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.

Thank you for answering. Is your university intending to guarantee a place for every student in future?

"I await, as always, an explanation of why it is unacceptable for landlords to make money, but OK for banks, food sellers , teachers, medical workers etc etc."

It's the sheer amount of money that landlords either leech from their tenants or scrounge from the taxpayer that particularly disgusts me special- and for so little back to the tenant.

I rent as it happens- and I'm very happy to do so indefinitely. But I'm a council tenant so I pay an affordable rent for a guaranteed long-term tenancy. Plus I have the right to treat the place as my own home while I'm living here. I can paint the kitchen in purple and orange stripes should the mood take me (thankfully it hasn't so far). That's the way renting should be.

Not some poor sod out working 50 hours a week to pay their landlord's mortgage off for them several times over. If you start renting now you're looking at paying over a million pounds over the course of your lifetime. And what will you have to show for it at the end? Fuck all, and even less rights than a bloody squatter.

There should be no place or need for families to rent privately in a modern G8 country. It's despicable what the BTL scum have done to ordinary people.

Nah I'm with you OP. People who collect houses like its a fucking hobby would be the first bastards up against the wall.

No idea badlad but the amount they building everywhere possibility although i think alot of the building is for the mature students who attend courses they run in the holidays so they get money from students in term time and money from others during the holidays! Anyway its off topic slightly.

I don't blame the guy for putting himself in the best situation possible given the circumstances. The government has done half a job in discouraging btl investors through tax disincentives. Now it needs to provide viable alternatives to btl so people can invest and plan for their future (who would bother with savings atm?) and make it more tax effective for baby boomers to downsize if they want to rather than sitting in five bedroom houses as that's the easiest way to hold on to your main assets.

Its not off topic - students are a large group of people most of whom aren't going to want to buy a house. So unless the universities are going to house them all, including any years out they might do, then there is a need for rental accommodation, yet nobody who claims that there shouldn't be any landlords will say where they expect students to live.

TBF Badlad- I think short-term lets to students are on a completely different level morality wise.

It's people who buy up family homes and then rent them out for twice the price to those who would've been owner-occupiers themselves ten years ago who are the problem with society.

Greengager How about a Downsizer's Bond! It would be available to people or couples above a stated age who sell one home and buy another. You would not be able to cash it in but after death it would be repaid revalorised by reference to the house price index, free of CGT but subject to Inheritance Tax - as if there had been no downsizing - but if you went into residential care the LA would not be able to count it as part of your assets.

So the older homeowners free up the bigger properties but protect their children's inheritance.

Does that sound fair?

it isn't that long since rents were less than mortgages, and it will probably happen again. The low interest rate (with higher inflation) incentivises buy to let so that could be solved.

Not fair exactly Andrew but then it's not a fair world. certainly likely to free up more housing stock.

There should be no place or need for families to rent privately in a modern G8 country. It's despicable what the BTL scum have done to ordinary people.

Oh come on. There are lot's of circumstances where a family might want to rent. I am looking at relocating, and the best option currently for us is to rent for a year or two while we get a feel for the area. We are also looking at buying a btl flat in our current city to keep us on the property ladder in the meantime, and also to keep us in touch with property prices should we want to move back.

Job mobility these days means there are families who relocate regularly- I have friends who are junior Dr's and the quickest way to climb the career ladder is to move hospitals, so they are renting.

As I said upthread I think BTL mainly affects flats and smaller properties/student housing anyway, as the family rental market is less profitable. My entire peer group was happy renting until they married/partnered up, when they wanted to buy a family home. I was called mad for buying as a student, tying myself down, risking my money in property...

I actually bought when I as a student as the city I studied in had a shortage of rental properties. I was lucky, and used my student loans as a deposit for a tiny 2-bed, and I let out a room. When I graduated I did let the whole place out for 3 years while I completed a pg degree in another city. And actually, being a landlord is a lot of stress and I'm reluctant to do it again.

and of course to refer to a group as 'scum' is acceptable when it is people making a certain class of investment. Or it is on MN, anyway.

can't report as would zap the whole thread.

top tip; to argue your case needs coherence, not playground insults. This kind of language just makes you less and less believable, and you weren't believable to start with.

the childish sarcasm is also of no value. You aren't expected to be grateful when you pay your supermarket bill.

Again, I would LOVE to know what these holier-than-thou types do for a living that means they make no money from 'human need'.

Everyone makes money from human need special.

It's just that most people earn their living from offering a service that people have a choice or not to use, and other people sit on their arses and exploit the less well-off.

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

You either think it is OK to get up the ladder of life by stamping on the faces of those who are further down, or you do not.

As I said upthread I think BTL mainly affects flats and smaller properties/student housing anyway, as the family rental market is less profitable.

That's not true in many areas. In my town Right Move shows 381 3 bed houses for let, 263 for sale. The biggest property agent in town does not advertise on Right Move and added 5 3 bed houses for let to their site today alone.

Most of the three bed to let on Right Move have been on there for 3+ months. I know this because I am looking to move. I'd prefer to buy over rent but none of the houses for sale are in the area of town I'm in currently, where I'd like to stay because they've all been bought up by buy to letters.

