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

Crashy_Time

cells wrote: »

you made me laugh

The point is, not everywhere is crazy

About half the country is between crazy cheap to cheap to affordable.

The NE the NW, the W and E Midlands and Y&H are all very affordable regions. (ownership has been declining there too which suggests its not prices its regulations)


It is simply not possible for everyone who wants to live in London (or insert expensive town or city) to do so. There is probably the demand and want for 10 million people to move live in London over the next 20 years yet at most space for 2 million will be available. The question is then, how do you decide out of that 10 million which 2 million gets to live there and which of the rest will have to go to stoke-on-trnet

The mechanism for that is price signals. The only other alternative is some sort of state quota and allocation. But still only 2 of the 10 million who want to live there can whatever the method of allocation. Just the most efficent and most fair is price rather than quota allocation

Houses are still too expensive in the regions you mention, or maybe people are just so over-stretched that they can`t afford to buy them, or maybe there is nothing there to attract buyers. Whatever the cause house prices need to keep dropping.

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

You've argued it's stupid to equate accommodation to food but now you're saying the resentment is only related to the price rather than the essential being sold.

Like I said it's getting over emotional. If people want to resent landlords for high rents they're blaming the wrong people. Pretty sure you've made the point more than once that landlords don't set prices. Same as supermarkets don't set the price for bread.

Ah well, the "resenters" can now laugh as the landlords get taxed all the way to the EA`s office......:rotfl:

cells

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Whatever the cause house prices need to keep dropping.

your motto in life?

Crashy_Time

cells wrote: »

your motto in life?

No, just reality.

Jason74

cells wrote: »

by the looks of it London is already below 45% ownership.

If the banks keep insisting on silly low income multiples I can see that falling by as much as 1% a year.

Hamish idea of rental cover for even owners, which seemed bonkers to me when I fist heard of it, is probably the way to go. Or simply self cert 'I am confident I can afford this mortgage' for anyone putting down 20% or more

Yes, because that worked out so well last time :mad:

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Ah well, the "resenters" can now laugh as the landlords get taxed all the way to the EA`s office......:rotfl:

As the great philosopher Taylor Swift says 'haters gotta hate'.

cells

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Houses are still too expensive in the regions you mention, or maybe people are just so over-stretched that they can`t afford to buy them, or maybe there is nothing there to attract buyers.

can you just for a moment clean your mind of all the years of confirmation bias. you want houses to be cheap, lets say 3.5x income? even your buddies over at hpc long for such a reality

well that exists, about half the country is priced at 2-4 x full time male wage.

by the sounds of it you seem to think a place like London should have houses that are priced below build cost and only then is the market not overpriced...

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Whatever the cause house prices need to keep dropping.

you would probably keep saying that until houses are cheaper than cars and you can get a new car for £10k

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

Yes, because that worked out so well last time :mad:

yes it did work well, it resulted in a higher owners and less renters

Jason74

cells wrote: »

yes it did work well, it resulted in a higher owners and less renters

Nope. It was a complete cluster!!!! that would have brought the whole system crashing down had the Americans note made an even worse job of things and crashed the system before our mess did. Subsequently, it's taken ultra low interest rates to stop those people defaulting and made a bad situation worse.

If there's one thing that is really clear, it's that we should never go back to lending standards anything like as lax as in the run up to 2007.

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

Nope. It was a complete cluster!!!! that would have brought the whole system crashing down had the Americans note made an even worse job of things and crashed the system before our mess did. Subsequently, it's taken ultra low interest rates to stop those people defaulting and made a bad situation worse.

If there's one thing that is really clear, it's that we should never go back to lending standards anything like as lax as in the run up to 2007.

why would you want to be so cruel.

if you put regulations in place that a property owner needs xyz and some people can not meet criteria xyz all you do is force Mr A to go to Mr B and say....look the government is stupid it wont let me get a self cert interest only mortgage for £800 a month, can you please help me out here and go buy that house over there and I will have to give you £900 a month because living under a bridge is not an option.

the crash-wishers have this crazy idea that if the government forces more regulations on banks and mortgages that it will result in lower prices and everyone can buy a house or two each. The reality is that if you force tough regulations into place you just make it so those with big deposits or very well paid jobs step in to fill this regulatory requirement by becoming landlords and the interest have rent to pay instead of a self cert IO mortgage

I think in 10 years time the government will look back at today and think what the hell did we do!


Also you probably do not know but last year was a record. the rental sector grew by >440,000 homes. Dam BTL parasites you might grind your teeth just ban BTL mortgages but only about a quarter of that 440,000 units were funded by mortgages the rest was savings