BTL as a pension fund - why not?

BTL as a pension fund - why not?

Author
Discussion

gibbon

2,182 posts

208 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
LucreLout said:
Please accept Rockefeller and Morgan as my rebuttal to that.

The least wealthy in the UK have never had it so good, generationally speaking. In terms of basic provision of necessity you could credibly argue we've never been so equal.

The pretty will always get laid. The clever will always win pub quizzes. And the lucky are destined to remain so. The rich will get richer. Quite why people get so worked up about one of those imbalances and are perfectly accepting of the others I'll never understand.
I agree with you.

My point is we are only now seeing the effects of having large proportions of the general public as land owners. Therefore, their wealth is growing, as you say, the rich are getting richer, however they will now have to pass some of it down the line to the next generation in order for them to maintain a similar housing level etc. You cant have it both ways, and the complaining about it is getting fairly tedious.

Land is finite, wealth is growing, people are living on working longer, and the world is smaller and more mobile with the uk being a destination location. What else did we expect to happen to land and property prices?

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
NomduJour said:
Eric Mc said:
Or bring in laws and /or taxes that discourage multiple residential property ownership by individuals
And thereby miraculously enable all those poor, downtrodden renters to buy their own home?
Or perhaps have adequate stocks of houses available for rent - from local authorities - which was once perceived as the main solution - and actually worked well until the system was blown apart.

NomduJour

19,144 posts

260 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
Private landlords provide rental stock more efficiently than the local authorities can, hence why they are no longer interested in competing.

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
NomduJour said:
Private landlords provide rental stock more efficiently than the local authorities can, hence why they are no longer interested in competing.
How do you define "efficiently"?

Local authorities can no longer afford to do what they used to be able to do - because they work under far more restrictions from central government than they used to. In effect, local authorities now administer central government policy at local level - often very reluctantly.

LucreLout

908 posts

119 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Yes, it does indeed come across as abrasive. I hope you deal with your clients a little less brusquely.
I only have thick skinned clients (left)

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
I prefer mined thin skinned smile

anonymous-user

55 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It would be useful to look at the ratio of home ownership to state of economy and see which countries come out best.
I'm not sure inferring causation from correlation is useful at all to be honest. You seem to be bouncing all over the place from taxation to restrictions on home ownership in order to bring house prices down whilst ignoring the elephant in the room. The market is really very simple, you haven't been building enough houses to keep up with your population growth. Everything else is bluster and waffle.

The people who rent from me choose to live in zone 1. They all have the means to buy outside zone 1. For 5 years one of my tenants was an MD at JPMorgan, I dare say he is considerably richer than me! I'm providing a service, if the market doesn't like it they don't have to use it and my price will have to fall, as it happens I've never had so much as a week void. This is my pension and my daughters inheritance. Now along comes Eric who thinks this is somehow wrong and wants to tax me, well you know what you can do right? smile

NomduJour

19,144 posts

260 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
It isn't Eric you have to worry about.

ITP

2,017 posts

198 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
[quote=Eric Mc]Or bring in laws and /or taxes that discourage multiple residential property ownership by individuals.

Not every solution HAS to be market driven.



The reason most private landlords have diverted their pension planning into BTL is to get away from the incompetent politicians (mainly Gordon brown) raping people's pensions and the banks somehow 'losing' all money built up in schemes over decades because there were a couple of bad months in the stock market (whilst still taking all their fees out of course).

Do you advocate we sell up (to who?) and hand all our hard earned back into their hands to control for our old age?

Or is the idea to tax all the built up wealth out of people who have worked hard all their lives to provide for their retirment, only to have to give it to the government to build loads of council housing, leaving the best laid plans in tatters?

Remember, it was governments and bankers who allowed house prices to rise to an unaffordable level for FTB's in the main, not private landlords.

anonymous-user

55 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
NomduJour said:
It isn't Eric you have to worry about.
Well the thread is foremost about the risks of BTL and people sharing Erics views and voting for such ill concieved policies are IMO the greatest risk. If needed I'll just have to structure through a business or trust.

I do think that by far the biggest problem is local government being forced to compete with private renters for the same pool of private rentals. Provision of housing at taxpayer expense is one thing but driving private rental prices up by outbidding the taxpayer with his own money is taking the fvcking pi55.

Yazar

1,476 posts

121 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
ITP said:
Or is the idea to tax all the built up wealth out of people who have worked hard all their lives to provide for their retirment,
The rate of house price increases were not worked for though.

Why should the young and future generations now suffer for the lack of housing we and our generations before failed to build?

anonymous-user

55 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
3 year olds understand how musical chairs works yet adults don't understand the housing market. hehe

LucreLout

908 posts

119 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
Yazar said:
The rate of house price increases were not worked for though.

Why should the young and future generations now suffer for the lack of housing we and our generations before failed to build?
Why should Gen X have to buy horrendously over priced houses from the baby boomers, and now have to give half the value away to Gen Y/MeMeMe?

You can't build your way out of several million people arriving every decade. What we can do is get rid of child benefits and transition HB onto rooms in shared houses. That'd free up a lot of social housing.

Any loss of value inflicted on my house by the state due to tax changes or excessive house building is coming right off my IT bill. Its not optional, and I won't be swayed by the cut backs to public services required if others join me. I bought into a market with a set of rules. If the government want to tear up the rule book, that's fine, but they can eat the losses.

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
Neither do people who run financial markets. It was playing "musical chairs" with complicated debt packages that brought about so may of our current problems - and a lot of this was linked to the housing market.

JagLover

42,443 posts

236 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
LucreLout said:
excessive house building
laugh

We haven't been building enough homes for over a decade. It is not the job of government to artificially constrain supply to keep your property values up.



crankedup

25,764 posts

244 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
JagLover said:
LucreLout said:
excessive house building
laugh

We haven't been building enough homes for over a decade. It is not the job of government to artificially constrain supply to keep your property values up.
Very true, except the lack of house building for provision of adequate supply to meet demand goes back many decades. Some say its the big Company builders that deliberately keep new housing stock low thus ensuring keen demand at inflated prices. Of course the builders blame the planners for introducing to tighter restriction on developments to make reasonable economic sense. Finger in the air, perhaps somewhere down the middle of these two extremes.

Yazar

1,476 posts

121 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
LucreLout said:
Why should Gen X have to buy horrendously over priced houses from the baby boomers, and now have to give half the value away to Gen Y/MeMeMe?
But we are not talking about an 'over priced house' in term of a home, this a BTL discussion. If you bought a single home to live in, fine.

But if you are an investor, risk goes with the territory?

anonymous-user

55 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Neither do people who run financial markets. It was playing "musical chairs" with complicated debt packages that brought about so may of our current problems - and a lot of this was linked to the housing market.
I agree, so what?

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
I agree also.

Property fueled economic booms aided by reckless lending and colateralised debt being passed around like a live time bomb has no bearing whatsoever on any discussion on the relevance of property to national economies.

LucreLout

908 posts

119 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
JagLover said:
laugh

We haven't been building enough homes for over a decade. It is not the job of government to artificially constrain supply to keep your property values up.
I completely agree. Its not the governments job to blow its wad all over the greenbelt and build so many houses it wrecks the market either.

Lets just leave the system alone and let it do what it does. It works just fine without further meddling.

The young have unrealistic expectations, and frankly, I'm not in the mood to pay for them.