Are we expecting BOE to remain at 4.75% on 8th February 2025?

MobileSaver

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

The price of assets rising is not the illogical result, it's peoples willingness to enter into debt to buy those assets.

Ignoring the inconvenient truth that a third of all property bought in the UK is bought with cash and no debt... what is the alternative for Joe Bloggs and his partner who need somewhere to live?

I'm not sure whether you mean somewhere to buy, as opposed to somewhere to rent or buy?

I don't see that it really makes much difference? Everyone needs somewhere to live and "debt" is simply owing someone money. 

You either buy and then you owe money to the bank every month or you rent and you owe money to the landlord every month... both are a necessary debt.

lojo1000 said:

it is very hard not to over commit to debt. Renting, whilst all around you are paying incredible multiples of their income on housing and seeing them 'get on the property ladder', is hard for most people.

Typically monthly rents are higher than monthly mortgages and fundamentally mortgages are normally paid off after so many years while rent has to be paid every single month for pretty much the rest of your life. Simply by looking at renting v buying from a debt point of view, it's clear that buying is almost always the smarter option as at the end of the day it's the lesser "debt".

lojo1000 said:

Also, I understand many people view ownership differently from rent in terms of the security it gives them.

That would be because they obviously are completely different. If you buy and pay your mortgage every month then it's your house so you can stay there forever if you want and pretty much do whatever you want within your own home.

Conversely if you rent then you don't have either of those luxuries; it's not your house so you can be made to leave if the landlord no longer wants to rent to you and you're limited in what you can do in your own home.

lojo1000 said:

My practical solution is to limit the amount of leverage allowed in buying a house. Reducing debt, reduces returns to equity in the purchase and hence BTL becomes less attractive.

the ever-upward spiral of prices in excess of incomes is not good for our society and the future of our children?

The government has been implementing anti-BTL measures for years, remind me again what's happened to both house prices and rental prices since they started doing this?

We live in a capitalist market economy ruled by supply and demand. You can tinker at the edges to reduce demand but ultimately more people than ever want/need a house and there are not enough of what they want and where they want them to go around. 

So the only solution left is to increase supply, basically we need to be building loads more houses in the areas that people want them. However even this isn't a magic bullet as it's not just house prices that have risen but similarly labour and materials are much higher now than they used to be so these mass-produced new houses are probably not going to be as cheap as some people might like; the eternal HPC dream of half-price houses is just never going to happen.

lojo1000

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

The price of assets rising is not the illogical result, it's peoples willingness to enter into debt to buy those assets.

Ignoring the inconvenient truth that a third of all property bought in the UK is bought with cash and no debt... what is the alternative for Joe Bloggs and his partner who need somewhere to live?

I'm not sure whether you mean somewhere to buy, as opposed to somewhere to rent or buy?

I don't see that it really makes much difference? Everyone needs somewhere to live and "debt" is simply owing someone money. 

You either buy and then you owe money to the bank every month or you rent and you owe money to the landlord every month... both are a necessary debt.

lojo1000 said:

it is very hard not to over commit to debt. Renting, whilst all around you are paying incredible multiples of their income on housing and seeing them 'get on the property ladder', is hard for most people.

Typically monthly rents are higher than monthly mortgages and fundamentally mortgages are normally paid off after so many years while rent has to be paid every single month for pretty much the rest of your life. Simply by looking at renting v buying from a debt point of view, it's clear that buying is almost always the smarter option as at the end of the day it's the lesser "debt".

lojo1000 said:

Also, I understand many people view ownership differently from rent in terms of the security it gives them.

That would be because they obviously are completely different. If you buy and pay your mortgage every month then it's your house so you can stay there forever if you want and pretty much do whatever you want within your own home.

Conversely if you rent then you don't have either of those luxuries; it's not your house so you can be made to leave if the landlord no longer wants to rent to you and you're limited in what you can do in your own home.

lojo1000 said:

My practical solution is to limit the amount of leverage allowed in buying a house. Reducing debt, reduces returns to equity in the purchase and hence BTL becomes less attractive.

the ever-upward spiral of prices in excess of incomes is not good for our society and the future of our children?

The government has been implementing anti-BTL measures for years, remind me again what's happened to both house prices and rental prices since they started doing this?

