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.

Gosh, Fairweather, how relieved the people will be who keep one house after buying another because of circumstances that you have no problem with them doing that.

About twenty years ago a local builder bought a rather neglected house near me; pulling it down; and built a bigger one - motto sell but for his family. It had had a large garden so he could build it without it overshadowing his neighbours and it was a good design. Five bedrooms, no less.

His children have moved out and last year his wife died and DW decided to downsize. The house was sold to a couple with no children at home; the Nosy Neighbour tells me that one room is now a library and study and the others are kept for when they have visitors. So tell me Fairweather should the builder have been made to sell to a family with children? And if so: should that family be required to sell when the children grew up?

Oh damn. He decided to downsize not DW!

The stamp duty rule changes mean this will happen a lot less than it used to

DH and I are looking to move and could afford to keep our current house but not the £100k-ish stamp duty we would face buying the new place

Why don't I feel remotely guilty about doing it previously? It's my pension, it's my security, it's mine and my families fallback plan
I'm a net tax contributor and have been for a long time, I put far, far more into the system than I take out and it isn't my duty to engineer the national housing market

I suspect there may be a touch of the green eyed monster about the extension comment.

Check what the rent acts did for housing, tea cakes. Not great. A rent act tenant can devalue your home by up to 50%. Who would risk letting if that were the outcome?!

The govt needs to build more houses. Unfortunately we are a small island without the infrastructure - and it simply won't be the same when it's carpeted in new estates, the residents of which are stuck in traffic, have to wait weeks to see a Gp etc etc. I'm not sure what the answer is now, tbh. It's such a mess.

The answers -

Renovate every single derelict empty house, there are thousands.
Raise income tax
Cancel hs2 and similar useless vanity projects- smart meters, subsidised windfarms
Stop building on flood plains
Deny planning for any building that needs aircon
Come down hard on housing associations that rent out dumps

Stuff like that.

Why do you think raising income tax would work? I already pay 62% tax on some of my income. Raise it more than that and I'll emigrate or work less to drop the tax rate - then you'll get even less income!

Much better to look at closing the tax loops for corporates and the super rich IMO.

Who in the name of God would scale down their own possessions out of some sort of misplaced empathy with those who don't have the means to have similar?

But you do this now. Taxes.

Absolutely agree with a PP about rent controls. Have had to leave 3 properties in last 8 years (out of 6 I've lived in) as LL was selling - only due to house prices increasing in the local area. I reckon I've spent over 12k on fees / deposits / cleaning etc. That 12k could be in my pocket helping me to buy a house. Not to mention the sky high rent I've paid for daring to live and work in London! I may sound particularly negative toward LL's and that's absolutely not my intent, but if people are allowed to charge £1500-1700 for a 1 bed flat in London, when their mortgage is £700-900, then this will create a never ending cycle of people who should be able to buy not being able to.

But why "should" they be able to buy? It's not a right. You mean they "want" to be able to buy - and that's absolutely totally understandable, but it's not the same thing.

If you are a fairly high earner, have lived in the same town for over 30 years, have paid tax / NI since starting FT work at 18, would be able to keep up repayments as am securely employed, then yes I do think I should be able to buy. And I will buy - it will just take me until I'm 45+ to be able to do it, if I choose to continue to live and work in London. Just my opinion, not saying it's the right one!

The argument that anyone is taking away from potential buyers by choosing to rent is ridiculous - if you continue living in your house so no one else can buy it are you taking it away from them? If I, a single person who has no plans to have any children, buy a house am I taking it away from a family with children? No, because they never had it in the first place.

• I had a similar twitch last night when I heard someone I swim with saying that he was having an extension built on his house. He is married but has no children at home. His house has four bedrooms. So he and his wife are already rattling around a large house (I've been in it). And now they're making it even bigger (and more expensive).

I do think we need more carrots to encourage people to live in houses that are adequate for their needs, rather than having far more space than they actually need. And I don't really get the second home thing either - if you like going somewhere on holiday, why not just stay in a nice hotel? It is just a status symbol to be able to say you have a second home in Cornwall or whatever*

So when we have to sell our big houses to live in an adequate one what are we to do with the £100Ks of equity we have? Cos you don't want us buying other properties!

And who's going to live in all the big houses that we shouldn't be allowed to occupy? because (mostly) big families could never afford it as most of them can't even afford a house full stop.

bonkers!

But why "should" they be able to buy? It's not a right

Again you are asking the wrong question.

Society functions poorly with high levels of inequality.

if people are allowed to charge £1500-1700 for a 1 bed flat in London, when their mortgage is £700-900, then this will create a never ending cycle of people who should be able to buy not being able to.

The value of someones mortgage has no bearing on what a properties rental value is - I own mine cash so should you get it for free?

OP you are right its dog eat dog- It does trouble me somewhat that I have a buy to let property (from inheritance) but without it I would probably be on benefits by now -so how would that help society? Whereas with the buy to let I can survive financially with no govt support. Interest from savings would be far easier, as others have said, but these days any savings just get eaten up.
I had to move a long way from home, alone, leaving a good, secure job, to escape an abusive partner and now am earning minimum wage cleaning part time- despite having a good degree and work history and having been to dozens of interviews. There are simply few jobs around here and without the property rental I would be stuffed. So what should I do OP?

