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.

We have a BTL property because it is I'll eventually be our home. My husband is in the RAF and so we move on average once every three years around the country as a el as abroad but we wanted to have a house we knew would be an option for us to move to once my husband retires. It's in our home city and we love it. Yes, we rent it out now, and yes the rent is now ours as we have paid the mortgage, but why should we leave it empty? Our tenants are lovely people and rented it initially to get the school catchment they wanted. They decided to stay as they love the area and are saving a deposit to buy nearby.

I am not of the school of thought that moving anywhere is worth it just to own.

That's the decisions you make though. When I bought my first home we moved 20 miles from family and friends because that's all we could afford. I found a new job nearer to new house.

When my son was born I was quite isolated so we let out our own house and rented another - that we could never afford to buy - near to our families.

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!

Yep, similar to what we did in order to afford next house.

Malificent7, I think you can find some letting agents who will pay during void periods, and get landlords insurance to cover empty periods.

And you can sometimes also let out a property to a housing association who will pay whether there's a tenant or not.

uni was possible without hug debts and there were better jobs.

From what I recall, there was a recession in the early 90's and loads of people were losing their jobs - that was why house prices crashed - no money. The economy recovered and the crash benefited people who bought at the bottom of the market, but that is how the economy works.

Far fewer people were able to go to university, even 20-30 years ago - that's the main reason for lack of student debt in the over 40's.

Clearly there is a housing problem, but it isn't the fault of evil landlords and there was no magic time in the past when life was easier - it's just that the problems change.

Both sides are right on some of these points.
I agree that what your priorities are makes a massive difference. I suspect no one except me on the thread would have gone back to work full time when their baby was 2 weeks old because they needed or wanted the money - that was my choice and obviously financially it's paid off big time always to work full time.

However on the other side I had the luxury then (not now as now I'm self employed) of having a full time job and with my other half we could get a mortgage. We did get one before the first baby came (just) so childcare costs were not taken off by the lender in assessing what we could borrow. My grandfather had my father when he was 50 and married late as he wanted to buy a tiny terraced house (in the NE). My parents were married voer 10 y ears before they had me because they wanted to be able to afford to buy a house. In fact my siser probably had down's because of that prioritisation (I say that on the basis that as my mother was older when my sister was born who was the last child the chances of that are higher).

Also we had 3 children under 5 both worked full time and did not even have one night a year help with family as we moved hundreds of miles to find jobs - another priority whic paid off although we were not near mother...

My daughter has slept on floors, with friends and moved back home to be able to afford to buy. have also sent the children details of Guardianship schemes where you can sleep in abandoned pubs and fire stations even in central London - much cheaper than renting although obviously not for people who already have children.

From what I recall, there was a recession in the early 90's and loads of people were losing their jobs - that was why house prices crashed - no money.

Yes, including DH. And that's partly why he feels justified in having BTL and more security now. Those younger people who are struggling to get on the ladder now, could be the ones who prosper in the future - if they're prepared to make the sacrifices.

I think each generation has it's challenges.

In my mum's day, (she's mid-70's), a single woman could not get a mortgage. A woman's salary was not taken into account for mortgage offers. Completely outrageous by today's standards.

I remember the high interest rates (13-15%) of the early 90's & those trapped in negative equity, with resulting repossessions.

And today's generation have the struggle to get a deposit together.

I think there are very few amongst us who have had it entirely easy.

Interesting the posts on zero hour contracts, I think this is a form of slavery.

You will not qualify for a mortgage. You get topups in the form of tax credits I believe So the people who benefit have to be the firms who are able to get very cheap labour and the government ( public purse) picks up the tab.
I suspect this is many many many times greater cost than mortgage interest on BTL?

It depends where you are. I've rented, I've bought, and I'm a landlord (two houses, I lived in both before converting to buy to let when I had to move jobs and country)

One house I bought 15 years ago, and turns a profit - in the south, but well outside of London.

One house DP and I bought as close to London as we could afford after living with his parents for a year to save. Then we had to take new jobs and move, so we've refurbished and are renting it out - for less than the mortgage costs us.

I think there are lots of motivations, lots of unfairness, but it's not as simple as OP makes out.

The problem is not the private landlords. They are just doing the best they can for themselves in a society that encourages self - reliance. The problem is the lack of alternatives available. We are a small, overcrowded island (in terms of infrastructure), with no clear plan of how to accommodate our population. That is the crazy bit.

