And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Take landlords out of the equation. Renters cannot get a deposit together.

How do you fix that issue?

Rent is based on supply and demand.

I can't just jack up rents by £500 a month. Tenants would find somewhere cheaper to rent.

Otherwise I'd jack them all up by £500.
Demand for housing does not necessarily equate to demand for rental property. I'm sure you would agree.

How can I take BTL out of a discussion about the effect of BTL on the housing market? :p

Some people might "prefer" to rent - at least one person in this thread has indicated that they do. Does every renter desire to pay more in rent than they would pay in mortgage repayments for the same property? I don't think anyone sane believes this.

I thought you were saying that a deposit is really easy to get - borrow it from friends and family? Now you're arguing the other way?

BTL influences property prices too. By snapping up housing they actually inflate demand themselves.

Also the situation where a BTL mortgage is easier to get?

Or the situation where a BTL landlord outbids a first-time-buyer?

BTL landlords aren't buying houses to satisfy a need for a roof over their heads. They're buying it because it's a "safe" investment, and a great "income stream".

You might be a good landlords but there are countless abusing BTL landlords who provide no service, pure exploitation.

But all BTL landlords are distorting the housing market by the very fact of their participation in it. Let's say that they exacerbate a problem.

And also let's say that if there wasn't a problem, BTL landlords would not be interested. BTL is a response to a problem - but it's an exploitative response.

Like the people who tried to buy up all the PPE and re-sell it for profit. They wouldn't have been interested in the PPE without the spike in demand. They responded to that spike - and made things worse in doing so.

That is the essence of BTL in the current climate. A response to a problem - and one which makes the problem worse for first time buyers.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
This is the thing that most aggrieves me.

The middle-classes (and even more so the rich) aren't just buying top-end properties.

They're actively buying up all the starter houses. The "cheapest" housing on the market. Purely to deny it to the lowest earners and to force them into servitude via paying rent. As well as turning all the 2+ bed houses into so-called "studio" flats, where your kitchen is also your toilet and bedroom.

They are also quite proud of doing this.

We could stop this over night by preventing the cheapest housing from being owned by BTL landlords.

But of course we would never, ever, ever do that. It's a BTL landlord's human right to own as much starter housing as they can can their hands on, and to extract huge amounts of money from the poorest in society.

What a load of rubbish. If a house goes up for sale anyone is free to buy it including low earners

Whoever is willing to pay the most will usually get it.

So if a new home goes up for sale. Anyone can buy it.

Saying landlords should only be buying 5 bedroom houses is ridiculous. If anyone is having issues buying a property then they need to get a deposit together and buy one they can afford.

Of you only earn £18k a year that means you can only realistically afford a £60k mortgage comfortably and still have disposable to be comfortable.

The problem is people on £18k want to buy a £150k home. Yet have nothing in savings.

People want everything on a plate and don't want to pick up a shovel and do some hard graft.

When I was younger I used to work 9-5 in a decent office job and also work weekends and sometimes evenings in the entertainment industry as a door supervisor. I gave that up as it got too much but I was willing to do 70 hour weeks for several years, sometimes outside in the freezing cold, rain, snow, etc, sometimes inside a nice conference, concert or gig.

All the people complaining are the last ones willing to pick up a shovel and do what's needed to be done.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
32,495
Location
Llaneirwg
The rental situation is terrible. It takes some serious earning to get a deposit in a lot of areas while those with multiple properties just suck up that cash.

Those people will have so little when it comes to pension age its going to be a horrible crisis as pension age increases too.

Inability to pay care costs etc.

I can understand those with properties defending it personally as humans are greed driven. But it's a clear it's unfair and crippling to those renting.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
The rental situation is terrible. It takes some serious earning to get a deposit in a lot of areas while those with multiple properties just suck up that cash.

Those people will have so little when it comes to pension age its going to be a horrible crisis as pension age increases too.

Inability to pay care costs etc.

I can understand those with properties defending it personally as humans are greed driven. But it's a clear it's unfair and crippling to those renting.

How about we cap all wages in the UK to £75k a year max. Nobody is allowed to earn more than that and cannot give themselves business expenses or dividends to go over the limit.

That would fix the housing problem no?

I'm sure all the high earners on here would be all for it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Literally every single last one? No, clearly.

Enough of them to be a problem... yes.

Or a solution - I mean where are people supposed to rent 1 or 2 bedroom flats if BTL landlords can't own them?

You might not think it's a problem that low earners are locked into paying more in rent than they might pay with a mortgage on the same property, but many of us see that as exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Not particularly - unless you want to pretend that prices will never drop and that credit should be available with little or no deposit... We saw what happened with that sort of thing just over a decade ago.

