Is there money to be made in renting?

Crashy_Time

[Deleted User] said:

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.

There is a solution to the problem and the bond markets are closer to providing it now than they have been in many years.

[Deleted User]

csgohan4 said:

[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. 

Read the previous quote again. Asked if everyone should be given a house, and I said yes that's the idea with council houses, everyone gets an affordable home. Unlike private landlords the rents are reasonable and won't make you homeless in old age, or stop you saving to buy.

Right to buy could have been fine, the problem was that they didn't build more new houses. For every house sold the money should have been ploughed into building a new one. The sale price would basically be cost to build a replacement. The cost to the council mind you, not some private developer.

Crashy_Time

What do you make of the advice so far OP?

SpiderLegs

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[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. 

Read the previous quote again. Asked if everyone should be given a house, and I said yes that's the idea with council houses, everyone gets an affordable home. Unlike private landlords the rents are reasonable and won't make you homeless in old age, or stop you saving to buy.

Right to buy could have been fine, the problem was that they didn't build more new houses. For every house sold the money should have been ploughed into building a new one. The sale price would basically be cost to build a replacement. The cost to the council mind you, not some private developer.

‘Everyone should be given a house’ brilliant. Will my wife get one? And my son turns 18 soon too so that’s another one.

going to need to build quite a few at this rate.

Crashy_Time

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/homeandproperty/no-more-cheap-debt-for-landlords-as-buy-to-let-rates-rise/ar-AAPH0rI?ocid=uxbndlbing

There will probably still be cheap deals though if you have a large deposit?

Crashy_Time

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[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. 

Read the previous quote again. Asked if everyone should be given a house, and I said yes that's the idea with council houses, everyone gets an affordable home. Unlike private landlords the rents are reasonable and won't make you homeless in old age, or stop you saving to buy.

Right to buy could have been fine, the problem was that they didn't build more new houses. For every house sold the money should have been ploughed into building a new one. The sale price would basically be cost to build a replacement. The cost to the council mind you, not some private developer.

‘Everyone should be given a house’ brilliant. Will my wife get one? And my son turns 18 soon too so that’s another one.

going to need to build quite a few at this rate.

Don't be obtuse. You know how council housing works.

Yes I do.
the state pays too much money for crappy housing on sink estates.

The State? Surely you mean mortgage borrowers nowadays?

Ditzy_Mitzy

Crashy_Time said:

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[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. 

Read the previous quote again. Asked if everyone should be given a house, and I said yes that's the idea with council houses, everyone gets an affordable home. Unlike private landlords the rents are reasonable and won't make you homeless in old age, or stop you saving to buy.

Right to buy could have been fine, the problem was that they didn't build more new houses. For every house sold the money should have been ploughed into building a new one. The sale price would basically be cost to build a replacement. The cost to the council mind you, not some private developer.

‘Everyone should be given a house’ brilliant. Will my wife get one? And my son turns 18 soon too so that’s another one.

going to need to build quite a few at this rate.

Don't be obtuse. You know how council housing works.

Yes I do.
the state pays too much money for crappy housing on sink estates.

The State? Surely you mean mortgage borrowers nowadays?

No, he means the state.  How Does Guaranteed Rent Work | Northwood UK Estate Agents  Organisations such as this lot exist to house modern day council tenants in the private sector.  As has been said, much of that is crappy housing on sink estates.  Plus there are all the housing associations to consider, they perform a similar role.  

Crashy_Time

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Crashy_Time said:

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[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. 

Read the previous quote again. Asked if everyone should be given a house, and I said yes that's the idea with council houses, everyone gets an affordable home. Unlike private landlords the rents are reasonable and won't make you homeless in old age, or stop you saving to buy.

Right to buy could have been fine, the problem was that they didn't build more new houses. For every house sold the money should have been ploughed into building a new one. The sale price would basically be cost to build a replacement. The cost to the council mind you, not some private developer.

‘Everyone should be given a house’ brilliant. Will my wife get one? And my son turns 18 soon too so that’s another one.

going to need to build quite a few at this rate.

Don't be obtuse. You know how council housing works.

Yes I do.
the state pays too much money for crappy housing on sink estates.

The State? Surely you mean mortgage borrowers nowadays?

No, he means the state.  How Does Guaranteed Rent Work | Northwood UK Estate Agents  Organisations such as this lot exist to house modern day council tenants in the private sector.  As has been said, much of that is crappy housing on sink estates.  Plus there are all the housing associations to consider, they perform a similar role.  

I meant people paying/borrowing silly money for crappy ex-council properties though.

[Deleted User]

Crashy_Time said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Crashy_Time said:

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

SpiderLegs said:

[Deleted User] said:

csgohan4 said:

[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. 

Read the previous quote again. Asked if everyone should be given a house, and I said yes that's the idea with council houses, everyone gets an affordable home. Unlike private landlords the rents are reasonable and won't make you homeless in old age, or stop you saving to buy.

Right to buy could have been fine, the problem was that they didn't build more new houses. For every house sold the money should have been ploughed into building a new one. The sale price would basically be cost to build a replacement. The cost to the council mind you, not some private developer.

‘Everyone should be given a house’ brilliant. Will my wife get one? And my son turns 18 soon too so that’s another one.

going to need to build quite a few at this rate.

Don't be obtuse. You know how council housing works.

Yes I do.
the state pays too much money for crappy housing on sink estates.

The State? Surely you mean mortgage borrowers nowadays?

No, he means the state.  How Does Guaranteed Rent Work | Northwood UK Estate Agents  Organisations such as this lot exist to house modern day council tenants in the private sector.  As has been said, much of that is crappy housing on sink estates.  Plus there are all the housing associations to consider, they perform a similar role.  

I meant people paying/borrowing silly money for crappy ex-council properties though.

What does that have to do with anything?

There are plenty of decent council estates, and Right To Buy actually helps keep them nice as residents are able to move up in the world.

There are plenty of sink hole private estates too. In fact many new estates and houses are so bad right from the get-go that they should probably never have been built.

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/most-new-housing-so-poorly-designed-it-should-not-have-been-built-says-bartlett-report

Councils are the only people capable of building decent houses on the scale we need, and at a price we can afford.

Murphybear

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.

lol 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.

Sorry, that’s utter rubbish.

Everyone needs somewhere to live.

Assuming they are not living with relatives then their choices are either buying somewhere or renting somewhere

Many many people cannot buy for a number of reasons such as don’t earn enough, cannot save for a deposit, have poor credit history or CCJs, no affordable properties available etc

They therefor must live with friends or family, live in a tent, live on the streets or find somewhere to rent.

Rental properties need landlords.  These can be social housing such as council or Housing Associations or private landlords. Unless people are single with children or disabled getting a social housing property is next to impossible

That leaves private landlords.  For individuals to become landlords they have to buy a property.  

You think that is not moral.  Why?  If private landlords did not exist and social housing is difficult to get then a few million people would be on the streets.  

Now that is not moral is it?