You'd expect a brilliant win and atmosphere on Saturday to make this forum a happier place, then the politics and royal family shite starts and everyones at it again.
Sun's not as warm as last week to sap the keyboard warrior powers that many hold...
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
That is fecking disgusting. The government need to intervene soon or there will be a big problem very soon.
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
That is fecking disgusting. The government need to intervene soon or there will be a big problem very soon.
They wont mate, there are already big problems, it suits their demographic as the party of greed.
I am trying to convince my brother at the moment to give up his flat as he buys his first house to live in, with the promise that being a landlord won't be as fun as just counting the cash bonus he'll get each month.
Sent him this today, but he still thinks it'll be a piece of piss...
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
When will this bubble burst, if ever?
I'm sure the majority of young people living in reasonably affluent areas, even in jobs with above average wages, cannot afford to buy a decent sized house. Alright, maybe they can get on the ladder with a pokey apartment and shrewdly work their way up... but, well, it just seems a bit unfair on those without any helping hand from family money, hard working people who want and deserve a place to call their own.
All right, I know life is unfair, but the housing market in the UK is something that generally annoys me.
To put in frankly, how is diluting the market with excess cash from buy-to-let investors doing anything but maintaining or driving prices up, and forcing those who cannot afford to buy to give their money to those same investors as rent?
I don't really disagree with property investment per se; I mean, if I had heaps of extra cash rotting away with less than a percent interest per year I'd look for ways to make my money work. But I think now is the time to make a difference; the population is ever rising exponentially and we need to look at new ways to address the problems we have with ridiculous population density in the UK and the associated cost of housing. I mean, maybe if we do nothing, the bubble will finally burst and I dread to think of the financial fallout that could possibly occur if that should happen.
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
I was reading today that stamp duty rules changed in 2016, so anyone buying a second home or buy-to-let property has to pay a 3% surcharge. It is designed to protect ordinary buyers from being squeezed out. However, bulk purchases of 6 properties or more are exempt! This, for example, saved our wonderful health secretary Jeremy Hunt the princely sum of £94,500 on the 7 flats that he purchased. Maybe this is why your buyers could afforf to be a little more generous with the developers SotF?
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
Surely people don't suddenly decide to go and rent a house because someone has bought it to let it out though? "Oh I was quote happy at home, but then Mr Rackman bought the old Wilkins house, so I decided to rent that...".
Normally I would assume (dangerous as it is) that they are already looking for a house. If there is no social housing, and no privately rented housing - they simply have nowhere to go? Extra social housing will make buy-to-let less attractive, so that has to come first, doesn't it? Or am I over simplifying?
Me and the wife, and my B-in-L have two places between us, one we bought when the retired couple living there (parents of B-in-L's friend) found out their landlord was selling up. They had hoped that they would be in the place for the rest of their days, by buying it, we made that possible. The other was friends who found themselves in the same position (landlord selling up), but had two dogs and two cats - absolutely nowhere would rent to them with the animals in tow. So between us and them, we found them a place they were happy with and bought it for them.
Yes of course we make money from them, basically they are our pension, but we charge £50 a month below the going rate, and unless something terrible happens, the tenants are there for as long as they want to be. But we have helped people out too.
Your business is your business as far as I'm concerned and I'm not really too bothered what people do with their money generally but I don't like the idea of buy to let properties. It has had effect on the housing market at the bottom end especially. The cheaper houses were, as a rule of thumb, where we all started off. If they are bought up by the better off, where do the young, who have harder time getting finance, buy their first homes? One of my extended family owns a considerable amount of these type properties, getting finance for her is a doddle. She isn't helping no one and runs these places like as a business, like most private landlords who take a living from it. You wouldn't want to be one of her tenants paying huge monthly rents with no real future hopes of having a home you could put your stamp on. I doubt few of them would be able to save money for a deposit and pay rent. And council houses being sold off at great discounts does annoy me. Many of them are now buy to lets but even if they are not why should these properties be sold off in the first place? Surly they are an asset of the country.
This disquiet about private landlords can only be predicated on the notion that we are all entitled, as of right, to own the property in which we live. Which is hysterical bumwash to put it mildly. We've been conditioned to aspire to home ownership but the reality is that we can afford what we can afford and that's rarely anybody else's responsibility. Even before Thatcher's criminal council house giveaway, the UK economy was already wildly out of step with all other mature western economies in the ratio of owner occupation. Nowhere else does such a high proportion of a population own the roof over its head. Thatcher's craven cynical 'right to buy' con trick made things worse and she sealed the deal by effectively stopping local authorities building any more. The stigma attached to renting one's home here is inexplicable. There is no such expectation elsewhere. None of the chattering resentment about 'buy-to-let' is ever accompanied by reasoned alternatives, just a self-pitying whine. The treasury has begun to understand that it is an area where more tax can be levied: those who borrow to buy now have the amount of interest they can set against the rents restricted; overseas landlords are now taxed on their capital gains on dwellings; companies, trusts, etc that own high value properties (a popular rich man's trick for shielding wealth) are now liable for an annual levy on such properties. Multiple dwelling owners pay increased Stamp Duty.* Add these factors to imminent interest rate rises and demand for dwellings as investments may be reduced, with corresponding retardation of property price inflation. The flip side, probably, would be a rise in rents charged, as landlords seek to maintain their rate of return. How do you propose to square that circle? What you're not about to see is any serious state funded effort to build homes, not even the Corbinista lunatic fringe will put their names to that. I've been a lodger, rented flats, and bought homes with mortgages. Each financial arrangement largely dictated by my financial circumstances at the time. I'm not entitled to live somewhere bigger for the same money, or rent something spacious for £100/week. I'm entitled to occupy the premises I can afford. Grieving over what I've never had would be the worst kind of self-indulgent self-harming. *Incidentally the overall increase in stamp duty is a despicable calumny and reason enough to vote against the tories at every opportunity until their gravy train is derailed.
Social Media was invented to keep those of us not on it amused.
One of the best threads on CL is the Twitter one, some of the sad fucks on there that are being serious and I am pissing myself with laughter reading it.
Sad bastards the lot of them.
Are you suggesting posters on the CL Twitter thread are sad fu8ks? I resemble that remark!
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
I was reading today that stamp duty rules changed in 2016, so anyone buying a second home or buy-to-let property has to pay a 3% surcharge. It is designed to protect ordinary buyers from being squeezed out. However, bulk purchases of 6 properties or more are exempt! This, for example, saved our wonderful health secretary Jeremy Hunt the princely sum of £94,500 on the 7 flats that he purchased. Maybe this is why your buyers could afforf to be a little more generous with the developers SotF?
I wasn't aware of the bit about bulk buying being exempt - what an absolute joke that makes the whole idea. Individuals looking to help out their pension pot by investing in a property pay more, fat cats pay the same as before. How can anyone think the Tories have anyone other than the richest people's interest at heart when they do this kind of thing?
My last comment on the subject. There is no problem with people buying houses to let out, the problem (maybe) is the cost of the rent they charge. I suppose you wouldn't have a problem if the landlord was charging a rent of 50% lower than the norm for that type of property in that area ??
PS. As long as the tenant didn't take the piss & kept the property in good order & didn't wreck it upon leaving.
As I said before - there are slum landlords & there are nightmare tenants.
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
Surely people don't suddenly decide to go and rent a house because someone has bought it to let it out though? "Oh I was quote happy at home, but then Mr Rackman bought the old Wilkins house, so I decided to rent that...".
Normally I would assume (dangerous as it is) that they are already looking for a house. If there is no social housing, and no privately rented housing - they simply have nowhere to go? Extra social housing will make buy-to-let less attractive, so that has to come first, doesn't it? Or am I over simplifying?
Me and the wife, and my B-in-L have two places between us, one we bought when the retired couple living there (parents of B-in-L's friend) found out their landlord was selling up. They had hoped that they would be in the place for the rest of their days, by buying it, we made that possible. The other was friends who found themselves in the same position (landlord selling up), but had two dogs and two cats - absolutely nowhere would rent to them with the animals in tow. So between us and them, we found them a place they were happy with and bought it for them.
Yes of course we make money from them, basically they are our pension, but we charge £50 a month below the going rate, and unless something terrible happens, the tenants are there for as long as they want to be. But we have helped people out too.
Your business is your business as far as I'm concerned and I'm not really too bothered what people do with their money generally but I don't like the idea of buy to let properties. It has had effect on the housing market at the bottom end especially. The cheaper houses were, as a rule of thumb, where we all started off. If they are bought up by the better off, where do the young, who have harder time getting finance, buy their first homes? One of my extended family owns a considerable amount of these type properties, getting finance for her is a doddle. She isn't helping no one and runs these places like as a business, like most private landlords who take a living from it. You wouldn't want to be one of her tenants paying huge monthly rents with no real future hopes of having a home you could put your stamp on. I doubt few of them would be able to save money for a deposit and pay rent. And council houses being sold off at great discounts does annoy me. Many of them are now buy to lets but even if they are not why should these properties be sold off in the first place? Surly they are an asset of the country.
This disquiet about private landlords can only be predicated on the notion that we are all entitled, as of right, to own the property in which we live. Which is hysterical bumwash to put it mildly. We've been conditioned to aspire to home ownership but the reality is that we can afford what we can afford and that's rarely anybody else's responsibility. Even before Thatcher's criminal council house giveaway, the UK economy was already wildly out of step with all other mature western economies in the ratio of owner occupation. Nowhere else does such a high proportion of a population own the roof over its head. Thatcher's craven cynical 'right to buy' con trick made things worse and she sealed the deal by effectively stopping local authorities building any more. The stigma attached to renting one's home here is inexplicable. There is no such expectation elsewhere. None of the chattering resentment about 'buy-to-let' is ever accompanied by reasoned alternatives, just a self-pitying whine. The treasury has begun to understand that it is an area where more tax can be levied: those who borrow to buy now have the amount of interest they can set against the rents restricted; overseas landlords are now taxed on their capital gains on dwellings; companies, trusts, etc that own high value properties (a popular rich man's trick for shielding wealth) are now liable for an annual levy on such properties. Multiple dwelling owners pay increased Stamp Duty.* Add these factors to imminent interest rate rises and demand for dwellings as investments may be reduced, with corresponding retardation of property price inflation. The flip side, probably, would be a rise in rents charged, as landlords seek to maintain their rate of return. How do you propose to square that circle? What you're not about to see is any serious state funded effort to build homes, not even the Corbinista lunatic fringe will put their names to that. I've been a lodger, rented flats, and bought homes with mortgages. Each financial arrangement largely dictated by my financial circumstances at the time. I'm not entitled to live somewhere bigger for the same money, or rent something spacious for £100/week. I'm entitled to occupy the premises I can afford. Grieving over what I've never had would be the worst kind of self-indulgent self-harming. *Incidentally the overall increase in stamp duty is a despicable calumny and reason enough to vote against the tories at every opportunity until their gravy train is derailed.
Your penultimate paragraph, maybe the answer is there. Tax, tax and some more tax until buying multiple properties becomes less attractive.
The furore about housing prices is all part of the legacy of Thatcher and Blairs stupid social housing policies. At least Labour now has someone in charge who wants to look at it from the punters point of view instead of the builders or the btl landlords.
Social Media was invented to keep those of us not on it amused.
One of the best threads on CL is the Twitter one, some of the sad fucks on there that are being serious and I am pissing myself with laughter reading it.
Sad bastards the lot of them.
Are you suggesting posters on the CL Twitter thread are sad fu8ks? I resemble that remark!
You are one of the guys on here that make me laugh out loud Arthur, the stuff you post from Twitter is priceless.
Social Media was invented to keep those of us not on it amused.
One of the best threads on CL is the Twitter one, some of the sad fucks on there that are being serious and I am pissing myself with laughter reading it.
Sad bastards the lot of them.
Are you suggesting posters on the CL Twitter thread are sad fu8ks? I resemble that remark!
You are one of the guys on here that make me laugh out loud Arthur, the stuff you post from Twitter is priceless.
It's okay you don't need to blag your way out of it @A-R-T-H-U-R admits he resembles it, he didn't say he resents it.
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
I was reading today that stamp duty rules changed in 2016, so anyone buying a second home or buy-to-let property has to pay a 3% surcharge. It is designed to protect ordinary buyers from being squeezed out. However, bulk purchases of 6 properties or more are exempt! This, for example, saved our wonderful health secretary Jeremy Hunt the princely sum of £94,500 on the 7 flats that he purchased. Maybe this is why your buyers could afforf to be a little more generous with the developers SotF?