There are of course schemes out there to help with deposits - government backed or developers offering incentives, ditto to part rent part buy schemes, affordable housing schemes etc..

A single low earner buying a house for themselves is going to be a stretch regardless.

[...]
Also the situation where a BTL mortgage is easier to get?

Or the situation where a BTL landlord outbids a first-time-buyer?

BTL landlords aren't buying houses to satisfy a need for a roof over their heads. They're buying it because it's a "safe" investment, and a great "income stream".

You might be a good landlords but there are countless abusing BTL landlords who provide no service, pure exploitation.

But all BTL landlords are distorting the housing market by the very fact of their participation in it. Let's say that they exacerbate a problem.

And also let's say that if there wasn't a problem, BTL landlords would not be interested. BTL is a response to a problem - but it's an exploitative response.
[...]
BTL (etc..)

That's just one aspect of the property market yet you seem to act as though it's the sole cause.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
What a load of rubbish. If a house goes up for sale anyone is free to buy it including low earners

Whoever is willing to pay the most will usually get it.

So if a new home goes up for sale. Anyone can buy it.
You're in the BTL game yourself, aren't you :p

No, not everyone can buy it in the current climate. But that isn't the point. "Everyone" is rather a high bar to set.

The point is, that in a different climate, where BTL wasn't allowed/advantageous, low-end properties would be affordable to more low earners.

Perhaps still not "everyone", but *more*.

The lucrative natures of BTL makes it unaffordable for people who, in a different climate without BTL interference - would find housing easier to purchase.

The govt, the banks, and BTL are all responsible in various ways for keeping the housing bubble going, and in fact doing all they can to keep the bubble inflating.

It's a situation that benefits the rich and penalises the poor, yet again.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
You're in the BTL game yourself, aren't you :p

No, not everyone can buy it in the current climate. But that isn't the point. "Everyone" is rather a high bar to set.

The point is, that in a different climate, where BTL wasn't allowed/advantageous, low-end properties would be affordable to more low earners.

Perhaps still not "everyone", but *more*.

The lucrative natures of BTL makes it unaffordable for people who, in a different climate without BTL interference - would find housing easier to purchase.

The govt, the banks, and BTL are all responsible in various ways for keeping the housing bubble going, and in fact doing all they can to keep the bubble inflating.

It's a situation that benefits the rich and penalises the poor, yet again.

You could make the same argument about say immigrants or not building on greenbelt etc..

BTL is still needed, they still provide a service of sorts, not everyone necessarily wants or needs to buy at any particular time - there is a market for rental property that extends beyond low earners who made poor life choices and would otherwise want to buy.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Or a solution - I mean where are people supposed to rent 1 or 2 bedroom flats if BTL landlords can't own them?



Not particularly - unless you want to pretend that prices will never drop and that credit should be available with little or no deposit... We saw what happened with that sort of thing just over a decade ago.

There are of course schemes out there to help with deposits - government backed or developers offering incentives, ditto to part rent part buy schemes, affordable housing schemes etc..

A single low earner buying a house for themselves is going to be a stretch regardless.



That's just one aspect of the property market yet you seem to act as though it's the sole cause.
"Help to buy" is actually a misnomer. It's deliberate govt interference to keep the housing bubble inflating.

If they really wanted to address the housing problem they'd take steps to dramatically improve tenants rights, have long-term tenant security, and whole raft of measures that would protect tenants from the unscrupulous practices that abound in BTL in many areas. They don't do this - they don't want to do this.

The whole thing is a game designed to protect the assets of those with assets to protect. The people without assets can go fizzle.

Housing might show a bit of regional fluctuation but no govt is going to let the bubble burst.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
You could make the same argument about say immigrants or not building on greenbelt etc..

BTL is still needed, they still provide a service of sorts, not everyone necessarily wants or needs to buy at any particular time - there is a market for rental property that extends beyond low earners who made poor life choices and would otherwise want to buy.
Quite dismissive of low earners, there. There are many reasons beyond "poor life choices" that somebody could find themselves on min wage.

Some rental property might be needed. Some. Not the levels we have right now. And it would be better provided by the council than by private landlords.

See the current fiasco btw where a HUGE amount of money is currently paid by the govt/local govt to private landlords to house people.

That's your and my tax money. Billions of that is being paid to private landlords.

What a great idea it was to sell off all the council houses. Genius.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I thought you were on $50k a year per your semi-recent thread, FoxEye :D
You mean the long-dead thread from years ago. It's about as current as a DeLorean. These days I keep my personal situation very much to myself :) Like MI5, I don't comment on rumours (that's where the similarity ends tho - I've never been chased down a ski slope by a man with gold teeth).
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Quite dismissive of low earners, there. There are many reasons beyond "poor life choices" that somebody could find themselves on min wage.

