well there other reports that say they trear there renters like crap.
Britain's BTL King & Queen about to lose it all?
- Thread starter Bes
- Start date
well there other reports that say they trear there renters like crap.
I expect you are wrong.
I can think of many examples where rental is better than ownership, and I am sure you can too.
I don't have a problem with this.
Well, that wasn't in the video but I had seen it and agree it is pretty low if it is as clear as that. I don't think it is evidence of contempt to all of his tenants though and it would be interesting to hear if there was another side to the story.
Well I suppose you can't really blame the banks if the people can't afford the mortgage. It is their own fault in that regard. But I think if the banks hadn't been so reckless with their mortgage products in the past then they wouldn't have required such a high deposit and this would have helped people on lower incomes.
That's tough for the people who want to buy a house but it is owned by someone else. I want to buy the house next door but someone owns it.
Banks lending to people WITHOUT taking a sizeable deposit is half of the problem. They were giving 100% or 105% mortgages to people, often on 5x income or more, and without doing proper income checks. The banks didn't make it hard for people to borrow, they made it too easy.
That is what I am getting at. It was too easy in the past which has made it very difficult now. Had they settled for a happy medium before it might have been better all round.
Blame for what exactly? If someone can afford to go out and buy 10 properties good for them, that first part of your post just sounds like pure jealously to me.
Blame for decreasing supply? Honestly, it's in the post you quoted, right above what you wrote.
With regards to the Councils, I'd like to ask if you have any confidence in our Government being able to run anything? Anything at all?
Housing Associations, if they own the property, are merely a Landlord by another name, and don't forget that Housing Associations need money to run. If they don't own the property, the chances are that the Council does, so my question remains the same.
As an aside. Do you know how many properties are owned by Housing Associations?
With regards to everyone wanting to buy a property, the cost is not relevant. If you want to buy a property enough you will save up the deposit, if necessary by making sacrifices. Yes, the deposits required are larger at the moment, but that will change. When the recent mortgage rates were supposedly too high (about a year ago now) they were at about the same level as 1998.
Bingo. Got it in one. And who was responsible for the Banks doing this? The Government.
Thats just the point, they couldn't afford to buy 10 properties.
Ahhh, but you could in 90/91/92. 100% mortgages abounded. So, what will you do when that type of mortgage comes around again?
Gotta love these zealous generalisations- British hate success, Government don't know how to wipe their own arse...
People believe what they read in the Sun/ Mail without looking at the bigger picture.
Anyway, what is needed is to put very high capital requirements on BTL investments... say 60% cash deposit (or more) I reckon.
Exactly what I did last time 100-105% mortgages where around, not buy a house unless I have 20% deposit.
I think 60% is unnecessarily high, given that some people can and do invest wisely and within their means. However, something that takes into account how many properties you have is certainly needed.
its the banks fault. you cant blame someone for trying to get themselves a better income when acting within the rules and laws that the banking system allows.
don't know about how they treat tenants but am sure there are 2 sides to every story.
don't know about how they treat tenants but am sure there are 2 sides to every story.
I can and frequently do
however the government can't be held responsible for everything that goes wrong in this country, at some point you have to draw a line and take responsibility.For a residential home, I think products up to around 80% (I guess) should be available.
BUT why does someone need 100 or 900 houses? Surely owning a home should be affordable to the masses, not become an elitist status symbol, like in Germany, The Netherlands, etc?
Surely the banks are responsible for the banks lending? (or should be anyway)
The banks were encouraged to lend to the "slightly less well off". This happened in the States first, and is documented. We seem to follow the State's lead in this type of practice, and I am certain that this was because Gordon was quite happy to have the increase in house prices fuelling his "house of cards" (as it turns out) economic growth figures.
The countries that did not encourage this type of lending (most notably Australia and South Africa) didn't suffer nearly as much in the recession.