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.

fidelix, Yes, it's a question of balancing rights. However, I think the suggestion of taking private property into public ownership which is the ultimate conclusion of your argument is at best idealistic, at worst untenable.

The OP describes a private landlord owning a number of buy-to-let properties as investments as "despicable" and hoarding. There is no suggestion I can see that he is a bad landlord. The emotive language in my opinion is out of place, her objection founded on the fact that he can afford something she can't.

Yes, the right to shelter and decent housing is a basic human need/right. However, that is different from saying that everybody has the right to own their own home, regardless of how that home is to be financed.

Yes, there are massive inequalities and issues surrounding housing in this country, but bashing all private landlords really isn't helping, unless you really do believe that property is theft.

Well said Shilwheeler

England is a strange place.

I went into McDonalds, asked why they should profit from people's hunger; they kicked me out.

Then I went to Wal-mart, remonstrated with them for profitting from people's need for clothing; they kicked me out, too.

Then I went to a large apartment complex, and asked them to give me an apartment free. Why should they profit from my need for a home? They called the police.

It's a cruel world.

LollyB - your comment that "This argument of restricting landlords could be applied to anything in the private sector, if you really think about it." shows you've rather missed the point of the thread.

The crucial word in the OP is "hoarding" - you can't really "hoard" other essential things like bread, or milk or whatever, because the supplies are basically limitless. You can always import more, or go without and have cake, or water, or whatever instead.

But you can't import housing - or rather you can, but you can't import the land to put it on. So there is a limited supply. And that's the point.

If you think that it is only in communist countries that people object to individuals abusing hoarding of limited supplies, you are obviously unaware of the case of the delightful Martin Shrekli and the stick he got for putting the price of a certain cancer and AIDS drug up by 5000%. Far from being admired as a businessman par excellence, he was (rightly, IMO) reviled as scum of the lowest order.

Fidelix, how are you comparing the pharmesutical industry which deals with life and death to the housing market? Oh dear, I have to rent my house like millions across Europe, rather than buy it. Also, if you look at the pharmesutical industry, sometimes they have invested huge amounts in r & d to produc the drugs. If there was no profit in it, these drug companies wouldn't exist at all and no one would benefit from the drugs at all. Completely unrelated, but, again, a question of basic economics.

Of course there are some people who want to rent. And of course there is a need for BTL landlords to facilitate that.

The problem is simply that in the past ten years or so the pendulum has swung so much one way that there is a huge shortage of available housing for people to buy. If there were a renting market crisis then we would be having a discussion about how to encourage BTL landlords. But the economy right now favours BTL landlords over homebuyers, and that has led to a position where people who need to save a deposit and purchase a secure home for their family are at a massive disadvantage to potential landlords who can more easily obtain comparatively larger mortgages and lower repayments.

As I said upthread, I don't think the blame lies solely (or even primarily) with the individuals who BTL. There are bigger problems in lack of house building etc. But I do think that landlords who buy for financial gain have a greater moral responsibility than many acknowledge. They are not trading in luxuries. They are trading in somebody's home - one of the most important, meaningful and personal commodities to which I think everybody has a right in a secure, safe way.

At one time my Ex FIL owned 10 houses. He did hit lucky back in the 80s and bought a run down for £25000 which he sold 5 years later for over £120000. He invested the money in a second property which he did up and sold and so on and so on. He was medically retired at the millenium with breathing problems but was able to do some DIY in short bursts and his sons helped out. The rent paid the mortgages and gave them an income. It meant he wasn't claiming benefits and still paying tax. That was important to him. As he has gotten older he has sold them and the profit is his income as he didn't have a pension. I don't see the problem x

LollieB - the connection between the pharmaceutical industry and the housing is that both supply essential needs. That you mock that shows that you have never been in the position of being homeless, or potentially homeless.

You appear to think that renting is an easily affordable alternative to buying - it isn't; tenants will on average pay considerably more than owner-occupiers to live in the identical property. We have a very real problem now with the cost of renting, let alone buying in this country - families are having to choose whether to heat or eat, and this to pay the rent on properties which are often sub-standard and damaging their health to start off with.

The housing market in this country is rotten.

