Is there money to be made in renting?

csgohan4

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Getting_greyer said:

andy444 said:

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's also immoral as someone else could buy your house and pay much less on a mortgage than they will pay you in rent. There is a shortage of housing to live in and letting property makes it worse.

That assumes "someone else" could finance the mortgage and it remains cheaper than rent. It also ignores ongoing maintenance costs.

How does letting properties reduce the number of available homes?

At the end of the day you're making money from other people's hard work. I can understand why people do it but it's not the most moral pursuit.

This is what most employers do. 

And mortgage lenders.

And Building Society savers.

And pensioners benefiting from NI from the next generation 

Can't see the relevance to profiteering through property but pensioners are benefiting from a lifetime of contributions as younger generations will.

Younger generations are heading towards a pensions black hole. All the money spent on rent and over priced houses, the only plan being to downsize when the time comes.

If they can't get on the ladder they are really stuffed.

this obsession being on the ladder and the cheaper than rent rhetoric. 

Not everyone is able to earn enough to buy a house, nor able to save enough for a deposit. Not everyone will have a medium to high paying job 

Owning a house has significant financial exposure as well. Ongoing Maintenance et.c guess who pays for a new boiler or roof? or up dated fire regulations from cladding? 

The younger generation I am sure will know, there is no such thing as a free lunch and you have to work at advancing your career and financial self sustainability. Sadly some will want to do degrees which have no bearing on their career, simply it was a hobby, or just mess around at school and didn't get good enough grades to get into Uni and/or vocation training.

House prices are defined by market forces, ergo capitalism. 

The young who shun pensions for the now, only have themselves to blame. 

You don't have to go to Uni to get a high paying job, construction, building trade earn a fair few as contractors. 

In other words, some people are condemned to poverty and possibly homelessness in old age.

Yes it is reality and shocking news, not everyone can afford to get a mortgage or buy a house. 

Do you propose everyone should be given a house and if so, how much more tax are you willing to pay for it

If your not keen on Capitalism, there are socialist states around, but the people there don't fare better either

SpiderLegs

csgohan4 said:

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Getting_greyer said:

andy444 said:

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's also immoral as someone else could buy your house and pay much less on a mortgage than they will pay you in rent. There is a shortage of housing to live in and letting property makes it worse.

That assumes "someone else" could finance the mortgage and it remains cheaper than rent. It also ignores ongoing maintenance costs.

How does letting properties reduce the number of available homes?

At the end of the day you're making money from other people's hard work. I can understand why people do it but it's not the most moral pursuit.

This is what most employers do. 

And mortgage lenders.

And Building Society savers.

And pensioners benefiting from NI from the next generation 

Can't see the relevance to profiteering through property but pensioners are benefiting from a lifetime of contributions as younger generations will.

Younger generations are heading towards a pensions black hole. All the money spent on rent and over priced houses, the only plan being to downsize when the time comes.

If they can't get on the ladder they are really stuffed.

this obsession being on the ladder and the cheaper than rent rhetoric. 

Not everyone is able to earn enough to buy a house, nor able to save enough for a deposit. Not everyone will have a medium to high paying job 

Owning a house has significant financial exposure as well. Ongoing Maintenance et.c guess who pays for a new boiler or roof? or up dated fire regulations from cladding? 

The younger generation I am sure will know, there is no such thing as a free lunch and you have to work at advancing your career and financial self sustainability. Sadly some will want to do degrees which have no bearing on their career, simply it was a hobby, or just mess around at school and didn't get good enough grades to get into Uni and/or vocation training.

House prices are defined by market forces, ergo capitalism. 

The young who shun pensions for the now, only have themselves to blame. 

You don't have to go to Uni to get a high paying job, construction, building trade earn a fair few as contractors. 

In other words, some people are condemned to poverty and possibly homelessness in old age.

Yes it is reality and shocking news, not everyone can afford to get a mortgage or buy a house. 