I keep my anger for RTB as that had the double whammy of a large tax - payer subsidised discount whilst removing property from the social rental market. And the government's of the past 30 years who could see this happening and did nothing.

You will not qualify for a mortgage. You get topups in the form of tax credits I believe

I get no topups. I have several zero hours contracts.

I'll be completely screwed if Labour get their way - and I'd end up claiming benefits.
For every person it would protect, it would make another vulnerable.

There isn't a utopian system that meets everyone's needs.

Interesting the posts on zero hour contracts, I think this is a form of slavery.

Slavery still exists. Please don't trivialise it.

dogcatred i think we're saying the same thing. Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly but the bottom line is that when those rules come into effect, many LL will have to pay more tax and rents will go up as a result.

Still not sure about the poster who was able to save £16k while getting housing benefit. How does that work? Genuine question.

Thats interesting
How do you manage to juggle them when at the beck and call of employer.
I have a friend who rents, one child, works between 20 or 30 hours a week for local supermarket.

She would not be able to get another job as contract says she must to available to work x hours. If she does overtime then the help she gets with her rent goes down as her wages are more.

Apologies I did not mean to affend . But I am sure there are many forms of slavery out there all terrible.

Yes I agree its crazy, they dont want Social Housing as they believe that people in Social Housing are more likely to claim benefits and if they can remove Social housing and push them into becoming H Owners they will have to stay in work.

I think I would prefer to rent from a small landlord I dont want to be a home owner to have my home taken to pay for Nursing Fees.
My nan worked hard all her life and they took her house because she needed Nursing Care.
It just seems that the government takes everything from the small people and instead of the small people joining forces to fight this they seem to enjoy pitting against each other.
This I think the government encourages with propaganda and the newspapers print headline grabbers to sell

. The big corporates like Right to Build are rec massive free loans
How much will these rents be ?? Its privatisation of renting.

I have a friend who rents, one child, works between 20 or 30 hours a week for local supermarket She would not be able to get another job as contract says she must to available to work x hours

That's not a zero hours contract.

NN how do you know that's not a zero hours contract?

Because a zero hours contract cannot require an employee to be available for a certain number of hours.
An employee can decline any work offered under a zero hours contract.

Thats interesting but if you refused the work I suspect you would be replaced

Thats interesting but if you refused the work I suspect you would be replaced

Which is just as illegal as firing a pregnant woman for attending A/N appointments.

Of course it happens, but it's not legal - the current system includes safeguards to prevent it.

COol my father worked all his life too and he spent the last of his life savings on full time dementia care (and died in his house) - so similar story. Don't assume the state will look after us in old age. Nothing will ever beat self reliance actually in life. Don't expect anything free or even out of your taxes from anyone.

The self reliance is what I bel the BTL people are trying to achieve and yet the government seem to be attacking them for it by these taxes.

I dont even think I will get a state pension when I retire or you will have to be 85. What and where are older people to find all this work?

Utterly gobsmacked that malificent was able to save £16k whilst receiving benefits and was affronted when benefits were stopped! AIBU to put this another way – Government paid £16k “savings” to somebody who didn’t need it for day to day living costs? No wonder this country is in such a mess!

When DH and I work, we earn money and spend/save it – we have never, ever been able to have so much left over that we could save £16k (and no, we don’t have an extravagant lifestyle – no Sky TV, no foreign holidays or brand new cars). I really am aghast.

Self reliance is a huge advantage in life. Obviously some people can be born without the ability ever to have it and that's a pity but others could develop it. You gain it by being strong and able to cope with anything, stoic almost. You get it by not living off men for money, by keeping up a career, by being self supporting. You get it by trying to have several different sources of income or savings. It also includes things like knowing how to grow your own veg and even includes knowing how to gather blackberries which we can do near our house at this time of year. I think it is almost more of a state of mind than anything else.

I agree though that the state regularly wants to cut it off. Blair brought in tax credits for families earning up to £60k so everyone because more reliant on the state. HMRC has a new big brother plan they are consulting on at the moment where all the self employed including allthose Uber drivers and Handy self employed cleaners and the like the Deliveroo people too would have to have a new software package they pay for, record all their earnings and not just send to HMRC once a year as now but at least 4 times a year. If you want to fight big brother state now is your chance - respond to the HMRC consultation on digital tax.

It seems no matter how free market a Government is they just about all in the end move to more regulation, bigger state and more control over individual lives and more attempts to stop individuality.