There should be no place or need for families to rent privately in a modern G8 country. It's despicable what the BTL scum have done to ordinary people.

SaucyJack I suggest you get yourself over to Brussels and the surrounding areas, where there is a massive private rental market. We rent abroad, as dh has had jobs over here (HM Forces and now civvy) since 2004. If he hadn't been able to rent, where would he initially, and then us, when we moved over, have lived? We didn't know how long we would be here for, and so sub let from the MoD, and then, when he got a civvy job here post retirement from the Forces, rented privately. We are only here for a total of six years. You need to be in Belgium for about 10 years before you turn a profit on a house due to the extortionate VAT on buying property, and we want to return to our house in the UK, so we rent that out whilst we are abroad.

There are many people here employed by NATO, the EU, the HQs of places like Toyota, GSK, Huntsman etc, plus those serving their particular countries, so Armed Forces personnel, diplomats etc, who all move regularly, and need to rent as opposed to buy. It's the same in all major cities, be they G8 countries or not. Not everyone wants to buy where they are posted, or can afford to, given that many jobs involve moving to different countries every couple of years.

Meant to add, we are renting someone's forever home, whilst they are working (and renting) abroad, so there is a need in at least 3 G8 countries!

I doin't think anyone has said there should be no private rented properties. I'm fine with people renting out a home they can't sell but there is no reason for one person to own more than 2, 3 at a push, properties.

And no, it's not the same as bread, last time I checked there was no shortage of bread and Tesco weren't asking people to continue paying for their bread long after the cost of baking the bread had been recouped, nor are Tesco borrowing bread for ££ from one place to lend it to another for £££.

Too many people seem to think that, if there were no private landlords, suddenly everyone would own their own home. How? Plenty still wouldn't be able to afford it - or at least, not the standard or location they want.

This is before you even consider whether people actually WANT to buy. Many prefer to rent, or do so for practical reasons. I've mentioned on another thread that I may have to relocate for my job - I definitely wouldn't want to sell my existing home and buy somewhere in the new location (at least not for a couple of years). What am I supposed to do if renting isn't an option?

There will always be private rentals. Home owners renting out their property because it's in negative equity and they need/want to move or who've met a partner but aren't ready to sell their home yet, or who own one property as a pension plan are not causing the housing crisis. No one thinks they are.

People buying up huge protfolios of property on buy to let mortages are the problem.

I'm amazed he's been able to accumulate that much at 33 on only 50k / annum. That's not a big salary these days and BTL is hard to make a good return on unless you are buying with 50%+ down.

Something doesn't add up. I earned 40k when I was 33 in a less expensive part of the U.K. and had to save very hard to get together a 20% deposit to buy my own house, let alone but BTL. I wonder if he lived with parents to save up? Inherited wealth? Definitely not just income-based and being 33 he won't have accumulated much equity in his real estate investments. Strange... maybe he gets big cash bonuses?

It's not impossible Ilion - I bought my first home on a £40,000 salary at 27 (£18,000 deposit). Within a year it had shot up in value (the area was having a moment, and I did substantial renovations). I carried on saving and was also able to release a bit of equity from my home to buy a BTL with a 25% deposit. He may have started in similar circumstances. (And then applied more savings and equity to BTL2, etc...) Looks like he also earns bonuses in his role.

It said he earns 50k including bonuses. I guess if he is in a low-cost part of the U.K. it might work. I am just thinking of my own experience renting out our previous family home after we moved abroad. We made no profit as the rent and mortgage were the same and in fact with vacancies and maintenance and letting agent fees it probably cost us money.

Based on that experience, and also letting out an apartment in a European city, BTL was never a good investment, much more hassle than it's worth. Unless you get big capital gains, I suppose, but most of the U.K. outside of London / SE is not experiencing big prices rises right now AFAIK.

renting would be fine -( and suits some people)
IF
tenancies were secure and lasted more than 6 months
tenants particularly familes could feel they could put down roots and live in their house as it suited them - decorate as they wished, plant what they wanted in the garden, have a pet, not live in fear of the landlord coming round, using his key and snooping on them when they are out
and children would have a secure environment and not be hoicked out of school because the tenancy ended.
Not to mention the cost of moving every 6 month or so.
Finally - landlords are not doing it to help tenants who cannot afford to buy - they are not the solution they are part of the problem.

Not everyone wants tenancies longer than six months Mollie. When I moved South seven years ago I rented out my place to two different sets of tenants. Both times I wanted a 12-month minimum tenancy; they only wanted six. Both sets moved out after that period, meaning I had to find someone else and say goodbye to 70% of the first month's rent for the privilege.

Rents are expensive Saucy, there's no denying that, but there's a lot that has to come out if it. It doesn't all get spent on luxury holidays for the landlord, it costs a lot to buy and maintain a property to a decent standard, and to manage the tenancy. It's fair that a landlord who has taken on financial risk and legal responsibility earns something out of it.

Rights for tenants could be better, but they are far better for tenants than they are for landlords.