We live in a capitalist market economy ruled by supply and demand. You can tinker at the edges to reduce demand but ultimately more people than ever want/need a house and there are not enough of what they want and where they want them to go around. 

So the only solution left is to increase supply, basically we need to be building loads more houses in the areas that people want them. However even this isn't a magic bullet as it's not just house prices that have risen but similarly labour and materials are much higher now than they used to be so these mass-produced new houses are probably not going to be as cheap as some people might like; the eternal HPC dream of half-price houses is just never going to happen.

I don't think house prices have been rising as quickly since the BTL advantages were removed, have they? But there are too many external factors to draw any causal links anyway.

The reason why there seems to be a shortage of houses to buy was that so many were bought by BTL (previously owner-occupied houses) to put into the rental sector thereby reducing housing available to buy.

Govt should continue to discourage BTL to free up housing for owner-occupiers.

More should be done to bring unoccupied housing into use. How about no stamp duty to buy a property which has been unoccupied for > 1 year if it is brought back into use within 1 year.

No tax incentives for buying a house which is already in use.

Further cap leverage, let prices find a level unsupported by artificially low rates which merely promotes supporting house prices as opposed to supporting housing supply.

If we discourage investors (returns), it will bring down demand for housing whilst freeing up supply to buy and thereby bring prices down.

Altior

Cakeism. All the wailing and balling because interest rates went up to 5%, but what the property market needs is an extended, long period of high interest rates to correct the balance. You can't have extremely low interest rates and low property prices in desirable areas, as peoples' choices are based on what they think they can stretch to over a month at the time, not the asset cost or total repayment amount. All the political pressure in this space is demanding even lower interest rates again, so anyone can forget about a true correction, no matter how many new properties are built. 

Hoenir

Altior said:

Cakeism. All the wailing and balling because interest rates went up to 5%, but what the property market needs is an extended, long period of high interest rates to correct the balance. You can't have extremely low interest rates and low property prices in desirable areas, as peoples' choices are based on what they think they can stretch to over a month at the time, not the asset cost or total repayment amount. All the political pressure in this space is demanding even lower interest rates again, so anyone can forget about a true correction, no matter how many new properties are built. 

International money markets aren't going to succumb to political pressure. The money will move to where the best rates on offer are.  Politicians say many things. Despite the fact they know they zero influence over future events. Words soon get forgotten. 

Altior

Hoenir said:

Altior said:

Cakeism. All the wailing and balling because interest rates went up to 5%, but what the property market needs is an extended, long period of high interest rates to correct the balance. You can't have extremely low interest rates and low property prices in desirable areas, as peoples' choices are based on what they think they can stretch to over a month at the time, not the asset cost or total repayment amount. All the political pressure in this space is demanding even lower interest rates again, so anyone can forget about a true correction, no matter how many new properties are built. 

International money markets aren't going to succumb to political pressure. The money will move to where the best rates on offer are.  Politicians say many things. Despite the fact they know they zero influence over future events. Words soon get forgotten. 

I don't mean party political pressure, per se. Nobody who can influence these things lives or operates in a vacuum these days, and they aren't immune to the weight of what most people seem to be demanding (usually via SM). But the Fed effectively decides the direction of travel for central bank rates, and they are certainly impacted by party politics as well as non party politics. 

Anyhow what I'm getting at is the general situation, most people seem to think that interest rates are too high, and property prices are too high. They don't want tax cuts but cry when they pay more tax. They want 'green' energy but they want cheaper bills. Effectively shut down the economy for two years and for everything to spring back to normal at a finger click. There are multiple other examples of this ubiquitous twisted perception of reality I could reference. But that is where we are at, and one can only see it getting worse. 

MobileSaver

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

The price of assets rising is not the illogical result, it's peoples willingness to enter into debt to buy those assets.

Ignoring the inconvenient truth that a third of all property bought in the UK is bought with cash and no debt... what is the alternative for Joe Bloggs and his partner who need somewhere to live?

I'm not sure whether you mean somewhere to buy, as opposed to somewhere to rent or buy?

I don't see that it really makes much difference? Everyone needs somewhere to live and "debt" is simply owing someone money. 

You either buy and then you owe money to the bank every month or you rent and you owe money to the landlord every month... both are a necessary debt.

lojo1000 said:

it is very hard not to over commit to debt. Renting, whilst all around you are paying incredible multiples of their income on housing and seeing them 'get on the property ladder', is hard for most people.

