Oh I agree completely, just responding to the confusion about why people don't necessarily want huge developments around their homes, even if it will increase the value of their property.
Cameron's housing plans
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Oh I agree completely, just responding to the confusion about why people don't necessarily want huge developments around their homes, even if it will increase the value of their property.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,482
This is precisely why it is unsustainable. We are creating a massive excess that we do not need. Schools and colleges have been moulded to rely on rewards based on how many students they manage to get into university and it is totally counter productive because we are creating something like 50-60 times the number of graduates that we actually need. I am not convinced it is the failure of universities to adapt to the increase, but the failure of those responsible for education policies to maintain the bar high enough when it comes to higher education. Hence why we have the on going 'media studies' jokes.
What exactly does BTL'er provide to society / tenant in exchange for this (what I call excessive) profit? I'd understand if they'd pay for the road maintenance / building of new railways etc. by themselves, but the reality is that community taxes are actually paid by the tenants and public investment is paid by everyone, even though the increases in housing prices only benefit owners.
And again: I don't mind getting a decent return on their capital that is tied to the housing. But urbanisation is not caused by BTL landlords. It seems to be a global phenomena that is driving up the housing prices in urban areas around the globe. I find it kind of interesting that we let one (already relatively rich / well off) group of people (land / housing owners) to reap the biggest benefits from this phenomena.
Well you know what they provide to society: accommodation. They take on the risk of ownership and they get a reward for it, their returns vary - if some have what you believe to be 'excessive' profit then that is the result of inefficiencies in the market. Rising prices remove some of that but then that is what people are complaining about on here in the first place. Currently rental yields in London are fairly low.
They don't provide accommodation, that's nonsense. They are not building any houses. The people that do are providing accommodation.
With a bit of mental gymnastics, you may be able to say that they indirectly cause a bit more housing to be built by helping keep prices high. Because as we all know developers will simply not build if they don't get the required profit they're looking for, choosing instead to wait until prices rise again.
But the people who primarily benefit from high house prices are the developers and the existing home owners (including landlords). So equally you could say that landlords really don't help people who can't get on the housing ladder in the first place.
And the ability to pay more in rent than you would pay on a mortgage is not a "service" anyone I know is asking for. Having a house you can be kicked out of in 2-8 weeks is not a "service" that most people believe is in their interests either.
And given the number of rogue landlords, your lot really need reigning in. I wouldn't shed a tear if landlords got taxed into oblivion, and I'm hoping it happens soon. I'd love a nice juicy interest rate rise soon as well. It's utterly unfair that people who are scrimping and saving are being punished for it.
It isn't
Only to people who can afford to buy them, if you want or need to rent accommodation then you need someone else to buy it and provide it to you.
You don't provide anything. You have to buy it first before you can rent it out.
In other words, you are a reseller. You provide nothing.
The acid test is, without BTL what would happen to that housing stock? Well, it would still be bought and lived in. Ergo, you aren't providing jack ****e.
In other words, you are a reseller. You provide nothing.
The acid test is, without BTL what would happen to that housing stock? Well, it would still be bought and lived in. Ergo, you aren't providing jack ****e.
Are they saving though? Because that would imply saving for a house. Then rental markets wouldn't apply to them?
I saved. I will soon have a house.
Well aware that people might be saving whilst renting. But there is a million and one variables in that re why they started renting in the first place to even broad brush and say it's BTL's fault they are struggling.
There are people out that that either would rather rent (due to work commitments to example) or simply will never be able to save up a deposit to own a house (possible due to earning potential).
As for how much influence BTL's have on actual market prices well that's anyone's guess. But it's no where near some people seem to think. If you banned BTL I doubt you will see an spike in home owners..
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Without BTL where do the rental properties come from for those who do not need/want/able to buy?
You'd certainly see a negative spike in new homes being built. Or at least, the type of homes that most of those renting would want to buy.
Does OCUK not provide computer components? You seem to want to pointlessly argue over semantics - you know exactly what I mean when I say provide and you're needlessly trying to point out that a BTL landlord often hasn't built the property.. which is rather irrelevant. You're also wrong to even argue it semantically - provide doesn't imply constructed.
[TW]Fox;28680685 said:
We need the state to build housing again. It's really that simple. It's the only way we're going to get out of this mess.
Housing is too important to leave it to "the market", when the market is failing year after year after year to build the houses we need. Developers will only build where it yields maximum profit. It's not in their own interests to solve the "housing problem". If they solve the problem, they hurt their own profits!
The current system only benefits the few, and countless economists are falling over themselves to brand it unsustainable. Homelessness is on the increase (up 16% this year alone, double the rate of 2009). The bill for housing benefit is going through the roof (avg annual rise 200mil). Tax money is ending up diverted into the pockets of private landlords.
We need planned housing developments built by the state not for profit but for the good of society. Housing is too important to all of our futures to leave it to the whims of corporate greed.
BTL landlords do not help the situation, they only push prices up. The number of people who want to buy but can't are far more significant than the small number of people who don't want to. BTL landlords buying up housing stock increase the number of people who can't, but would like to.
Well tell me, who benefits from the increased housing prices BTL landlords cause? Is that also a "service" you're proud to provide? Do your tenants benefit from increased house prices? Are they grateful to you for every rent rise?
People don't benefit from a rise in energy / water prices. But we would be stuffed without it.
Likewise there are people out there that don't benefit from the rise in rent prices. But they would be stuffed without it.
In both circumstances they are a necessity and a few people gain from it. That's just life.
Oil is another example I would say.
Last edited:
Do you honestly think it is BTL's fault these people are not homeowners?
I.e if BTL's disappeared overnight suddenly everyone who rents will be able to their own home in the not too distant future?
The question was what service do the BTL landlords provide - they provide rental accommodation.
What does a tenant's feelings about a rental rise have to do with answering that?
Yes.
http://moneyweek.com/how-george-osborne-could-kill-off-britains-buy-to-let-business/
Reading the comments on articles like this is why I despise BTL landlords. You can find BTL gloating on all the landlord forums, about the various schemes they have found to avoid paying tax on their portfolios. How they can be earning 7 figure incomes and paying only 18% tax. How they can completely avoid capital gains tax. How some are even able to offset 100% of their tax legally.
I won't bother to explain it all here, but anyone who starts seriously looking into the dealings of BTL landlords knows that the system has been stacked in their favour for years. Buying property, remortgaging it, avoiding CGT, buying more property, getting the tennants to pay the mortgage on the newly remortgaged property...
The portfolio size of most landlords has been increasing year on year, whilst the number of people excluded from the housing market is growing at the same rate
There is a reason it's now called "generation rent".BTL landlords have basically had a lot more access to credit and at much more favourable conditions than first time buyers.
So yes, I think people gaming the system are and continue to destroy the future for those not already on the ladder. It's only going to get worse, that;s the fun of it.
I'll see you this time next decade when landlords basically own 99% of the housing stock
I can see both sides of the BTL argument, but really it is difficult to argue against* BTL has created more demand for a fixed supply of houses which has therefore caused house prices to increase and forced people to take out bigger mortgages or not be able to afford the house.
Example, a new build of four houses went up near me. Three were bought by the same BTL landlord. The price would still be the same if someone else bought them but if you multiply that across the country for a sustained period the demand for houses would be lower, prices would fall, demand would start to pick-up as lower earners fill the gap and move out of rental, and so on.
The Government is removing the tax deduction on mortgage interest though so it makes BTL much more unappealing.
Example, a new build of four houses went up near me. Three were bought by the same BTL landlord. The price would still be the same if someone else bought them but if you multiply that across the country for a sustained period the demand for houses would be lower, prices would fall, demand would start to pick-up as lower earners fill the gap and move out of rental, and so on.
The Government is removing the tax deduction on mortgage interest though so it makes BTL much more unappealing.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,482
Indeed. Why are people not able to see that the increase in BTL landlords is because nobody was buying houses because the banks became more risk averse and it is harder to get a mortgage for owner occupiers? In my hometown there was a whole block of freshly built flats and they were all empty for over a year. That was not unusual across the county and, dare I say it, the country.
All BTL landlords have done is fill a gap the government and banks have created. Don't hate on the landlords as they do allow people to live in properties of a standard/size they would often be unable to afford to purchase. For example a friend of mine who, up until recently, was renting a large 4 bedroom house in a nice area that he had no hope of being able to buy but he was still able to live there for 5 years because it was on a BTL mortgage and the rent was affordable.