to think that banning 'buy-to-let' would go a long way to solving the housing crisis?

[carlajean]

It seems so obvious to me that there's sure to be some flaw in the argument, but it would be easy to enforce (i.e. one family, one house) and there would be a large number of houses/flats released onto the market, forcing the price down (to a rational level) so that people could afford the newly-available housing.
Because interest rates are so low, housing is a good investment, particularly with older people who might have pulled down their pension early, resulting in private landlords buying up cheap housing a letting it out.
I await flaming, but am interested to hear what people think.

People who need long term, low cost tenancies in suitable housing rather than a short term let in a damp one bedroom flat that has never been maintained. Housing for the public good rather than profit.

so some people need low cost, high quality housing, and others need damp, high cost shoddy ones?

RR, yes jus as if you buy tables to sell you set the cost of the tables against your turnover received and your employee costs and your rent of premises. It's not a tax dodge. It is just how business works - you are taxed on what you make not on money you don't make.

You cannot increase the number of houses in existence simply by changing the basis upon which they are inhabited...I expect rented or mortgaged by the inhabitant.

Any argument to that effect is nonsense.

I think the government should regulate in some way in respect of the exorbitant fees letting agents charge, lengthen the minimum tenancy term, and come up with some sort of solution to the issue of deposits.

I also think rents should be capped and incentives given to LL to rent to people on lower incomes.

But ultimately a home has a use value over and above its exchange value. And where there is speculation there is nearly always interest, inflation and profit. This is why house prices are not in any way reflective of incomes. Land is the same. But all other commodities, the value is dictated by labour costs etc.

Selling tables increases the availability of tables, but BTL reduces the availability of housing for people to buy. They aren't comparable.

No making tables increases the availability of tables

Er no it doesn't, because the tables are all made in China.

If you look on Ebay, you can get tables for half the price of the furniture shops, because they don't have the same overheads.

I think the problem is because BTL is treated as a business whereas house are being bought as an investments rather than people wanting to be in the rental business.

Tenants are a way of paying for the investment and seem to be seen as a inconvenience for many BTLetters.

The state can decide any tax rules it likes. It could tax employees 200% iof their wages if it wanted to which is what it is doing with the buy to let changes - making landlords pay tax on profits they don't make and when it does so there are consequences - so here it might mean only rich cash buyers buy properties to let out. That is fine but let us not pretend it is any different from taxing anyone on profits they don't make in these interest rate changes. The changes by the way do not affect 20% rate tax payers or non tax payers who borrow to let as they don't pay upper rates of tax on rent now and won't when the interest rate changes come in.

so some people need low cost, high quality housing, and others need damp, high cost shoddy ones?

Don't know where you got that idea from.

There is and always has been a section of the rental market, where just as with hotel rooms and holiday lets, if you don't meet the standards of the market you lose money.

Not every tenant is at the mercy of an evil landlord.

The reason house prices are high is a lack of supply and doing this would do nothing to change that. Many people do not wish to buy (particularly students and young professionals) so where would they live if there was no investment in the rented sector.

Also the totalitarian way you wish the State to ride roughshod over the Private Property rights of the Citizen is quite chilling.

There are very few rental properties in my local village and town. People make money on property, but from buying and selling, not from renting. growing markets are homes for the elderly and dementia care.

There is a lack of affordable homes, but not an excess of btl landlords.

It used to be that buying a house was about creating a home. It's now become a money making scheme for many. I know several people who own more than 20 properties each.... I think there should be a limit on how many properties an individual may own and not live in.

The housing crisis is a complex issue
Changes to tax regulations for btl due in 2017 may help somewhat (?)

We have a buy to let flat , I think we are doing people a favour . There is no way first time buyers can afford to buy it ( or get a mortgage ) but can afford to rent it .

I certainly don't know anyone with 20 properties. All statistics show most landlords own their own home and one other property and no more. Some only own the let property and are living with a boyfriend in his place or letting a property out whilst they rent somewhere else. Eg many people cannot afford to buy in London so might buy a flat in Leeds near their parents so at least they have that available for their retirement.

Anyway no Government is going to ban private landlords (even Cuba one of the last bastions of no private ownership of property has recently given up on that and now you can buy a property in Cuba). Perhaps North Korea still holds out - i think there you dont' get ownership and the state allocates housing to you. For over 150 years people have been talking about these issues or whether private property ownership is bad and for about 200,000 year of our history no one owned land, they just moved across the planet hunting and gathering without owning land so there is nothing wrong with people debating the concept but it is not going to happen. There are a lot of very high quality flats to let in London which are good quality and that was not the case where people had tenancies for life and laughably low rents (and sadly some awful slum type places let at the very bottom end)

The problem is that housing whether owned or rented is just too expensive in many areas

I think the government should regulate in some way in respect of the exorbitant fees letting agents charge, lengthen the minimum tenancy term, and come up with some sort of solution to the issue of deposits.

this problem can easily be solved by forcing landlords to pay all fees regarding letting agents. The problem we have here is that landlords contract the services of a letting agent, but the tenant pays, so of course the one choosing the service will be less price sensitive. I have seen on many posts here that landlords don't even know that letting agents were charging for things like renewing the lease. Again, why would a landlord care if they are not paying.

Someone above also mentioned that in Australia landlords pay the council tax. This is true in America (and Canada as far as I am aware). This is a good incentive to not leave a property empty. I know that here owners can get a discount on empty homes, but perhaps we should go further and tax them more.

Don't know where you got that idea from.

I was responding to the post that some people need social housing and others don't. I was hoping to get the profile of a person who needed one over the other.

It makes me want to throw things laugh when people say they are doing the poor old renters a favour by letting their property.

No. You are doing it to make money. Would you still be helping out the poor renters if they weren't paying off your mortgage for you?

No. You are doing it to make money. Would you still be helping out the poor renters if they weren't paying off your mortgage for you?

I don't think anyone said that's why they are doing it. But landlords provide a needed service. I am a home owner now, but before didn't have the money to buy a place. What would I have done without landlords.

They are a business, not a charity.

Good points about letting agents Redstrawberry!

Of course there is a need for rental properties but the huge rise in btl has been one factor which pushed up house prices beyond the reach of many people

Landlords don't built houses they appropriation them and charge others to live in them

They are part of the rentier economy, not working for money but making money work film them

Appropriate!

Of course there is a need for rental properties but the huge rise in btl has been one factor which pushed up house prices beyond the reach of many people

but BTLs by themselves can't decide to just push up rents. This has to be done with a background of scarcity. It just wouldn't work otherwise.

Bisboschone I'm looking at you with the doing them a favour comment.

Like I said strawberry, they are one factor