Some rental property might be needed. Some. Not the levels we have right now. And it would be better provided by the council than by private landlords.

See the current fiasco btw where a HUGE amount of money is currently paid by the govt/local govt to private landlords to house people.

That's your and my tax money. Billions of that is being paid to private landlords.

What a great idea it was to sell off all the council houses. Genius.

Yeah but poor life choices lead you to not being able to get a deposit together.

Rent somewhere cheaper or think outside the box.

Aren't there people living in caravans, houseboats, etc?
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
4,956
Location
The 'Shire'
You mean the long-dead thread from years ago. It's about as current as a DeLorean. These days I keep my personal situation very much to myself :) Like MI5, I don't comment on rumours (that's where the similarity ends tho - I've never been chased down a ski slope by a man with gold teeth).
But you have been chased down a ski slope by a man!!
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2011
Posts
6,859
Location
Oldham, Lancashire
Yeah but poor life choices lead you to not being able to get a deposit together.

Rent somewhere cheaper or think outside the box.

Aren't there people living in caravans, houseboats, etc?

There is more to it than poor life choices. Capitalism as a system requires the people to be poor. For some to have more, others have to have less. What we have done is made the gap between more and less so vast that the poor can't afford a place to live. We're also actively making sure that more and more go in the "less" catagory so the top free can have even more.

It's not just about poor life choices. Where I work there are around 200 general workers on minimum wage. Over them are 12 team leaders, over them 6 managers, then 2 shift managers. Not everyone can move up, there just isn't room, there never will be.

We can't just pay them all more, all that will do is increase prices.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2011
Posts
4,418
Location
Cambridgeshire
Why not just heavily regulate the industry, at the end of the day landlords are providing a service which is as vital as most statutory services so they should be regulated as such?
  • Cap rents
  • Properly legislate, police, and enforce laws relating to the requirements aroubd the state of housing provided by landlords. Enforce strong penalties including jail time for the worst offenders
  • Get rid of no fault evictions
  • Create a whistleblowing system for tenants to call out bad landlords, ensure that they are protected from retaliation.
  • Heavily tax profits on sales of btl homes and inheritance of btl homes.
I'd say privatisation of housing is as important to social wellbeing as privatised health care so it should be policed strictly.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
There is more to it than poor life choices. Capitalism as a system requires the people to be poor. For some to have more, others have to have less. What we have done is made the gap between more and less so vast that the poor can't afford a place to live. We're also actively making sure that more and more go in the "less" catagory so the top free can have even more.

It's not just about poor life choices. Where I work there are around 200 general workers on minimum wage. Over them are 12 team leaders, over them 6 managers, then 2 shift managers. Not everyone can move up, there just isn't room, there never will be.

We can't just pay them all more, all that will do is increase prices.

Okay let's take your factory worker earning £18k a year and compare what they have in this country to someone in Africa, India or China earning £1k a year.

Should we be helping the factory workers or those that truly are at the bottom or let capitalism decide?

Do you suggest we all get paid the same wage regardless?
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Why not just heavily regulate the industry, at the end of the day landlords are providing a service which is as vital as most statutory services so they should be regulated as such?
  • Cap rents
  • Properly legislate, police, and enforce laws relating to the requirements aroubd the state of housing provided by landlords. Enforce strong penalties including jail time for the worst offenders
  • Get rid of no fault evictions
  • Create a whistleblowing system for tenants to call out bad landlords, ensure that they are protected from retaliation.
  • Heavily tax profits on sales of btl homes and inheritance of btl homes.
I'd say privatisation of housing is as important to social wellbeing as privatised health care so it should be policed strictly.

All of that is already happening in Scotland.

It's already been taxed to oblivion as well. All the decent benefits and expenses have been removed.

In Scotland you need to register to become a landlord within each council authority and then register each property within that authority too at your own expense.

They then police you and your tenants can go to them with complaints and if you don't provide adequate housing bailiffs and sherriff court officers cqn be sent to your home for the money to repair and maintain the property and then even the police can be drafted in if that doesn't work.

I know it's different in England but all that's already happened in Scotland. Landlords have so many expenses and duties it's a game full of hassle for very little to make any money you need to own the property outright with no mortgage.

It's why higher end properties where people are less likely to abuse the property if they can afford the higher rents are a better prospect than slum type properties where they never bother to clean the cooker, smoke 20 fags per day inside the rooms and never clean anything or bother to even do a lick of paint in 15 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom