to think all buy to let people are just in it to get someone else to work to pay off their mortgage?

[madhurjazz]

I wish people would say it as it is. Buy to let in my mind is just about getting someone else that can't afford a deposit / without a stable job to do all the hard work to pay off the mortgage of someone else. It does feel like a massive step backwards in equality.

Very few actually want to rent, the vast majority are stuck doing so as speculation keeps pushing ownership out of reach.

To be fair, it's possible in some situations it's not easy to find shared places.
But that's what I did. My first years in London were in a bed sit.

land costs a fortune - didn't you know

You didn't read my post - there are schemes all over the country that link growers with garden/land owners to allow sharing of produce; didn't you know?

sheila, my point is that GO PAID lip service to bashing landlords, while doing very little to address the problems of housing shortage and short term tenancies for people who will never be able to buy.

post GO, while property is a good investment (low interest rates, current instability if economy making other investments risky), people will continue to buy property.

('paid' in caps accidentally, not for emphasis).

Love how many people assume I must be a bitter renter in order to dislike the exploitative sistuation with btl.

Best post was the person saying you just need to work hard, they did it and they are 40. Your 40?! Had the chance to buy when they were reasonably priced and could of taken advantage of free higher education and there were better grad jobs.

When I went to university only about 5% of people got to go so no most of us (95%) did not have free higher education.

On this point
"Some of you are getting the terminology wrong here. You don't pay tax on your mortgage interest hmm. The new rules will mean that you are no longer able to offset your interest payments as a cost. This means your profit will look higher and you will then have to pay more tax on your profit. Not on your interest!"
No, that is not so. Those of us in business pay tax on the money we make - our profit. So if I buy beans for £1 and sell them for £1.10 I have made 10 pence and I am taxed no 10 pence. I presume no one on the thread thinks people should be taxed on a profit they have not made - eg on £1.10? It is the same with businesses and interset. Most busineses in the country have to borrow money to survive and the interset they pay is a business cost just as what we pay our consultants, banks, contractors, transport companies and all the other million and one expenses I have to pay in my business. All those things are called costs and in working out how much money we have left after we've paid employees, rent, interest etc we are left with something called profit which we are taxed on. Landlords who pay tax at 40% or over and who have a mortgage (so not all landlords and not those who pay 20% income tax) under the new rules will be taxed no profits they have not made. The state is allowed by law to make that change and landlords in that category are allowed by law to put up rents or sell their properties. However it is certainly unfair. You could have made no profit on the letting, pay tax even though you have a loss and your flat may have gone down in value (so no capital gain either - properties went down in my area by about 1% this year so far and dropping)..... one reason I am not a landlord anymore. It is a load of hassle for not much if any profit. Glad to see the back of it.

I did know about allotments. Didn't know about any other schemes. Unless you live very near them this is not time effective, cheap or practical usually. Anyway you can't expect someone to grow their own grain or keep their own livestock. You could equally well tell people to make their own clothes and toiletries to save money. Most people who work don't have the time.

I have a garden. Which I enjoy and appreciate. As a cost-saving exercise I bought tiny seedlings to plant. I don't have a greenhouse or potting shed so seeds tend not to work well in my situation. Well, in order to protect the seedlings from the sun I had to move plant pots round them to stop them frying several times a day for a fortnight. And water them twice a day. How could you do that in an allotment or in someone else's garden when you work? The chances of most people being able to do that with crops is extremely slim. I'm sorry, but your money-saving suggestion of growing your own food is almost completely useless for most people.

Best post was the person saying you just need to work hard, they did it and they are 40. Your 40?! Had the chance to buy when they were reasonably priced and could of taken advantage of free higher education and there were better grad jobs.

So you're saying life is so much harder now a days than it was back then?

Really? Cos from where I'm standing it looks about the same.
Longer life expectancy, better medical care, globalisation, cultural integration.

And of course, a lot of those things directly relate to the housing market. Mortgages until your 75, life insurance availability.......

You can complain that we had it good when it came to housing, but in other aspects of life, you're generation is way ahead!

I'm sorry, but your money-saving suggestion of growing your own food is almost completely useless for most people

It's an option for some. Flat sharing is an option for others. Second jobs might suit some. Living further out and walking is possible.

I'm not saying everyone should start being self sufficient. I'm saying that it's easy to remain blinkered and then resent those people who came up with creative and innovative ways of saving money.
I'm not forcing you to - but then I'm not forcing you to buy a house. Unlike many, I don't believe it is an entitlement.

*So you're saying life is so much harder now a days than it was back then?

Really? Cos from where I'm standing it looks about the same.
Longer life expectancy, better medical care, globalisation, cultural integration.*

That's notbwhat I'm saying. I'm saying houses were more affordable, uni was possible without hug debts and there were better jobs.

