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.

As a landlord i wish it was that easy! Ive spent many an hour cleaning up the mess tenants have left , dropped everything to do repairs. Ive paid the mortgage even when tenant has decided paying the rent is optional. I saved hard for the deposit going without.

Landlords get a bad name yes the rent is paying a mortgage and eventually will provide me with an income for my retirement but it is not easy money.

I do charge more than my mortgage, but: have fees to pay, insurance and repairs (plus need to save for future major work). Plus, I have a fairly large deposit, so the mortgage is lower because of that. If I released the equity, I'd probably hardly break even in the long run.

Why is home ownership so high in a poverty stricken country such as Romania - 96 percent ownership.
Why in a rich country such as the UK is it dropping like a stone to now 62 percent?
Discuss.

So many people who deride landlords... Yet have pensions:

In other words, they have outsourced the money-making to a pension fund. A pension Fund which may well be totally unethical and make money from weapons.

Weapons that kill people. With YOUR money. Or maybe your money goes to Big Pharma, lots of money in that, lots of totally unethical money to be made from ripping off sick people.

But that's ok, as it is not as clear and visible as what a landlord does with their money.

The landlord hate is fuelled by envy, and also a lack of self awareness (for anyone who has money invested/pension)

I'd hope it would be understood that folk aren't going to give properties away??

I'm not so sure that is universally understood - there is an increasing movement in the UK towards socialism, which is exactly this - your good fortune should be shared with others. You are fortunate enough to be able to buy a house with a legacy, which means you don't need your former home. Someone else can live in it. You may have invested in your home while you lived it in, but you benefited from that then, and now others can benefit from it. You don't "need" two homes, nor the financial return that it could provide, so why not give it away?

The Labour Party has already made it clear that they will pursue a policy of a tenants "right to buy" from private landlords - which would probably do more to eliminate the private rental market than any financial disincentive could.

Quite frankly, with pathetic interest rates and a volatile stock market, where do people suggest those selling their homes invest their money on?
Even private pensions are at breaking point.

Plimsolls - it is widely acknowledged that London has a housing crisis; personally I think that BTL with unaffordable mortgages whose costs are just passed onto renters should have been strictly regulated a few years ago.

Also: interest rates have been kept so low partly to keep the housing bubble from bursting. So yes it makes sense to own BTL as savings are useless, but it's all part of the same problem.

That doesn't sound like socialism, NNChange - it sounds like communism

Unfortunately, while it's true I don't need two homes, I'll certainly need either the sale price of the first one or a reasonable income from it for future security, so even if I wanted to give the lot away it wouldn't be an option

Got to go out now; will catch up later ...

Yeah, I've often thought that.

The 10billion paid out in housing benefit ending up in landlords pockets would pay for a lot of council housing... and employ people. Of course the state can't run anything efficiently... apart from just about every communal and social service that we use cradle to grave! What an argument to use when a private train company that is failing it's passengers declares 100million in profit! 100 million pays for a lot of inefficiancy... like proper employment terms, security, sick pay and a good pension.

Why isn't that money being invested in social housing, then?
Or the state buying houses to let?

Fine by me.

The state sold their social housing.

Truth is people have made vast sums of money from buying at the right time, nothing else.
They have made sums of money more than they could ever save from their wages.
Problem is its all on paper until they sell. Who will they sell to?
The young on their austerity wages?
On a 50 year mortgage?
The young have checked out of buying.
They buy experiences over piles of bricks.
House valuations are just that until the greater fool comes along.
Those are getting fewer and far between.

The socialist argument only applies to people with inherited priviledge. My parents were immigrants and worked for their property, never accepted a penny of benefits (not even child benefit because they didn't know they were eligible until we were too told) and they didn't inherit a penny.

Because they were immigrants there was never any money to go around, and so I saved every penny I had to buy my houses. No inherited wealth here. No benefits. No expensive tax payer funded education. I started working full time at 16 & haven't stopped. Why should I not look out for myself & make the most of any opportunities (financial or otherwise) because someone else can't?

I'm a landlord with two buy to let properties. DH has 3. I can assure you that when buying them, the main thoughts entering my head were not: how can I totally screw people over.

I'm not a sociopath, I'm a normal person.

I'd love to know the stats on buy to let mortgages and how many are personal/commercial etc etc.

OP you sound tremendously bitter, why is That?

Puzzled - stuck in negative equity, or having to move around for work so renting out own home, that is an accidental landlord. Most other types are non-accidental; whether it's inherited or because a relationship means there are now two properties- it's still adding to the problem. Anyway it's totally understandable why people have two or more properties, but until something changes in the law around security in renting and buying to let, it's a problem that won't go away; however benevolent the LL is.

Interesting question TheCats.. Just googled it and in 2015 BTL went up and first time buyers went down.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-3160855/Buy-let-mortgage-boom-continues-lending-22-compared-year-ag.html

Don't know if link works. And of course you're not a sociopath for having loads of properties.. But your good fortune / hard work / being in the right place at the right time does cause problems for others down the line.

There is an increasing movement in the UK towards Conservatism actually which is why the Tories won the last election and Labour is in toal chaos. There is no movement towards socialism at all, quite the opposite as people have more sense.

Isn't rent payment for a service? That service being a property to live in.

Why are the landlords being blamed when it was a governmental policy to sell off it's housing stock that led to the number BTL in the first place?

disclaimer- I do not live in the UK

We rent out our old property because the housing market was rubbish when we moved. We initially rented here and we've subsequently bought. It costs us £42 a month more in mortgage than we get in rent. We are renting the house out at 2.6k a month and we tend to have new tenants every 6mths to 1yr because they are usually renting in a new area or renting due to large house renovation. We haven't yet had tenants who cannot afford a mortgage and I actually think our house is providing a service to our tenants who want a large spacious well done house in a superb area whilst they are temporarily off the housing market. I know we felt pleased to find such a house to rent when we first moved down here.

Tracy makes a good point.

It's not the btl landlords fault, they are providing a service and getting paid for it.

If the government hadn't/didn't sell off all the council properties likely the btl market wouldn't exist, at least not in the same way.

Its over for Buy to let. Thank the Tories, sense at last.
Source - www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/03/theresa-may-should-build-75000-homes-a-year-for-low-paid-workers-says-thinktank

But none of our tenants are likely to want to purchase our house. At least 3 have been renting due to having major work done on their own house.

That's a suggestion by a think tank User it hasn't been passed as something that's going to happen. It's just an idea.

Where's the money, where's the land?

Not over yet for BTL.

Also, not all LL are renting out squalid terraces to families living in poverty.
I actually agree with government funded house building that then gives those who rent them the opportunity to purchase. But someone renting a 2bed terrace house in an area such as Reading or St Albans walking distance to the station to a city worker or city worker and partner. He/she rents there because it's convenient for Town. They earn high wages so paying 1.5k for the poky terrace on the main road suits them well. However, many would have no inclination to buy that house though. BTL is much broader than that.

Excuse appalling grammar. Im2 glasses of wine down