Typically monthly rents are higher than monthly mortgages and fundamentally mortgages are normally paid off after so many years while rent has to be paid every single month for pretty much the rest of your life. Simply by looking at renting v buying from a debt point of view, it's clear that buying is almost always the smarter option as at the end of the day it's the lesser "debt".

lojo1000 said:

Also, I understand many people view ownership differently from rent in terms of the security it gives them.

That would be because they obviously are completely different. If you buy and pay your mortgage every month then it's your house so you can stay there forever if you want and pretty much do whatever you want within your own home.

Conversely if you rent then you don't have either of those luxuries; it's not your house so you can be made to leave if the landlord no longer wants to rent to you and you're limited in what you can do in your own home.

lojo1000 said:

My practical solution is to limit the amount of leverage allowed in buying a house. Reducing debt, reduces returns to equity in the purchase and hence BTL becomes less attractive.

the ever-upward spiral of prices in excess of incomes is not good for our society and the future of our children?

The government has been implementing anti-BTL measures for years, remind me again what's happened to both house prices and rental prices since they started doing this?

We live in a capitalist market economy ruled by supply and demand. You can tinker at the edges to reduce demand but ultimately more people than ever want/need a house and there are not enough of what they want and where they want them to go around. 

So the only solution left is to increase supply, basically we need to be building loads more houses in the areas that people want them. However even this isn't a magic bullet as it's not just house prices that have risen but similarly labour and materials are much higher now than they used to be so these mass-produced new houses are probably not going to be as cheap as some people might like; the eternal HPC dream of half-price houses is just never going to happen.

The reason why there seems to be a shortage of houses to buy was that so many were bought by BTL (previously owner-occupied houses) to put into the rental sector thereby reducing housing available to buy.

If we discourage investors (returns), it will bring down demand for housing whilst freeing up supply to buy and thereby bring prices down.

Let's say your cunning plan works and you do a better job than the government of getting rid of BTL properties... where will all those people who want or need to rent live?

lojo1000

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

The price of assets rising is not the illogical result, it's peoples willingness to enter into debt to buy those assets.

Ignoring the inconvenient truth that a third of all property bought in the UK is bought with cash and no debt... what is the alternative for Joe Bloggs and his partner who need somewhere to live?

I'm not sure whether you mean somewhere to buy, as opposed to somewhere to rent or buy?

I don't see that it really makes much difference? Everyone needs somewhere to live and "debt" is simply owing someone money. 

You either buy and then you owe money to the bank every month or you rent and you owe money to the landlord every month... both are a necessary debt.

lojo1000 said:

it is very hard not to over commit to debt. Renting, whilst all around you are paying incredible multiples of their income on housing and seeing them 'get on the property ladder', is hard for most people.

Typically monthly rents are higher than monthly mortgages and fundamentally mortgages are normally paid off after so many years while rent has to be paid every single month for pretty much the rest of your life. Simply by looking at renting v buying from a debt point of view, it's clear that buying is almost always the smarter option as at the end of the day it's the lesser "debt".

lojo1000 said:

Also, I understand many people view ownership differently from rent in terms of the security it gives them.

That would be because they obviously are completely different. If you buy and pay your mortgage every month then it's your house so you can stay there forever if you want and pretty much do whatever you want within your own home.

Conversely if you rent then you don't have either of those luxuries; it's not your house so you can be made to leave if the landlord no longer wants to rent to you and you're limited in what you can do in your own home.

lojo1000 said:

My practical solution is to limit the amount of leverage allowed in buying a house. Reducing debt, reduces returns to equity in the purchase and hence BTL becomes less attractive.

the ever-upward spiral of prices in excess of incomes is not good for our society and the future of our children?

The government has been implementing anti-BTL measures for years, remind me again what's happened to both house prices and rental prices since they started doing this?

We live in a capitalist market economy ruled by supply and demand. You can tinker at the edges to reduce demand but ultimately more people than ever want/need a house and there are not enough of what they want and where they want them to go around. 

So the only solution left is to increase supply, basically we need to be building loads more houses in the areas that people want them. However even this isn't a magic bullet as it's not just house prices that have risen but similarly labour and materials are much higher now than they used to be so these mass-produced new houses are probably not going to be as cheap as some people might like; the eternal HPC dream of half-price houses is just never going to happen.