I think the Mirror may be wrong? I thought it was 15 properties - the thinking being that professional Landlords are responsible for building large numbers of houses, and to encourage bulk building of buy to let properties. There was some debate as to whether the exemption should be for individuals who have acquired 15 houses or just those who buy/build 15 at a time. I must say I cant see evidence for what I've heard here so I may well be misinformed. Many exemptions here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-land-or-property-transactions#sdlt-relief-for-multiple-dwellings
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
As per my earlier post, please tell me how someone buying a house to rent out pushes up house price more than the same person buying the same property to live in. Also, lots of rents don't rise year by year. My ex-wife's rent hasn't risen over the 3 years she's lived there & many of my clients rental incomes haven't changed either over the past 5 years.
My brother is trying to get on the housing ladder at the moment and anything that comes up that is affordable is immediately snapped up by buy to let buyers.
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
I was reading today that stamp duty rules changed in 2016, so anyone buying a second home or buy-to-let property has to pay a 3% surcharge. It is designed to protect ordinary buyers from being squeezed out. However, bulk purchases of 6 properties or more are exempt! This, for example, saved our wonderful health secretary Jeremy Hunt the princely sum of £94,500 on the 7 flats that he purchased. Maybe this is why your buyers could afforf to be a little more generous with the developers SotF?
I think the Mirror may be wrong? I thought it was 15 properties - the thinking being that professional Landlords are responsible for building large numbers of houses, and to encourage bulk building of buy to let properties. There was some debate as to whether the exemption should be for individuals who have acquired 15 houses or just those who buy/build 15 at a time. I must say I cant see evidence for what I've heard here so I may well be misinformed. Many exemptions here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-land-or-property-transactions#sdlt-relief-for-multiple-dwellings
Couldn't argue with you Arthur, I simply took that Mirror report at face value.
Maybe he already owned enough properties to take him to the magic number? He's not short of a few bob following the 14.5 million pound windfall from the sale of his Hotcourses company. I doubt if he even knows how many properties he owns himself. Whether it be 6 or 15 houses it's still shocking that developers can prioritise second home buyers as per @SurvivaloftheFittest earlier post.
The lack of social housing has nothing to do with Buy to let landlords.
Indeed. Two different things, but both make it harder for people to get on the ladder (higher rent and house prices for starters)
Surely people don't suddenly decide to go and rent a house because someone has bought it to let it out though? "Oh I was quite happy at home, but then Mr Rackman bought the old Wilkins house, so I decided to rent that...".
Normally I would assume (dangerous as it is) that they are already looking for a house. If there is no social housing, and no privately rented housing - they simply have nowhere to go? Extra social housing will make buy-to-let less attractive, so that has to come first, doesn't it? Or am I over simplifying?
Me and the wife, and my B-in-L have two places between us, one we bought when the retired couple living there (parents of B-in-L's friend) found out their landlord was selling up. They had hoped that they would be in the place for the rest of their days, by buying it, we made that possible. The other was friends who found themselves in the same position (landlord selling up), but had two dogs and two cats - absolutely nowhere would rent to them with the animals in tow. So between us and them, we found them a place they were happy with and bought it for them.
Yes of course we make money from them, basically they are our pension, but we charge £50 a month below the going rate, and unless something terrible happens, the tenants are there for as long as they want to be. But we have helped people out too.
The point isn’t that people decide to rent because others have bought but some are forced to continue renting because they are increasingly outbid by second time buyers. My BIL and sister keep trying to buy their first home, only to be knocked back because of people buying their second. That’s not right whatever way you look at it.
Aren't buy-to-let mortgages given on the monthly rentable value, rather than the buyers income and deposit? If it is, that would make it an uneven playinh field for a start
Comments
The average house price where I live is £737,127.
Recently 15 new flats have been built marketed at £215k each. My brother called last Monday to arrange a viewing and was asked by the Estate Agent if he was a buy to let investor. He replied that he wasn't and was subsequently put on a waiting list. The Estate Agent told him that the developers wanted to prioritise second home buyers as they were more likely to offer maximum asking price.
