To think hording something essential for life is despicable

[sandrabedminster]

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/special-reports/i-have-three-properties-at-age-33-and-3000-a-month-to-save-do-i/

Its not jealousy before someone says it, I own my own home but I doubt my children will ever be able to. But shelter is something essential and all this speculation is causing lots of damage as prices are pushed ever higher. I know a friend that spends 70% of net income just on renting something that is too small for her.

24.3% of all voters to be precise.

While it's certainly not "unlawful in the UK to work hard and support your children" as far as I can see the only working hard in a landlord-tenant arrangement is the tenant

people have really short memories.

did you rent outside of London in 2009? then your rent was probably stable and your landlords massive asset was plummeting in value by the minute.

did you rent outside of London in 2009? then your rent was probably stable and your landlords massive asset was plummeting in value by the minute.

Paper gainz and paper losses. Unless the landlord was selling the price isn't important.

You'd think even some of the amature landlords would understand prices go up and down.

I think its really silly to call something that has been bought with 75% of money loaned from banks as money that's been worked for.

So when FTB's use a 5% / 10% deposit and borrow 95% / 90% is that something they've worked for?? Or are you going to have double standards on that point??

Not that easy to become a B2L landlord with higher deposits, new stamp duty regs etc.

BRAVO to this man for learning the number 1 Business Rule... You have to speculate to accumulate!

Hating on him for being a LL is petty, if it weren't for LLs then where would people who can't afford to buy or who don't WANT to buy live?
Not everyone wants to purchase a house, they may need to move regularly.
I'd rather the banks lent 75% of the purchase price on a property than lending ££££s to Joe Bloggs who wants to pop off on an expensive holiday. At least with a defaulted loan secured against an asset the banks have some way of getting their money back, rather than an unsecured loan.

crazymammy... go rtft please

bungowomble don't have time to read the full thread (assuming that's what rtft means?) just wanted to reapond to a couple of comments I'd seen, that's all

Yes that's what it means. You're spouting the same-old-same-old excuses for private greed and private landlords. Much of this thread has been about trying to get people to see the wider picture and how much harm those excuses are doing to our society, economy and environment. I really hope the tide is turning against them.

I could also add, go read some history, because we have been here before with excesses of private greed and it never turns out well.

No need to be so catty bungo everyone's entitled to their opinion

Three properties and £35,000 in savings yet he only earns £50,000? I'd like to know how he managed that by 33. Inheritance? Gifts?

I earn more than that and can't imagine ever buying property or having substantial savings. Do have a good pension though

I agree with you in principle op. Yanbu

Not reading all this because the signal to noise is the wrong way up, and it gets quite boring listening to the same old illogical playground bleats. but I think some of the thicker ones don't get that some people earn a living over many years, save and then buy a property to create income. This income is needed when you can no longer earn from what is laughingly called 9-5.

Btl is work - how much and when is not predictable. With a well maintained property and a decent tenant it is less: but only one of those things is partially under my control I can maintain it but only if the tenant lets me do that, lets me know about problems and doesn't wreck it. Most tenants would/would/would not, but there are the other sort.

Unsurprising that someone who admits they haven't read the thread and disbelieves the stats because they don't like what they say, can see no problem with the status quo.

The whole thread, specialsubject, is about the problems with an essential resource being used to "create income".

Oh...never mind. When someone's wealth depends on not understanding something, no amount of explanation is going to persuade them to understand...

Water is an essential source and that creates income, jobs etc. The councils make huge profits on their tenancies. The gas & electricity companies make profit.
Why hate on someone for making a profit on a house?
My landlord makes a profit on the house I rent and I don't begrudge him that.
If you're going to rage about B2L investors then why not go after the owners of holiday homes too? Or the owners of hotels?
Hell, anyone who speculated to accumulate. Let's get out our pitchforks and go after them all!

I earn more than that and can't imagine ever buying property or having substantial savings.

Why not? Unless you're in london £150k is a reasonable budget, even if you have no deposit. Might not buy you a 4 bed house, but surely a flat or something?

I earned about 40k at 35 and owned a house worth 400k. No inheritance, no gifts, I simply bought a tiny 30k flat at 21, picked areas and properties carefully as i moved, and made a bit of money each time.