The reason why there seems to be a shortage of houses to buy was that so many were bought by BTL (previously owner-occupied houses) to put into the rental sector thereby reducing housing available to buy.

If we discourage investors (returns), it will bring down demand for housing whilst freeing up supply to buy and thereby bring prices down.

Let's say your cunning plan works and you do a better job than the government of getting rid of BTL properties... where will all those people who want or need to rent live?

Govt should use tax policy to incentive BTL industry to bring in to use housing which is not in use (thereby raising supply of homes for rent). Waive stamp duty on houses not in use >1 year if brought in use within 1 year post purchase. The BTL landlord gets a stamp duty bill as normal on purchase but if the property was not previously in use this can deferred for 1 year if the buyer elects at time of purchase. Duty becomes due in 1 year unless BTL landlord evidences property is now brought into use.

MobileSaver

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

The price of assets rising is not the illogical result, it's peoples willingness to enter into debt to buy those assets.

Ignoring the inconvenient truth that a third of all property bought in the UK is bought with cash and no debt... what is the alternative for Joe Bloggs and his partner who need somewhere to live?

I'm not sure whether you mean somewhere to buy, as opposed to somewhere to rent or buy?

I don't see that it really makes much difference? Everyone needs somewhere to live and "debt" is simply owing someone money. 

You either buy and then you owe money to the bank every month or you rent and you owe money to the landlord every month... both are a necessary debt.

lojo1000 said:

it is very hard not to over commit to debt. Renting, whilst all around you are paying incredible multiples of their income on housing and seeing them 'get on the property ladder', is hard for most people.

Typically monthly rents are higher than monthly mortgages and fundamentally mortgages are normally paid off after so many years while rent has to be paid every single month for pretty much the rest of your life. Simply by looking at renting v buying from a debt point of view, it's clear that buying is almost always the smarter option as at the end of the day it's the lesser "debt".

lojo1000 said:

Also, I understand many people view ownership differently from rent in terms of the security it gives them.

That would be because they obviously are completely different. If you buy and pay your mortgage every month then it's your house so you can stay there forever if you want and pretty much do whatever you want within your own home.

Conversely if you rent then you don't have either of those luxuries; it's not your house so you can be made to leave if the landlord no longer wants to rent to you and you're limited in what you can do in your own home.

lojo1000 said:

My practical solution is to limit the amount of leverage allowed in buying a house. Reducing debt, reduces returns to equity in the purchase and hence BTL becomes less attractive.

the ever-upward spiral of prices in excess of incomes is not good for our society and the future of our children?

The government has been implementing anti-BTL measures for years, remind me again what's happened to both house prices and rental prices since they started doing this?

We live in a capitalist market economy ruled by supply and demand. You can tinker at the edges to reduce demand but ultimately more people than ever want/need a house and there are not enough of what they want and where they want them to go around. 

So the only solution left is to increase supply, basically we need to be building loads more houses in the areas that people want them. However even this isn't a magic bullet as it's not just house prices that have risen but similarly labour and materials are much higher now than they used to be so these mass-produced new houses are probably not going to be as cheap as some people might like; the eternal HPC dream of half-price houses is just never going to happen.

The reason why there seems to be a shortage of houses to buy was that so many were bought by BTL (previously owner-occupied houses) to put into the rental sector thereby reducing housing available to buy.

If we discourage investors (returns), it will bring down demand for housing whilst freeing up supply to buy and thereby bring prices down.

Let's say your cunning plan works and you do a better job than the government of getting rid of BTL properties... where will all those people who want or need to rent live?

Govt should use tax policy to incentive BTL industry to bring in to use housing which is not in use (thereby raising supply of homes for rent). Waive stamp duty on houses not in use >1 year if brought in use within 1 year post purchase. The BTL landlord gets a stamp duty bill as normal on purchase but if the property was not previously in use this can deferred for 1 year if the buyer elects at time of purchase. Duty becomes due in 1 year unless BTL landlord evidences property is now brought into use.

Wow, in less than 24 hours you've gone from discouraging BTL completely to now incentivising BTL but on "not in use" property... that's a quicker U-turn than even the government of the day can manage! 

There are a couple of reasons why your new cunning plan won't work...

