80's. They have had it real tough.

HENRY78

Dalston was a hole. Very affordable back then. As was places like Wapping. Clapham slightly more but most people could buy a flat there. Not now!!

chucknorris

HENRY78 wrote: »

Dalston was a hole. Very affordable back then. As was places like Wapping. Clapham slightly more but most people could buy a flat there. Not now!!

I know Clapham very well, I have 4 properties around there, I also sold another property there, and I lived there for almost 15 years from Jan 1991 to Aug 2005. I looked at Hackney, because of its proximity to the City, but it looked too grim to me.

HENRY78

You are one of the reasons we are in this mess. The sooner people like you are phased out the better. Pure Greed Chuck.


Hope it all comes crashing down for you.


Nothing personal I hope you understand.