If you were forced to buy all your food from one market, and all the shopkeepers connived to push up prices, and a large proportion of the veg were full of worms and the fresh food was off, so that it made you and your family sick, but there was nothing you could do about it, would you feel that was 'fair'? Because the market holders deserved their pensions? Or would you feel that the situation ought to be changed?

Fidelix, this is so over dramatic. I have lots of young friend who are happy to rent, as they feel they are too young to commit to a mortgage. Two of out flats are also rented to Latvian and Polish families who see no long term future in this country and therefore see no point in making a long term investment in property. Perhaps people abstain from reading too much of the Daily Mail and realise that there is actually a market out there for rented accommodation and not everyone is struggling to get in the property ladder.

I'm not saying there is no market for rented properties - but if you are genuinely imagining that everyone currently renting wishes to do so out of a firm preference for not choosing their own wall colour and paying more per month than they would to own then you live in cloud cuckooland.

I don't object to your or your husband, LollieB - I understand why it seems a good deal to you.

But it wouldn't take a huge leap of imagination for you to understand that just because it benefits you personally, it doesn't mean it's not a shit and unfair situation generally.

What's that saying about "when the shoeshine boy starts giving you stock tips you know it's time to sell"

When nearly every average joe has a BTL, OAPs are buying as a hobby and even old matey down the pub has a portfolio you should be worried something is about to go bang.

Remember when we cried as kids and our parents said 'I'll give you something to cry about"

We thought they were going to hit us but they just fucked the housing market instead.

Saw this floating around and thought of this thread!

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be about somebody hoarding water/blood/medecine in some war torn country....

instead it's about someone owning more than one home.....!

An it's just homes. That well known luxury item

Asprilla11 - if you think homes aren't as essential as medicine, maybe you'd like to try being homeless in an English winter. See how long you last.

Here, have my very first

I don't think the situation is unfair at all. BTL landlords are just fulfilling a gap in the market like any other industry and I know this from my own experience of letting out flats. Please stop bashing landlords, the most of whom are generally good people, and direct your attacks at those responsible for not building enough houses. There seems to be a lot of delusion about free markets and supply and demand on this thread. I'm sure some of those complaining would jump st the chance of having btl properties if they could too.

fidelix - I think you completely misunderstood my comment, of course homes are essential, I never said they weren't.

The thread title mentions 'hording something essential to life' I really don't think what the OP describes is something ESSENTIAL to life!

But thanks for the biscuit

But Lollie, in lots of towns and cities the only 'gap in the market' is for affordable family homes for sale. There is no shortage of privately rented homes available.

How is it right that in many areas it is far easier for a landlord to buy typical first-time buyer properties than actual first time buyers?

Whereas 20 or 30 years ago someone young in a reasonable job would have a reasonable expectation of being able to buy somewhere. I remember about 25 years ago a girl in her 20s I worked with (a single mother) who was a clerical assistant on a very ordinary wage was able to buy a terraced house in an OK area for herself and her child. That would just be a dream nowadays in most parts of the country.

Ordinary people on ordinary wages could expect to buy within a few years. Now they are competing with investors, and also unable to save decent deposits because they are paying high rents, like a pp said. This is obviously not ideal for society - private renting is unstable.

OK yes, some people would prefer to rent for a while, students obviously, and those who expect to be staying temporarily in an area, but most people would ultimately hope to buy if they could.

And the buy-to-let brigade are at least partially, if not mostly, responsible for this. Some of them are decent landlords but they are not doing anyone any favours, however they delude themselves!

And I have thought about this, and if I won the lottery no I wouldn't become a landlord for profit. Just like I wouldn't buy a holiday home in Cornwall. Because it's immoral.

If you own a house in Cornwall is it immoral to sell to a second-homer?

Yes, obs. Unless nobody who actually wants to live full-time in the area wants it. But that seems a bit unlikely.

Yes.

And word to the wise second homers, the people in the village and towns hate you. They may well smile and happily talk to you but they really really do not like you at all.

lollie
Let me assure you, these type of people are not aspiring to own their own properties and never will. If there weren't private landlords willing to let to these type of people, the country would have a problem!
you do sound so nice talking about 'these type of people' - very snobbish