Soldato
I think you're targetting the wrong multiple home owning landlords here. When I watch Homes Under The Hammer, there is always at least 2 multiple property owners who have 5+ houses on their books. They are all in it for the profit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
last stats i saw that is objectively not true......
Number of rental homes has almost HALVED since 2019
The number of properties available to rent per estate agent branch has dropped from an average of 30 in March 209 to just 15.6 in March this year, research shows.
so seems you are getting your wish you should be happy with all those cheap houses on the market.
Last edited:
It's profit per month in your pocket PLUS your property paid for (which also appreciates). I'm not saying it's some easy get-rich quick scheme, but it's clear who benefits the most from the relationship.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
not at all...... if the government want to increase their rental stock I am not stopping them, and nore am I asking them not too. IF the policy has changed then show me the stats.
I think they SHOULD increase their houses to rent out. am genuinely not seeing your argument here.
unless you are demanding we give our properties to the government for free / discounted rate... in which case get real.
any changes done by the government to hurt small time landlords isn't to help renters... it is to push rental onto really rich companies who give the government money..... just like most things the government do they screw over the low and middle paid people.to benefit the really rich
Last edited:
Caporegime
The appreciation in property value in not guaranteed, it depends on market timing. PLUS you need to pay capital gains tax upon disposal, which with the reduction in the upcoming tax-free allowance is yet another significant hit.
Why limit "benefit" to simply ringfence the financial element of the exchange?
Not sleeping in a cardboard box in the local park is a major tenant benefit.
Last edited:
She could afford it seeing as she is paying nearly 4 times the mortgage amount, she might be unable to buy it for whatever reason there is a difference. Unless of course she's on benefits, in which case EVERYONE is paying you 4 times the mortgage amount for her to live there, which doesn't seem a good deal for the taxpayer.
Soldato
i want to have something to hand down to my kids that will be of use to them in the future. whether that be as a home, even if only temporarily, as it was for me and my wife when we started out, or so they can sell it and have a bit of ££ to get them on their feet.
house is mortgage free, should i just let it sit empty? or should i rent it out?
I can see you're the demographic Sunak is aiming his continue maths until 18 for
Caporegime
You should rent it out at "cost", you money sucking vampire!
Rent 520 mortgage payment 147 maybe he needs to implement a reading programme for you. Having said that it does seem low on a buy to let mortgage so maybe interest only which is worse.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Might want to run those numbers through a mortgage calculator to increase your understanding.....
Last edited:
Yet people keep adding properties to their "portfolio's"..(Not dod specifically) I'm sure they're not all doing for fun, right?
Would you turn down an extra £200 in your pocket every month?
last stats i saw that is objectively not true......
Number of rental homes has almost HALVED since 2019
The number of properties available to rent per estate agent branch has dropped from an average of 30 in March 209 to just 15.6 in March this year, research shows.www.thisismoney.co.uk
so seems you are getting your wish you should be happy with all those cheap houses on the market.
Number of rental properties down, but it does not say whether that has had a correlated increase in home ownership. I am certainly pleased that fewer and fewer people are seeing residential property as an "investment" opportunity though.
You often here / read people touting the old line of "they couldn't afford / weren't able to get a mortgage anyway" and while that may be true in the current climate, if owning residential properties and renting them out is no longer seen as an "investment" and a way to make money that climate will change.
The mortgage lenders will have to respond accordingly and then over time, loads of people who were "borderline" or "just not quite enough" to get a mortgage now can.
You could sell it now, allowing a family to own a home and then either put the money into savings or invest it to earn some extra from it. Then when your kids "branch out" you can use said money (or however much you please) to help them "get on their feet".
At no point really does maintaining ownership of a second property give any advantage over the above suggested scenario. What it does do however, is keep another property off the "ownership market" for however many years until your kids "branch out" or sell it to "get on their feet".
If the £200 a month AND the mortgage paid (using previous example with @dod) is "hardly worth writing home about" as @Bluecube put it, surely there is little to gain by keeping hold of the property?
Think of all those potential problem tenants? Those £4000 boiler installs and the new bathroom(s) you may have to install!
Surely easier to just sell it off and help them out later with the money, no?
Last edited:
An excellent point. Should it be allowed to buy up entire stocks of food in order to profit from peoples' desire to not starve? What about adding restrictions on home-growing (as there are on property building) to ensure demand?
In my view "but you get to avoid sleeping rough" is a pretty low bar from an ethical point of view. "Not sleeping on the street" should not be viewed as a luxury in a civilised country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
other than the huge tax bill when selling, along with legal fees, combined with the other huge stamp duty and legal fees again when buying.At no point really does maintaining ownership of a second property give any advantage over the above suggested scenario.
if he took your advice he would be many £1000s out of pocket from a purely financial pov he may as well rent it out completely free.
Why I didn't post the numbers, you might want to make an actual point instead of being passive-aggressive and snarky.
He pays 147 she pays 520 the other costs of being a landlord don't apply to her seem to be you could afford to own it but not be in the position to buy it.
He pays 147 she pays 520 the other costs of being a landlord don't apply to her seem to be you could afford to own it but not be in the position to buy it.
Caporegime
Over how many months / years would the person need to pay £147 before the outstanding £75,000 is cleared?
Now what about that little thing called interest, what would that do to the per month payment?
And the above is before we start to talk about the £45,000 in equity.
Exactly, the £147 is only interest as shown by the tax relief calculation of £29.40 - whether or not that's interest only mortgage we don't know by the information given, but it's irrelevant since the renter wouldn't be able to buy their home on an interest only mortgage, so it would be a repayment one on the £120,000 value, say less 10% deposit, which works out at ~£600 / month.
Either way it's an interest only mortgage for dod so the renter isn't paying off his mortgage or he's only shown the interest amount, so the rent wouldn't be nearly 4 times the mortgage value.
Ok Karen
Rather like the £1000's out of pocket he could be having to replace a boiler, or a bathroom, or the kitchen?
(OK I will concede, depending on property value, complexity of sale etc.. it could be a lot more costly to sell)
This also highlights the issue and complexity around such situations.
For every well intentioned LL or 2nd-home owner , there is unfortunately many more who are not holding into property/properties for family reasons and a desire to hand-down.
For many they have inherritted a property (usually from parental bereavement) and when faced with the reality of the housing / rental market they then choose to make it a rental property.
Not for family
Not for handing down
Not for giving a head-start
For Income.
Just to be clear, Those "portfolio" types are most certainly the ones who draw my ire the most tbh, as watching those shows you often see the "quality" of the workmanship on the refurb is often sorely lacking (usually all done by the person that bought it to rent out) and you just know it's gonna be another one of those "hovels" where everything's falling apart in 3 years time.
I do not begrudge a person wishing to hand-down an inherited property to their kids, I begrudge people who have 2nd properties for an "investment", for "income", for "my future pension".
There already exists many ways for people to invest without depriving others of the chance to own a home.
There already exists many ways for people to generate an income without depriving others of the chance to own a home.
There already exists a myriad of pension schemes for one to secure their finances in retirement without depriving others of the chance to own a home.
Believe me, it really is the "Portfolio" types you see on those shows that are the major problem, much less so the "I inherited a property when my parents passed away" and I 100% recognize that
Last edited:
WOW £10K over 6 years.
I wonder how many yacht’s he’s bought.