The only thing that goes up these days is rent because landlord know people have to have somewhere to live so most of them increase the rent yearly well above inflation.

Something needs to give even if its something like long term teneacys which cannot be broken unless tenent wants to leave and or landlord needs to move in (like most of europe) not this bollacks of 6 months only (any longer is very rare).

Rent hikes above inflation should not be able to happen, but also tenants should be able to be taken to court far easier if they dont pay rent damage the property in excess of the deposit etc because current the system is not working

Perhaps this explains it better:

UN report lays bare the waste of treating homes as commodities

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/feb/28/un-report-lays-bare-the-waste-of-treating-homes-as-commodities

I rent my first house to my sister. I do not make a profit but I would've made a loss if I had sold when I needed to move (due to houses not selling well at the time and getting reduced in price. I was better to save the 10% deposit, move and then sell the first house later on when preferable.

If I had sold I would have had to use my deposit to pay the shortfall to the mortgage company thus therefore having no deposit to buy the new one.

I have kept the first house on and intend to for a while. A good investment for the future with the mortgage being paid by someone else!

I don't understand this OP - if people decide to put their spare cash into an investment such as a buy to let - then that's their choice - yes it may lead to a housing crisis (but if there had been enough affordable housing schemes put in place by Governments then this would not be an issue - think Germany where tenants have rights and controlled rents and there is no shortage of housing) and people will always need to rent for whatever particular reason. And how is that worse than buying shares in companies to make a profit - companies which pollute rivers - cut down forests - contribute massively towards climate change - put additives in our foods - sell GM crops - are responsible for ruining the countryside - weigh in on political debates and pay back handers to Politicians in order to influence future laws and regulations which can have a catastrophic effect on nature (think drilling for oil in the artic) and even lax banking laws (which caused the last crisis) pay children in 3rd world countries a pittance for sewing jeans or making t-shirts in sweatshops - make life saving drugs unaffordable for the sake of their profits - sack employees without recourse and often without their redundancy payments or pension schemes...... you could argue that if people didn't invest their space cash into those companies that would not happen or even if shareholders were not so demanding on their dividends that maybe companies would act more responsibly..... suddenly a private individual investing in a buy to let doesn't seem so bad does it???

And how is that worse than buying shares in companies to make a profit - companies which pollute rivers - cut down forests - contribute massively towards climate change - put additives in our foods - sell GM crops - are responsible for ruining the countryside - weigh in on political debates and pay back handers to Politicians in order to influence future laws and regulations which can have a catastrophic effect on nature (think drilling for oil in the artic) and even lax banking laws (which caused the last crisis) pay children in 3rd world countries a pittance for sewing jeans or making t-shirts in sweatshops - make life saving drugs unaffordable for the sake of their profits - sack employees without recourse and often without their redundancy payments or pension schemes...... you could argue that if people didn't invest their space cash into those companies that would not happen or even if shareholders were not so demanding on their dividends that maybe companies would act more responsibly

Green investments?

makeourfuture The author of that report thinks that preventing homelessness should be paramount in the law concerning indebtedness and foreclosure.

If you have deposited money in a bank or building society - be afraid. Be very afraid.

It really isn't that clear cut.

In our area of newish builds (5 years old) there are four identical houses up for sale in a one mile radius (5 bed detached) - one of which has been up for over a year. They're all the same price.

So rather than put a house on the market that clearly isn't in demand, now we're moving and can afford the second mortgage, were renting this one out. We live in what's effectively a new village and there is a huge rental market for people wanting to try the area out first - rental properties are in far higher demand than saleable properties.

If the renters want to buy us out at some point, great. If not, we'll re market in two years and sell it so we can claim the extortionate stamp duty cost back on the second house (which is nearly £20,000 on top of what we would pay if we just sold the first house)!

All this stuff about young people not being able to buy homes depends where you live. I know lots of young people here who have bought flats and small houses. The future is not bleak.
I don't even understand the point of the op? Why would it be unreasonable, what are you going to do, leave it empty??? That's mad.

In my experience, the housing crisis is in the south east mainly and surrounding areas but the press coverage causes new builds to be built up north where it is affordable anyway and they are usually 'starter homes' (they can fit more homes on the land!)

This then creates the problem with people that have already bought starter homes wanting to move on and buy bigger - but no one wants to buy theirs as they have purchased a brand spanker with their chosen colour theme and extras!!!!!

Worrid. Yes you could have longer tenancies like in Europe, but as renter in Europe, I have to pay for the boiler service, the gardener, the chimney sweep, the water softener service and anything else that might go wrong. We also have to pay the building insurance. There is not really any concept of wear and tear here - you have to hand it back in much the same condition as when you rented it, and if you want to move out in the first three years of the lease, you are responsible for all the rent for that time.

The bond is held by the bank, and cannot be released until the l/l agrees it. If you manage to get away with under €3k when moving out here, you are doing well. Be very careful what you wish for. There are also rent rises every year.