Do you propose everyone should be given a house and if so, how much more tax are you willing to pay for it

If your not keen on Capitalism, there are socialist states around, but the people there don't fare better either

I think you’ll find that our esteemed colleague believes that they won’t have to pay anything, since all those immoral LLs will be the ones sticking their hands in their pockets.

Crashy_Time

funnyvideo said:

Maintenance costs were my biggest concern when I bought a property but they're nothing when you consider how much more expensive renting is.

Round where I live a 1 bed flat costs around £275k to buy and £1,200 a month to rent. If you're in your early 20s and expect to live another 60 years then renting will cost you £864k if the prices stayed the same. The costs associated with home ownership won't come to anywhere near the £589k difference.

In reality the rent will go up over the years and you're looking at over £1 million on rent in your lifetime.

Do you have a link?

Crashy_Time

Hilarious thread by the way, so much depends on near zero rates it is scary.

funnyvideo

My share of freehold doesn't have any service charges. Interest could of course increase costs quite considerably if it gets high enough.

Basically I've owned my property for 6 years, my mortgage is less than rent would be and I've spent a lot of money on things I wouldn't pay money for if I was renting. But the cost of my mortgage plus the additional costs of home ownership is still less than what I would have payed on rent and once the mortgage is paid off it will be just maintenance costs. Finally, no I'm not posting a link to where I live on a public forum. 

Norman_Castle

[Deleted User] said:

funnyvideo said:

Maintenance costs were my biggest concern when I bought a property but they're nothing when you consider how much more expensive renting is.

Round where I live a 1 bed flat costs around £275k to buy and £1,200 a month to rent. If you're in your early 20s and expect to live another 60 years then renting will cost you £864k if the prices stayed the same. The costs associated with home ownership won't come to anywhere near the £589k difference.

In reality the rent will go up over the years and you're looking at over £1 million on rent in your lifetime.

Then you hit retirement, haven't been able to save much for a pension because it all went on rent, which you can't afford anymore.

Then the state steps in and covers your housing costs.

[Deleted User]

csgohan4 said:

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Getting_greyer said:

andy444 said:

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's also immoral as someone else could buy your house and pay much less on a mortgage than they will pay you in rent. There is a shortage of housing to live in and letting property makes it worse.

That assumes "someone else" could finance the mortgage and it remains cheaper than rent. It also ignores ongoing maintenance costs.

How does letting properties reduce the number of available homes?

At the end of the day you're making money from other people's hard work. I can understand why people do it but it's not the most moral pursuit.

This is what most employers do. 

And mortgage lenders.

And Building Society savers.

And pensioners benefiting from NI from the next generation 

Can't see the relevance to profiteering through property but pensioners are benefiting from a lifetime of contributions as younger generations will.

Younger generations are heading towards a pensions black hole. All the money spent on rent and over priced houses, the only plan being to downsize when the time comes.

If they can't get on the ladder they are really stuffed.

this obsession being on the ladder and the cheaper than rent rhetoric. 

Not everyone is able to earn enough to buy a house, nor able to save enough for a deposit. Not everyone will have a medium to high paying job 

Owning a house has significant financial exposure as well. Ongoing Maintenance et.c guess who pays for a new boiler or roof? or up dated fire regulations from cladding? 

The younger generation I am sure will know, there is no such thing as a free lunch and you have to work at advancing your career and financial self sustainability. Sadly some will want to do degrees which have no bearing on their career, simply it was a hobby, or just mess around at school and didn't get good enough grades to get into Uni and/or vocation training.

House prices are defined by market forces, ergo capitalism. 

The young who shun pensions for the now, only have themselves to blame. 

You don't have to go to Uni to get a high paying job, construction, building trade earn a fair few as contractors. 

In other words, some people are condemned to poverty and possibly homelessness in old age.

Yes it is reality and shocking news, not everyone can afford to get a mortgage or buy a house. 

