To think it's selfish to deliberately plan to rent out the old house when you buy a new

[jdoe8]

I understand why people do it, its dog eat dog out there and people look after number 1 even if it means it screws others.

But how are the next generation going to ever afford to buy if people carry on doing this?

This makes for depressing reading especially the comments - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/26/the-sad-cost-of-renting-never-having-somewhere-to-call-home

I don't believe any generation worked any harder, you just had to be lucky and in the right place at the right time. Its very well to say just rent but renters have such poor rights in the UK it's very undesirable.

flower couldn't agree more.

People work and achieve a good enough salary to get a mortgage, they pay off their mortgage and buy another house. They can afford to buy another house and keep their first house as BTL. Why isn't this fair?

For the record I'm less bothered by individuals who rent out one house than by those who own 10,20, or more.

But to answer Star's question: we live in a finite system. When one person takes more out of a finite system than they need, it is taken from someone else. The more they take, the less others have. And forget this myth of 'working hard'. Work does not pay if you are at the lower levels. If you are born to the lower levels, it is very very hard and extremely rare to be able to work up to the higher levels. Britain is pathetically hierarchical and very good at maintaining its class system: the little social mobility that was so charitably permitted just after the war years is now being rescinded. The housing system is a reflection of that - looking at the different housing estates in my area I was thinking just the other day that we might as well label them according to army ranks.

Some levels of inequality are unavoidable, but the levels we have now are appalling. We're going back to Dickensian times.

Things have got to the point where there are no easy fixes, but one place to start is challenging the notion that inequality is in any way 'natural' and 'the way things have to be', and that fairness is not worth trying for.

I agree Flowering. And i am more priveledged tgan mist. Went to private school, degree from red brick and post grad but in a low paid job. Because im a single mum its a real struggle.

According to lots on here i should get a higher level job.... not that easy. Jusg got knocked back from ( yet another) interview last week.

I want to get out of education due to dire conditions and retrain to be a radiographer but the govermennt have cut funding.

My dp with a similar background also struggles. His ex gas the house and his work is 'restructuring' so everyone has to apply for their own jobs.... again. Prob due to yet more cuts.

God knows how people without my luck cope.

How about life isn't fair, so all women can get back in the house too? That's another narrative that is creeping back in - and women are passing it round themselves, with the usual social messages that to want to do anything else is 'selfish' or 'entitled' and complaining about it is being 'jealous'. I'm in a similar position malificent, was thinking of retraining in something medical but education is simply not affordable now. The ladders up are being slashed everywhere - the traditional middle class jobs are disappearing.

Thanks for answering Flowering but I disagree. I think our society is becoming more and more classless, I'm the produce of a well educated working class man and a traditionally middle class woman, I have no idea what I'd be viewed as and quite honestly couldn't care less, it's never been an issue.

Of course it's difficult to get onto the property ladder if you have lower wages but hasn't that always been the case? Unless you are given the 'right to buy' on a council property, which incidentally I think is more to blame for lack of housing than BTL landlords, it's always a hard slog. If someone has more than two houses it may look as if they have everything handed to them on a plate but the reality is likely to be years of hardship and hard slog - Just like the younger generations are doing now.

shesastar more and more classless? There is less oportunity for people from poorer backgrounds than 50 years ago.

agree with she

For context, I grew up in the street next to the estate where Shannon Matthews was kidnapped. Apparently it's a sink hole.

Which it is to some respect, there are a mixture of life choices and circumstances that cause people to be "trapped" on that estate forever, my mum is from that estate, her parents bought their house off the council. My GM used the equity to pay for specialist care for my GD when he died prematurely and slowly of a brain cancer, and now lives in a lovely bungalow, but still works at 68 because she likes the company. And it pays for her bungalow.

My parents bought their first house for 13k, but was earning around £150 a week between them when I was born. Doing admin and delivery driving.

Property prices have boomed since they first bought (at 19 and 22 yo) they now live mortgage free. They both do similar roles to this day.

My ILS moved counties for cheaper housing, both work in public sector and have amazing pensions, they are much older than my parents.

ILs helped us buy our first home, we are paying them back. I (not university educated, I don't even have alevels) got an office junior job 10 years ago and now earn about 80k a year self employed at 28 and I am about to but a home for the exclusive reason to rent out.

WHY? because it's a good long term investment. More secure than buying shares, I expect MY child will thank me in the future for it.

I pay my taxes (and a lot of them), I am not privileged in any single way, I am not fucking lucky either. Far from it.

Buyihg another house will increase my tax bill, create another rental home for a low income family who can't afford to but, not every one can or will be able to.

