BTL: Political Risk

cells

Generali wrote: »

If someone goes from being a renter to being an OO why would that change the density of housing they require?

I currently rent my home. If I was to buy then I'd move in to the house with my wife and kids. My consumption of housing wouldn't change.

for families its probably the case. However families are (at least in inner London) not the primary renting demographic.

For me only 1 property is rented by a family the next group is students but the biggest group is young workers. my typical rentals would be 4 persons in a 3/4 bed house/flat. Just for arguments sake pretend its two male two female and they form a couple and both couples want to and move out int their own homes. You effectively have 4 people in one home, who want to become 2 x 2-people in two homes. This clearly isn't possible unless one more home is built

in a shortage situation (can be localized shortage) the rental sector gets more dense and expands to allow more people in. in the opposite, a period of excess house building the opposite happens and the rental sector shrinks and people 'spread out' into owner stock.

We can also see this in that inner London areas like hacney is now 80% renters because inner London has the biggest shortage. Outer London is less renters and more owners and out of London is even less and even more owners. I think There would be a good match between how much of a shortgage there is in a local town/borough and the percentage of rents

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

I think it may. I have previously seen statistics which indicate a higher occupation of let properties compared to OO (though this may have been skewed by London data).

For me, when I was renting, I was happy to live in a smaller home to minimize my rent while I saved for a deposit. I wanted something bigger when I bought though.

More widely for young families, due to the costs of buying and selling property, it isn't wise to get something just the right size for now if you think you may want another bedroom in two years.

A lot of renters in a lot of the country are sharers and this has probably been true for a very long time. Students and the young tend to share 3-6 to a flat/house so as to share the costs (rent council tax bills etc)

These friends cant/wont buy a house together and live 6 to a house. They want a house/flat either just for themselves or with a partner.

Using my own example excluding one outlier they occupy at approx 3.7 persons per property. For them to go to the national average of ~2.3 persons per property the demand and need for property would expand by 60%. So if a million such homes were to become owners an additional 600,000 homes would need to be built to let it happen

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Cutting pension tax relief would really p I ss me off - particularly while the public sector still enjoy ludicrously generous schemes they don't pay for.

Mis-information, public sector pensions are generous but they do make substantial contributions for them. The generosity of the pensions is intended to retain good quality staff on below market salaries. The public sector employs a more highly trained/skilled work force (on average) than the private sector due to outsourcing.

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Policeman retiring at age 48 with index linked DB schemes worth millions

More misinformation. The earliest age current police officers can draw his occupational pension is 55. The current police scheme has a normal retirement age of 60 and they contribute 13.7% of salary to do this.

Some police officers in the recent past retired at 50 (provided they had 30 years service) but that was under an old scheme.

BananaRepublic

westernpromise wrote: »

Osborne is basically a Labour chancellor.

It has been said that most people in this country want Tory financial prudence and management competence combined with a Labour heart and sense of justice for the less priviledged. Osborne seems to be getting it right in my view, others may disagree.

BananaRepublic

CLAPTON wrote: »

Why do you consider it so important to transfer some properties from people who rent, to people who are buying on a mortgage?
Will that increase the total housing supply?
Will that improve the standard of housing ?
Will that mean more young people in London/SE can afford to live in family size homes?

we need to increase the building rate to provide a higher number of homes.

It is in part basic fairness, to allow those who want to own to buy without being outcompeted by wealthy BTL landlords funding their retirement in the Bahamas. Also because someone who owns a property on retirement does not need to pay rent, and could even downsize to release capital. A renter is more likely to need government benefits to survive after retirement, so in a very real sense the BTL profits come from our pockets.

CLAPTON

BananaRepublic wrote: »

It is in part basic fairness, to allow those who want to own to buy without being outcompeted by wealthy BTL landlords funding their retirement in the Bahamas. Also because someone who owns a property on retirement does not need to pay rent, and could even downsize to release capital. A renter is more likely to need government benefits to survive after retirement, so in a very real sense the BTL profits come from our pockets.

would that still be true if they
-weren't wealthy
-and had no prospect of retiring to the bahamas


and you don't think the major problem is the shortage of housing in relation to the number of people wanting adequate accommodation: so real problems are immigration and lack of house building?

Sapphire

CLAPTON wrote: »

would that still be true if they
-weren't wealthy
-and had no prospect of retiring to the bahamas

and you don't think the major problem is the shortage of housing in relation to the number of people wanting adequate accommodation: so real problems are immigration?

I'd say this, and also the facts that families no longer live together with different generations (apart from parents and children) often residing in the same home, and that they no longer live in smaller accommodation, but 'need' such things as en suite bathrooms, a bedroom for each child, contribute to the problem. I do also think the fact that many properties are going to overseas and other investors plays a part.

BananaRepublic

CLAPTON wrote: »

would that still be true if they
-weren't wealthy
-and had no prospect of retiring to the bahamas


and you don't think the major problem is the shortage of housing in relation to the number of people wanting adequate accommodation: so real problems are immigration and lack of house building?

In answer to the first two points, they are irrelevent, although one friend will be very wealthy thanks two his two BTL houses.

As to the last point, people living on their own is part of the problem, not just immigration. But you sidestep, it is grossly unfair for potential owner occupiers to be outbid by much wealthier BTL landlords. The fact that there is a shortage makes it all the more iniquitous. There is no reason why someone cannot save using an ISA or pension fund.

CLAPTON

Sapphire wrote: »

I'd say this, and also the facts that families no longer live together with different generations (apart from parents and children) often residing in the same home, and that they no longer live in smaller accommodation, but 'need' such things as en suite bathrooms, a bedroom for each child, contribute to the problem. I do also think the fact that many properties are going to overseas and other investors plays a part.

Yes, there are many contributory factors in the wish for homes.

The issue is that, in London and the SE the under 40s are now NOT able to buy the equivalent that people of a similar age and occupation could buy say 30 years ago.

In London there are 3,000,000 foreign born people: whilst some London home are going to overseas investors, it seems reasonable that 3 million foreign residents are making an over whelming impact on London house prices with its massive negative impact on the under 40 age group.