Do you propose everyone should be given a house and if so, how much more tax are you willing to pay for it

If your not keen on Capitalism, there are socialist states around, but the people there don't fare better either

That was literally the idea with council houses and it worked pretty well until the Tories put a stop to it, so yes.

[Deleted User]

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

funnyvideo said:

Maintenance costs were my biggest concern when I bought a property but they're nothing when you consider how much more expensive renting is.

Round where I live a 1 bed flat costs around £275k to buy and £1,200 a month to rent. If you're in your early 20s and expect to live another 60 years then renting will cost you £864k if the prices stayed the same. The costs associated with home ownership won't come to anywhere near the £589k difference.

In reality the rent will go up over the years and you're looking at over £1 million on rent in your lifetime.

Then you hit retirement, haven't been able to save much for a pension because it all went on rent, which you can't afford anymore.

Then the state steps in and covers your housing costs.

Exactly, it's a huge problem being deferred for future generations to pay for.

csgohan4

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Norman_Castle said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Getting_greyer said:

andy444 said:

Norman_Castle said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's also immoral as someone else could buy your house and pay much less on a mortgage than they will pay you in rent. There is a shortage of housing to live in and letting property makes it worse.

That assumes "someone else" could finance the mortgage and it remains cheaper than rent. It also ignores ongoing maintenance costs.

How does letting properties reduce the number of available homes?

At the end of the day you're making money from other people's hard work. I can understand why people do it but it's not the most moral pursuit.

This is what most employers do. 

And mortgage lenders.

And Building Society savers.

And pensioners benefiting from NI from the next generation 

Can't see the relevance to profiteering through property but pensioners are benefiting from a lifetime of contributions as younger generations will.

Younger generations are heading towards a pensions black hole. All the money spent on rent and over priced houses, the only plan being to downsize when the time comes.

If they can't get on the ladder they are really stuffed.

this obsession being on the ladder and the cheaper than rent rhetoric. 

Not everyone is able to earn enough to buy a house, nor able to save enough for a deposit. Not everyone will have a medium to high paying job 

Owning a house has significant financial exposure as well. Ongoing Maintenance et.c guess who pays for a new boiler or roof? or up dated fire regulations from cladding? 

The younger generation I am sure will know, there is no such thing as a free lunch and you have to work at advancing your career and financial self sustainability. Sadly some will want to do degrees which have no bearing on their career, simply it was a hobby, or just mess around at school and didn't get good enough grades to get into Uni and/or vocation training.

House prices are defined by market forces, ergo capitalism. 

The young who shun pensions for the now, only have themselves to blame. 

You don't have to go to Uni to get a high paying job, construction, building trade earn a fair few as contractors. 

In other words, some people are condemned to poverty and possibly homelessness in old age.

Yes it is reality and shocking news, not everyone can afford to get a mortgage or buy a house. 

Do you propose everyone should be given a house and if so, how much more tax are you willing to pay for it

If your not keen on Capitalism, there are socialist states around, but the people there don't fare better either

That was literally the idea with council houses and it worked pretty well until the Tories put a stop to it, so yes.

Didn't realize you had a magic house tree where houses are built faster than the population grows and in need.  RTB scheme has been awful imo, taking away houses from the needy to line the pockets of the buyers at the tax payers expense. 

Crashy_Time

funnyvideo said:

My share of freehold doesn't have any service charges. Interest could of course increase costs quite considerably if it gets high enough.

Basically I've owned my property for 6 years, my mortgage is less than rent would be and I've spent a lot of money on things I wouldn't pay money for if I was renting. But the cost of my mortgage plus the additional costs of home ownership is still less than what I would have payed on rent and once the mortgage is paid off it will be just maintenance costs. Finally, no I'm not posting a link to where I live on a public forum. 

I meant a general postcode so we can see where flats that go for 200k can rent for £1200 a month, they must nearly all be BTL by now, but how many are empty after Brexit?