I agree with you, fidelix. I think if you think of yourself as a good person on the whole and are a BTL landlord it must be a hell of a cognitive dissonance reading about the unfair renting situation facing most families in the UK today. You either get the "But I am a good landlord and providing a public service because if there weren't landlords how would people move from place to place easily" explanations or the wilfully blind "well, I worked my own way up to home ownership, you just have to make some sacrifices, why not move your family and job to some bedsit in Leeds that you might be able to afford, there's a shed you could buy on zoopla so things aren't as bad as you say, I had to redecorate my first flat" sort. The current housing situation in the South is structurally unfair and getting worse. Things are set up in favour of home owners but it is far more difficult to buy property now than it used to be. British law is woefully inadequate when it comes to protections for tenants - yes, a lot of people in Europe rent but there rents are longer term and there are stricter rules about agents fees, rent rises etc. Tl;dr good luck buying if you don't have an inheritance or Daddy's help onto the "property ladder" meanwhile the rich get richer as property is used as a speculative asset instead of somewhere to live...

Totally agree fidelix.

Yawn @ the comparisons again to things where supply is not restricted.

crazymammy - so you're a fan of Martin Shrekli, I take it? All profit being morally neutral or good, then, no matter who you're depriving of what?

You see, to me, and most decent people, Shrekli is the lowest form of human life. But then I'm not a 'greed is good' sort of person. You presumably are.

The whole thread, specialsubject, is about the problems with an essential resource being used to "create income".

it is weird the huge gains that people have made from owning property. the problem with this thread is that anger is directed at the wrong people. it's not BTLs that are the problem. it's the environment created by government (mainly low interest rates) that's the issue.

Fidelix I'm not a 'greed is good' sort of person. Thanks for your presumption. I just don't see why hating on someone for bettering themselves is necessary. It's not like he's committing fraud or doing anything illegal...:

chilipepper - that's true, and I and others have said on this thread repeatedly that the problem is not individual BTL landlords per se, but a systemic problem.

I think on this thread, what I've seen has been rather the reverse - many of us point out that there is a systemic problem with housing in the UK, and individual BTL landlords respond by saying "Oh, but I'm a lovely landlord and look after the properties and my tenants are very happy", which sort of misses the point. Of course there may be individual cases that are fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that when house prices are now 9 times average incomes and 60% of tenants report serious unresolved maintenance issues with their rental properties, we have a seriously disfunctional housing situation.

And that needs to be resolved.

Of course, we also have a disfunctional pensions situation, and a disfunctional savings situation, which is often being muddled up with the housing situation, to the benefit of neither. I'm not unsympathetic to people who want to invest and increase their wealth, or save for their retirements, etc - I just don't think that we should be encouraging people to think of property as the only or best vehicle for doing this. Because it just creates other problems.

At the end of the day, putting more money into housing is the worst of all possible worlds - you decrease mobility, increase cost of living, negatively impact on housing, reduce income available for productive industries, etc.

We should be encouraging people to invest in shares, in British companies, to encourage greater investment in UK productivity and improve our international competitiveness. You can't export UK housing, you can't increase it's productiveness.

An economy built on selling increasingly more and more expensive houses to each other is not a successful economy. It's a ponzi scheme and offers no future or opportunities to the young or those without rich parents. It's a huge driver of inter-generational inequality and leads to huge reductions in social mobility. There is nothing positive about it at all, and only those with a very naked vested interest could attempt to pretend that there was.

that's true, and I and others have said on this thread repeatedly that the problem is not individual BTL landlords per se, but a systemic problem.

that's certainly not the tone of the OP. It is squarely saying that BTLs are doing something immoral, when they are just responding to market incentives. It's important to recognize that BTL isn't bad per se, as they are an important part of a normal market.

chilipepper - but you weren't quoting the OP, you were quoting me.

So I'm correcting you, because what you said does not fairly represent my views as expressed repeatedly on this thread.

If you wish to disagree with the OP, please quote the OP.

To be fair, chilipepper, I think you also misunderstand the OP, though - she talks about hoarding as "despicable" but I think her posts also make it clear it is the "market" ie the system that she is attacking, rather than the individuals.

I would also absolutely disagree with you that BTL is a natural and "normal" part of the market - the situation we have now is not inevitable, nor is it nor has it been a problem in all housing markets in all countries/times.

It is a problem now because of very specific political decisions that have been taken to artificially prop up house prices and reduce tenants' rights, eg Help to Buy, low interest rates, QE, introduction of shorthold tenancies, introduction of easy-to-get BTL mortgages, rules concerning deposits and proof of income required for would-be homeowners but not BTL landlords, ending of MIRAS, etc etc etc.

None of these things are inevitable and on the contrary, represent the opposite of a "free market". Political intervention has caused the housing crisis - it can also end it, if it so chooses. That it doesn't choose to, largely due to a glaring conflict of interest among many MPs, is the problem.

I would also absolutely disagree with you that BTL is a natural and "normal" part of the market - the situation we have now is not inevitable, nor is it nor has it been a problem in all housing markets in all countries/times.

BTL is an absolutely essential part of the market as some people can't or don't want to own.

The trouble is now it is taking over.