The issue regarding "not in use" properties isn't because people don't want to buy them, it's down to sellers not wanting to sell them for whatever reason; so tax incentives to buy them will have practically no effect.

The fundamental flaw though is that if a BTL investor does buy an incentivised empty property then as soon as it's back in use and being rented the investor is hit with all the other anti-BTL rules and regulations that have been imposed in recent years. I.e. the very reason that so many landlords are getting out of BTL in the first place and why renting for tenants is getting harder and more expensive as every year goes by.

MeteredOut

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

The price of assets rising is not the illogical result, it's peoples willingness to enter into debt to buy those assets.

Ignoring the inconvenient truth that a third of all property bought in the UK is bought with cash and no debt... what is the alternative for Joe Bloggs and his partner who need somewhere to live?

I'm not sure whether you mean somewhere to buy, as opposed to somewhere to rent or buy?

I don't see that it really makes much difference? Everyone needs somewhere to live and "debt" is simply owing someone money. 

You either buy and then you owe money to the bank every month or you rent and you owe money to the landlord every month... both are a necessary debt.

lojo1000 said:

it is very hard not to over commit to debt. Renting, whilst all around you are paying incredible multiples of their income on housing and seeing them 'get on the property ladder', is hard for most people.

Typically monthly rents are higher than monthly mortgages and fundamentally mortgages are normally paid off after so many years while rent has to be paid every single month for pretty much the rest of your life. Simply by looking at renting v buying from a debt point of view, it's clear that buying is almost always the smarter option as at the end of the day it's the lesser "debt".

lojo1000 said:

Also, I understand many people view ownership differently from rent in terms of the security it gives them.

That would be because they obviously are completely different. If you buy and pay your mortgage every month then it's your house so you can stay there forever if you want and pretty much do whatever you want within your own home.

Conversely if you rent then you don't have either of those luxuries; it's not your house so you can be made to leave if the landlord no longer wants to rent to you and you're limited in what you can do in your own home.

lojo1000 said:

My practical solution is to limit the amount of leverage allowed in buying a house. Reducing debt, reduces returns to equity in the purchase and hence BTL becomes less attractive.

the ever-upward spiral of prices in excess of incomes is not good for our society and the future of our children?

The government has been implementing anti-BTL measures for years, remind me again what's happened to both house prices and rental prices since they started doing this?

We live in a capitalist market economy ruled by supply and demand. You can tinker at the edges to reduce demand but ultimately more people than ever want/need a house and there are not enough of what they want and where they want them to go around. 

So the only solution left is to increase supply, basically we need to be building loads more houses in the areas that people want them. However even this isn't a magic bullet as it's not just house prices that have risen but similarly labour and materials are much higher now than they used to be so these mass-produced new houses are probably not going to be as cheap as some people might like; the eternal HPC dream of half-price houses is just never going to happen.

The reason why there seems to be a shortage of houses to buy was that so many were bought by BTL (previously owner-occupied houses) to put into the rental sector thereby reducing housing available to buy.

If we discourage investors (returns), it will bring down demand for housing whilst freeing up supply to buy and thereby bring prices down.

Let's say your cunning plan works and you do a better job than the government of getting rid of BTL properties... where will all those people who want or need to rent live?

Govt should use tax policy to incentive BTL industry to bring in to use housing which is not in use (thereby raising supply of homes for rent). Waive stamp duty on houses not in use >1 year if brought in use within 1 year post purchase. The BTL landlord gets a stamp duty bill as normal on purchase but if the property was not previously in use this can deferred for 1 year if the buyer elects at time of purchase. Duty becomes due in 1 year unless BTL landlord evidences property is now brought into use.

Wow, in less than 24 hours you've gone from discouraging BTL completely to now incentivising BTL but on "not in use" property... that's a quicker U-turn than even the government of the day can manage! 

There are a couple of reasons why your new cunning plan won't work...

The issue regarding "not in use" properties isn't because people don't want to buy them, it's down to sellers not wanting to sell them for whatever reason; so tax incentives to buy them will have practically no effect.

The fundamental flaw though is that if a BTL investor does buy an incentivised empty property then as soon as it's back in use and being rented the investor is hit with all the other anti-BTL rules and regulations that have been imposed in recent years. I.e. the very reason that so many landlords are getting out of BTL in the first place and why renting for tenants is getting harder and more expensive as every year goes by.