My issue is people who go round buying up houses for their property empires. That pushes the house prices up because thefe is "demand" and prices people out.

Then those landlords are charging what they like in rent and people pay it hecause theyve not got a choice. Money that could go into a deposit lines pockets of already rich landlords and makes it even less likely that people will be able to afford a deposit.

Basically those with money run the system in their own interests and fuck anyone else.

I have no issue with 'small' landlords who are fair and reasonable. E.g. ours are renting out one of their houses before the couple moved in and reduced our rent when the crash happened and are really good.

The private rental market barely existed in the 1980's and 1990's. It is demonstrably a lot harder to get on the housing ladder now, when every 2nd house on the average street is owned by private landlords. They aim at the starter properties too.

'Years of hardship and slog'. More is demanded in work now, and it is harder to obtain - look at the huge increase in job specs, asking for experience in the voluntary sector, greater skills, and more qualifications for much lower wages. I know plenty of older people who have retired as the demands in work have gone up - youngsters have no choice but to comply. Then having got a job that actually pays if they're lucky, youngsters will be doing those years of hardship and slog to put money straight into the landlord's pocket, not to build their own fortunes.

You are the product of a time when social mobility existed for some. I really struggle to understand why people can't see that that is going.

Tea- university education was free 50 years ago so that was better but no child can leave school at 14 to 'help' the family now. There is education available if you choose to take it right up to the age of 18. Also nobody cares what accent you have anymore, accents held people back 50 years ago, thank God times have changed.

One of my best friends is a cockney with a skinhead. He's an accountant at Barclays Bank, imagine that 50 years ago?

But way though Maisy some people's 9-5 jobs are owning lots of houses.

I hope one day this will be mine.

It's the regulation, not the landlords fault. Obviously some landlords are absolute cowboys, but so are some tenants.

It's swings and roundabouts really.

Pushing kids into staying in education is partly a symptom - and cause, these things feed off themselves - of the increasing demands from work, and partly to hide the reducing number of jobs available!

You are comparing the situation of 20 years ago to that of the 1950s, and saying things have got better. We are talking about the situation of now, and that is much worse than the situation of 20 years ago and getting back to the situation in the 30s - 50s era.

Flowering - I am in my 30's - I am the product of the time we are living in. To say the private rental system 'barely existed' in the 80's and 90's' is not true - who do you think was renting out property back then? My family have always put spare money into property - it's the safest way to invest in my opinion. What do you want from people? What would you have people do to secure their future in our current economic climate?

bag how can you say you were not lucky when you had family help to buy your first home?

Pushing kids to stay in education or empowering them with education?

Very very few people were renting out property back then. You could only find private rentals in the big cities, it was difficult to find in small towns. We had council houses. Which offer substantial advantages over a private rental markets to society as a whole because money passing into the social housing system is recycled back into public funds, unlike money sent to private landlords. The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. There are any number of statistics or easily observed events (eg the growth of food banks) easily available to prove this.

Prior to 1989 there were way more protected tenants so there was much more security for some renters.

Very very few people were renting out property back then. You could only find private rentals in the big cities, it was difficult to find in small towns. We had council houses.

I think that is true of the 60s and 70s rather than the 80s and 90s. There were plenty of private rental properties by the late 80s and 90s.

It's only recently that people have bought homes, in the early 1900's most people (even wealthy people) rented. Yes Tea, I believe there was more protection back then. But for us living in today's economic climate the best way to make money and for future stability is BTL. If I was a multimillionaire I would try to do some good with my millions but I'm not, I just have enough money for a few BTLs. I can help my DC, most people try to do the best they can - that is what people are trying to do with their BTL.

And do you want the economic conditions of the 1900s back? The days of poverty and squalor for most and extreme luxury and wealth for the few, to the point of having servants to answer a doorbell?

Interesting sort of argument, but it's my bedtime!

I hate when people say that renters couldn't afford to buy their second house to it's ok that they own multiple properties. Do they not understand supply and demand? If you remove more from the pool there's less to go round and prices go up.

While its true that there are some people who really won't be able to buy and some people only want to rent for whatever reason, there are aprox 23m dwellings in england (200k are empty) and 54m people (and that includes children). Thats about 40% a house for every person.

"In 2014, two million private landlords owned and let five million properties in the UK" so thats 2.5 houses per landlord plus probably their own home. That puts it down to under a third of a house per person and decrease of 30%.

Obviously I haven't included council houses and housing associations in that ^

jdoe8 I assume, having seen the figures, and decided not to be a cunt, that you are giving away the money you are saving from your profit upon sale to charity? Have you not profited from selling your house?