Something's have improved, some have got worse. Social mobility is very important and its gone backwards.

Horray people will live till 80. But many of today's youth will probably have to work until they drop, never have a pension and be stuck renting.

You could equally well tell people to make their own clothes and toiletries to save money. Most people who work don't have the time.

And I strongly refute this.

Anyone who says they would grow their own food/make their own bread etc if only they had the time should consider how much time they spend on other leisure activities - watching TV or online socialising.

I think some people don't want to admit that housing is often just down to being born in the right time. They'd rather put it all down to hard work.

Housing is a ponzi scheme as many here have demonstrated.

I think lifestyle does play apart. We have been use to having everything we want ie computers phones clothes. Buy now culture I would say in my grandparents time it was scrimp and save for what you want.

They worked very long hours and did save . How many people actually save now?
It is a must have society, I want i want I want and I want it now but dont want togo without my lifestyle

I agree housing is a ponzi scheme but I have to disagree otherwise Ibought as a single parent my first house twenty five years ago was three times my wages at 16% interest. My ds first house bought last year was three and a half times his wage at 3% we both had to buy in areas we weren't happy with but i fail to see much difference otherwise. We were in Brighton and I agree London prices are ridiculous but if you don't like it move. I had to save hard for my deposit so did he no one to give us anything. The increase in the value of my property 50 to 400 grand) is irrelevant as all house prices have risen the same it's not real money I still have to live somewhere.

I had over 16, 000 saved as a deposit. Because i had over 16, 000 in my account i then stopped recieving benefits. Hence i had to pay rent out of my savings.... vicious circle!

Plus my job sector is now mostly zero hour contracts. Cheers goverment!

I could move to a cheaoer house in the next town but that would put an hour on the school run both ways. I already get up 6am to commute to my full time job. Dd cant get up any earlier.
I dont want her to change schools either as she is very happy in her very good school. I guess lifestyle is important. We only live once and i think we have to make a choice about to live in the moment comfortably or to save for an unknown future ( which may never happen)

mad it was me who mentioned working hard and I'm 47 now. Just to dispel some of your comments, I bought at the age of 30 when, incidentally, it was at the height of the property boom (2000)so no "cheap house prices either. No free higher education for me or grants. I was in retail and DH was a binman. This was when we sacrificed and slept on MIL's floor for a year to save for deposit. Not easy in any way shape or form!

mali, with £16k saved why didn't you buy at that point eg £150k would get you a house in loads of parts of the country in a different city to live on retirement or to move to later if you could not move your child and job? At least you would own somewhere.

Cheaper sorry.

Plus a longer commute means more childcare costs.

I had no permanent job so could not buy. In my sector most roles are now agency, zero hour conteact
I am not of the school of thought that moving anywhere is worth it just to own.

Having a child in a school where she is happy and with grandparents nearby IS my priority.
This "at least you could buy" at any cost dosnt always work.

I would also need to ensure that if i bought a house i would gave a reliable tennant. I was put off by the mortgage advisors who told me i was wasting my time ( presumably as i am single and doing temp work).

What happens if you cant geg a tennant

Totally irrelevant but need to vent (sorry OP) My landlord is a BTL landlord is an absolute shit and only in it for the money. The roof pours with water whenever it rains, there's slugs everywhere because of the damp, we can't replace the lights because the fittings are filled with water and we have had electric shock before, there is rising damp....it's awful. However, he doesn't do anything. We are saving like crazy to buy our own place but can't afford to move from this shit hole as it will be loads more each month plus the removal costs.

Some BTL landlords are ok but some are terrible and only care about the rent

I'm an accidental landlord lived in my property for three years before moving in with my partner. I charge £100 less than recommended because I finally have good tenants who are reliable. I don't bother them ever just leave them to it and the rent hasn't gone up in two years. Before that I've had tenants who didn't pay "because they were going on holiday that month" and I ended up severely out of pocket and had to pay to rectify loads of damage and the neighbours were complaining about anti social behaviour every week.

It's not a money making scheme I would just lose loads of I sold it so why would I? I've got family to provide for.

This "at least you could buy" at any cost dosnt always work.

Of course it does - it's called prioritisation.

If owning a home is more important than quality of life, you'll sacrifice the latter to secure the former.
If quality of life is important, then you sacrifice home ownership in order to achieve it.

It "doesn't work" if you expect everything to be available to you.

I've been renting a 1 bed flat with DP for the last 4 years. You might say that isn't exactly an excessive thing to do?

However I could have halved the costs and saved about £500 a month each or £1000 between the pair of us if we had been willing to take one room between us in a shared house.

That's £48,000 we could have saved between us over the past 4 years if we had prioritised saving for the future over living in a nice situation now.