It could actually increase prices (and, therefore rents); if the seller (who did not want to sell) now knows that the buyer has an incentive to buy the property, they might just be open to selling if the buyer ups their offer above market value...

lojo1000

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

The price of assets rising is not the illogical result, it's peoples willingness to enter into debt to buy those assets.

Ignoring the inconvenient truth that a third of all property bought in the UK is bought with cash and no debt... what is the alternative for Joe Bloggs and his partner who need somewhere to live?

I'm not sure whether you mean somewhere to buy, as opposed to somewhere to rent or buy?

I don't see that it really makes much difference? Everyone needs somewhere to live and "debt" is simply owing someone money. 

You either buy and then you owe money to the bank every month or you rent and you owe money to the landlord every month... both are a necessary debt.

lojo1000 said:

it is very hard not to over commit to debt. Renting, whilst all around you are paying incredible multiples of their income on housing and seeing them 'get on the property ladder', is hard for most people.

Typically monthly rents are higher than monthly mortgages and fundamentally mortgages are normally paid off after so many years while rent has to be paid every single month for pretty much the rest of your life. Simply by looking at renting v buying from a debt point of view, it's clear that buying is almost always the smarter option as at the end of the day it's the lesser "debt".

lojo1000 said:

Also, I understand many people view ownership differently from rent in terms of the security it gives them.

That would be because they obviously are completely different. If you buy and pay your mortgage every month then it's your house so you can stay there forever if you want and pretty much do whatever you want within your own home.

Conversely if you rent then you don't have either of those luxuries; it's not your house so you can be made to leave if the landlord no longer wants to rent to you and you're limited in what you can do in your own home.

lojo1000 said:

My practical solution is to limit the amount of leverage allowed in buying a house. Reducing debt, reduces returns to equity in the purchase and hence BTL becomes less attractive.

the ever-upward spiral of prices in excess of incomes is not good for our society and the future of our children?

The government has been implementing anti-BTL measures for years, remind me again what's happened to both house prices and rental prices since they started doing this?

We live in a capitalist market economy ruled by supply and demand. You can tinker at the edges to reduce demand but ultimately more people than ever want/need a house and there are not enough of what they want and where they want them to go around. 

So the only solution left is to increase supply, basically we need to be building loads more houses in the areas that people want them. However even this isn't a magic bullet as it's not just house prices that have risen but similarly labour and materials are much higher now than they used to be so these mass-produced new houses are probably not going to be as cheap as some people might like; the eternal HPC dream of half-price houses is just never going to happen.

The reason why there seems to be a shortage of houses to buy was that so many were bought by BTL (previously owner-occupied houses) to put into the rental sector thereby reducing housing available to buy.

If we discourage investors (returns), it will bring down demand for housing whilst freeing up supply to buy and thereby bring prices down.

Let's say your cunning plan works and you do a better job than the government of getting rid of BTL properties... where will all those people who want or need to rent live?

Govt should use tax policy to incentive BTL industry to bring in to use housing which is not in use (thereby raising supply of homes for rent). Waive stamp duty on houses not in use >1 year if brought in use within 1 year post purchase. The BTL landlord gets a stamp duty bill as normal on purchase but if the property was not previously in use this can deferred for 1 year if the buyer elects at time of purchase. Duty becomes due in 1 year unless BTL landlord evidences property is now brought into use.

Wow, in less than 24 hours you've gone from discouraging BTL completely to now incentivising BTL but on "not in use" property... that's a quicker U-turn than even the government of the day can manage! 

There are a couple of reasons why your new cunning plan won't work...

The issue regarding "not in use" properties isn't because people don't want to buy them, it's down to sellers not wanting to sell them for whatever reason; so tax incentives to buy them will have practically no effect.

The fundamental flaw though is that if a BTL investor does buy an incentivised empty property then as soon as it's back in use and being rented the investor is hit with all the other anti-BTL rules and regulations that have been imposed in recent years. I.e. the very reason that so many landlords are getting out of BTL in the first place and why renting for tenants is getting harder and more expensive as every year goes by.

You're cherry picking from my posts so I will repeat in full my suggestion re BTL:

1. Cap leverage to reduce returns to BTL investors freeing up housing for owner-occupiers
2. Reduce stamp duty on properties not in use and brought into use by BTL  on otherwise not in use properties, to increase returns to BTL investors.