They were right. After a bidding war they were sold for £240k each by a syndicate of Buy to Let Investors.
Sent him this today, but he still thinks it'll be a piece of piss...
https://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/legal-musts-for-landlords-and-letting-agents.shtml
I'm sure the majority of young people living in reasonably affluent areas, even in jobs with above average wages, cannot afford to buy a decent sized house. Alright, maybe they can get on the ladder with a pokey apartment and shrewdly work their way up... but, well, it just seems a bit unfair on those without any helping hand from family money, hard working people who want and deserve a place to call their own.
All right, I know life is unfair, but the housing market in the UK is something that generally annoys me.
To put in frankly, how is diluting the market with excess cash from buy-to-let investors doing anything but maintaining or driving prices up, and forcing those who cannot afford to buy to give their money to those same investors as rent?
I don't really disagree with property investment per se; I mean, if I had heaps of extra cash rotting away with less than a percent interest per year I'd look for ways to make my money work. But I think now is the time to make a difference; the population is ever rising exponentially and we need to look at new ways to address the problems we have with ridiculous population density in the UK and the associated cost of housing. I mean, maybe if we do nothing, the bubble will finally burst and I dread to think of the financial fallout that could possibly occur if that should happen.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-hunt-avoids-100000-stamp-12415305
If prices stay the way they are for a sustained period moving into 2020s and 2030s, I foresee big problems for future generations
Even before Thatcher's criminal council house giveaway, the UK economy was already wildly out of step with all other mature western economies in the ratio of owner occupation. Nowhere else does such a high proportion of a population own the roof over its head. Thatcher's craven cynical 'right to buy' con trick made things worse and she sealed the deal by effectively stopping local authorities building any more. The stigma attached to renting one's home here is inexplicable. There is no such expectation elsewhere.
None of the chattering resentment about 'buy-to-let' is ever accompanied by reasoned alternatives, just a self-pitying whine.
The treasury has begun to understand that it is an area where more tax can be levied: those who borrow to buy now have the amount of interest they can set against the rents restricted; overseas landlords are now taxed on their capital gains on dwellings; companies, trusts, etc that own high value properties (a popular rich man's trick for shielding wealth) are now liable for an annual levy on such properties. Multiple dwelling owners pay increased Stamp Duty.* Add these factors to imminent interest rate rises and demand for dwellings as investments may be reduced, with corresponding retardation of property price inflation. The flip side, probably, would be a rise in rents charged, as landlords seek to maintain their rate of return. How do you propose to square that circle? What you're not about to see is any serious state funded effort to build homes, not even the Corbinista lunatic fringe will put their names to that.
I've been a lodger, rented flats, and bought homes with mortgages. Each financial arrangement largely dictated by my financial circumstances at the time. I'm not entitled to live somewhere bigger for the same money, or rent something spacious for £100/week. I'm entitled to occupy the premises I can afford. Grieving over what I've never had would be the worst kind of self-indulgent self-harming.
*Incidentally the overall increase in stamp duty is a despicable calumny and reason enough to vote against the tories at every opportunity until their gravy train is derailed.
I resemble that remark!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43878007
Ohh wait.
PS. As long as the tenant didn't take the piss & kept the property in good order & didn't wreck it upon leaving.
As I said before - there are slum landlords & there are nightmare tenants.
At least Labour now has someone in charge who wants to look at it from the punters point of view instead of the builders or the btl landlords.
I doubt they've ever even seen a farm let alone understand the circumstances and tight margins they operate in.
I thought it was 15 properties - the thinking being that professional Landlords are responsible for building large numbers of houses, and to encourage bulk building of buy to let properties.
There was some debate as to whether the exemption should be for individuals who have acquired 15 houses or just those who buy/build 15 at a time.
I must say I cant see evidence for what I've heard here so I may well be misinformed.
Many exemptions here
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-land-or-property-transactions#sdlt-relief-for-multiple-dwellings
Maybe he already owned enough properties to take him to the magic number? He's not short of a few bob following the 14.5 million pound windfall from the sale of his Hotcourses company. I doubt if he even knows how many properties he owns himself. Whether it be 6 or 15 houses it's still shocking that developers can prioritise second home buyers as per @SurvivaloftheFittest earlier post.