Something to cheer the renters up

churchrat

kazd wrote: »

As to the other poster who put !!!!!! about her children well !!!!!! about your children. .

having a slow sunday and just read thro some of this. Kazd gambled and lost. Lots of people do it all the time. I imagine she was upset when she wrote this, but, there is really no excuse to write something so nasty.

bobby-boy_2

Hi Dsypml you typed "As well as the supply/demand issue there is the issue of credit availability, which I think was more important in the recent housing bubble. Because BTL owners can offset the interest portion of their mortgage against tax (ie we taxpayers subsidise them) they can finance a larger mortgage. This means that, all things being equal, the BTL purchaser can pay more for the same new-build 2 bed city centre flat luxury apartment with the obligatory unnecessary en suite."

What a load of cr4p, a BTL with an 85% LTV versus a NR 120% LTV buyer. Guess who is going to bid the most!!!
Not to mention that we pay tax on the income from the rental so we are not being subsidised by the tax payer. I will guess that you have never had a BTL mortgage.

pickles110564

kazd wrote: »

Of course I did not go into it hoping to lose money as previously stated I was trying to invest for my childrens future.

Nothing wrong in trying to do the best for your children, I like your style.

dsypml

bobby-boy wrote: »

What a load of cr4p, a BTL with an 85% LTV versus a NR 120% LTV buyer. Guess who is going to bid the most!!!
Not to mention that we pay tax on the income from the rental so we are not being subsidised by the tax payer. I will guess that you have never had a BTL mortgage.

You pay tax on the rental income after deduction of interest payments.

I considered a BTL property, could have got a 10% "reduction" on the price of a typical BTL-style flat, but looked into the figures and decided it wasn't worth the risk. That was in 2005 and those flats have never resold for as much as the original "reduced" price. They mostly went to BTLers, so in that development the BTLers could obviously pay more than owner occupiers, and they did. It increased the price so that OOs were priced out.

Generally speaking a BTLer already has a house and would withdraw the equity to finance the deposit whereas a FTB, arguably the main target of the BTL, would have to save up for a deposit or, like you say, take out a loan at a value close to or above the value of the house. A 120% loan is clearly more expensive and more risky than a 85% loan! To grow their property empires BTLers would withdraw equity from the first BTL to pay for the second and with the develper's/salesperson's promise of high rents and the expectation that tennants would pay the mortgage the BTLer would consider the money they put towards a property to be "cheaper" than a FTB would. As you probably know, it was cheap money that fuelled demand and increased prices in the recent inflationary period.

kazd

Ok wasn't sure whether to resurrect this thread in view of the controversy it caused.

For all the genuine people thought I would give you an update.

We still have the house, we managed to keep paying the increased mortgage and luckily managed to keep the savings pots going. All the money I earn't in my business I put away in case we lose the tenants.

Still have the good tenants although unfortunately one of them was made redundant, agreed to a reduction in rent for three months inititally in the hope that he manages to pick up another job.

At the start of each month I skim off money from accounts for savings pots and then at the end of each month prior to salary going in I skim off anything left.

Trying to work and carry on with business was made equally stressfull by my husband travelling so much, however, still going with it but reducing my commitment somewhat so not out selling as much. Not sure at this point whether I will continue with it at the end of the year.

Am on the point of refinancing our main property and taking a gamble (yes I know) on int rates staying low for a period and making overpayments. Am thinking of using some of the equity to pay some capital of btl but not sure how this affects us with tax liability.

Its an offset mortgage that we have gone for and I really thought we would get knocked back because of the btl property but it has gone through fine.

Still not sure what the eventual outcome will be, am hoping that eventually when properties start to sell we might consider selling. Its in a location that has had massive regeneration and just opened direct line to London.

harryhound

Have you kept a list of all your losses to date?
(BTW we did the BTL thing to finance university - we got our timing right and it was more successful than (our childrens') wildest dreams. 20% foresight 80% luck)
Whenever something seems profitable, it is time to get out before the government tries to get in on the act with its taxing machinery & complicated legislation.

kazd

harryhound wrote: »

Have you kept a list of all your losses to date?
(BTW we did the BTL thing to finance university - we got our timing right and it was more successful than (our childrens') wildest dreams. 20% foresight 80% luck)
Whenever something seems profitable, it is time to get out before the government tries to get in on the act with its taxing machinery & complicated legislation.

Yes we keep everything on Microsoft Money, have records going back to 1998:eek: