So what is the issue then? People can quite easily rent there - rental yield only being 2.4%
Cameron's housing plans
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
So what is the issue then? People can quite easily rent there - rental yield only being 2.4%
Because it should be a person's choice whether to rent or buy. Because tenants have very little protection in this country, we have the shortest tenancies in Europe. You can't decorate, you can't do anything to the house. You're living on two months notice for the rest of your life. That's not a long-term home.
Well it is usually - though you need to pick an affordable area and have an income (or two). The area mentioned is one where it seems quite a reasonable choice to rent anyway.
Because people want to own their own home? Rental is fine but its only short term.
We should be like other European countries and offer 5 or 10 year rentals.
Thats why house ownership is so small in a lot of European countries. People rent for 10 years plus and then you decorate and garden and do things to the house.
lots of people want various things, they're not all able to buy a place worth half a million in an area obviously attractive enough that people want to retire there and buy holiday homes
renting is quite a good idea there if it is such a cheap option
perhaps we should
That would definitely help build social cohesion and a sense of community. It would probably scare off BTL landlords looking for a quick buck too.
Have to agree actually. Fairly sensible plan all round. Only issue is as you say, everyone these days wants a quick buck.
Stop exaggerating to prove your point. Not to come over all emotional but you need to understand how it feels to be a tenant in this country, which pretty much equates to being a second-class citizen. I speak from personal experience; having lived well within our means in west London for 7 years, myself and my girlfriend got kicked out of our flat so that the landlords can refurbish it. To stay in the same area we'd be looking at paying over £500/month more which we were not prepared to do. We had friends there, we felt part of the community. It was a nice place to live. We're now on the opposite side of London and none of this has been our choice. Just stop to think for a minute how you would feel if you received a letter from the bank saying you had 2 months to leave your home. Just think about it. It's not a nice feeling at all.
There's no perhaps in it.
I'm not exaggerating - 500k was the price quoted by the other poster for the example from his area.
So you were paying below market rates for some time and you didn't then want to pay market rates? Sorry but London is expensive, lots of people want to live there, if lots of people want to live in a particular place then it is going to get competitive, that's just life unfortunately.
I had to move across London too - I bought a place the opposite side of London to where I'd been renting - while I could afford a flatshare in Islington I couldn't afford my own place there and had to move. That is pretty standard, it isn't necessarily 'unfair' it is the reality that not everyone can live in an area that lots and lots of people would like to live in.
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
In London how easy is it for a newly trained level 2 city and guilds plumber to fond work?
I think people's views on the BTL and rental markets are somewhat skewed by the fact that they won't accept that they can't afford to live where they want, or indeed understand the concept of "expensive houses" and "cheap houses", "desirable areas" and "not very desirable areas".
I want to live in the country side in a nice big old farmhouse with a couple of acres of land, miles away from any housing estates and shopping centres and main roads and common people.
I can't afford it, so I live in a three bed semi in market town.
Just the same as people who want to live in London (God knows why) but can't afford to, have to live somewhere else.
I want to live in the country side in a nice big old farmhouse with a couple of acres of land, miles away from any housing estates and shopping centres and main roads and common people.
I can't afford it, so I live in a three bed semi in market town.
Just the same as people who want to live in London (God knows why) but can't afford to, have to live somewhere else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
If I go to Brighthouse, I can rent a TV for less a month than the HP payments if I bought the same model.
If a lease a car it costs me around half what the monthly cost of getting finance on it would be.
Housing is the ONLY market where renting/leasing/borrowing costs more per payment than getting finance (mortgage). Why?
When every single market acts a different way to housing it's time to admit there might be a problem with it.
Only reason I can think of is they're hard to buy in bulk therefore need higher mark ups?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Of course you can - you are just borrowing the television for a short period of time. Whereas with HP you are paying the full cost of the television so that you can in effect retain it for ever.
Erm no it doesn't, unless you compare only with HP which is a ridiculous thing to do as they are non-comparable - you own a car at the end with HP therefore the reason the monthly payments are higher is because you are paying off the entire value of the car over the HP term. FWIW the most popular form of 'getting a car on finance' is PCP which generally has a lower per month cost than a lease.
In almost any market in the world hiring something will cost you more long term than buying it. It's common sense.
The reason your point makes sense in your head is because you are looking only at monthly payment which is completely nonsensical. You need to look at total cost divided by the term to work out the true cost of each option.
Last edited:
Umm a random LG TV from bright house is £18 per week, for 156 weeks
The same TV, from Amazon, is £895.
You always pay more to rent something in the long term than buy it, because it's somebody else's property, be it a car, be it a TV, be it clothes what ever, and the reason they are renting that item is to make money.
It's a very simple concept, people are making money from renting houses the same as they make money from renting out cars, the same as they make money from mugs who go to Brighthouse who spend £2.4k buying a £900 TV over 5 years.
not really that simple - depends on your finance rates - remember the people who own the thing being leased out want a return for the risk they're taking too. HP on a TV isn't typically going to be at a particularly good rate(this again is down to risk and the sort of people who take out these deals in general) - you could buy one with a bank loan or using a credit card and you'll perhaps get a better rate.
and in some markets renting property can be cheaper than the payments you might have to make on a mortgage - see the countryside example by the other poster and/or some Central London areas with low yields
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,884
Something needs to change fast with the housing situation,Never known a country like the UK to have such a big problem with the young folk not been able to rent a flat,Let alone a mortgage on a house.
But yes,Lets let in all these foreigners and give them houses,Makes me sick.
But yes,Lets let in all these foreigners and give them houses,Makes me sick.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It would be funny if it weren't true
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
[TW]Fox;28661145 said:
Sigh, seems you're missing the point.
Let me put it another way, name me another market/asset where Person A can buy X with a loan then rent/lease it to Person B at a higher rate than the rate of the loan Person A is paying.