On £25k but 'poor'?! Misery thread...
Discussion
trashbat said:
It's no use to you whatsoever, but here you go, in all of its foretold buy-to-let hate fury.
There are ten imaginary houses sitting empty on an imaginary street, and there are ten people wanting to buy them. Let's say the price will pan out at about £100k each.
Then ten more people come along and join the queue to buy those houses, but they don't want to live there, they want to use the house as an investment. The supply's static and the demand has doubled, so the price goes up significantly.
You only had £100k purchasing power so now you can't afford to buy, so you have to rent, only you're paying more for that now too, in order to pay for the BTL folks' inflated cost and another layer of profit. And you're not the only one like that, so all of a sudden there are more renters, so the supply for that is thinned and the demand increased, and guess what that means? Plus now you'll never be able to save to buy, because your rental costs have taken back what you were previously putting away.
And nobody can fix it because the majority of people have a vested interest, real or perceived, in their house price.
The BTL people will be along now to say it's more complicated than that, which it is, and how hard it is to be a landlord, and how they improve the quality of accommodation, and how noone could rent without them, and whatever else, but if property ownership was more closely linked to actual need then you would find it much easier to obtain one.
While I agree with what you have said, that is only one possibility out of many.There are ten imaginary houses sitting empty on an imaginary street, and there are ten people wanting to buy them. Let's say the price will pan out at about £100k each.
Then ten more people come along and join the queue to buy those houses, but they don't want to live there, they want to use the house as an investment. The supply's static and the demand has doubled, so the price goes up significantly.
You only had £100k purchasing power so now you can't afford to buy, so you have to rent, only you're paying more for that now too, in order to pay for the BTL folks' inflated cost and another layer of profit. And you're not the only one like that, so all of a sudden there are more renters, so the supply for that is thinned and the demand increased, and guess what that means? Plus now you'll never be able to save to buy, because your rental costs have taken back what you were previously putting away.
And nobody can fix it because the majority of people have a vested interest, real or perceived, in their house price.
The BTL people will be along now to say it's more complicated than that, which it is, and how hard it is to be a landlord, and how they improve the quality of accommodation, and how noone could rent without them, and whatever else, but if property ownership was more closely linked to actual need then you would find it much easier to obtain one.
Edited by trashbat on Wednesday 8th October 16:44
You have 10 hypothetical properties on a street, but only 5 people who want to buy the houses who have the money to buy, and another 5 who have no savings or deposit, such as the OP. If someone doesn't come in and buy those 5 extra properties and rent them out, they will sit empty, and the OP will have nowhere to live.
Both you and I have simplified the situation, and I believe your case in some places, certainly your way is true for certain parts of Central London, but if it were the other way around we would be sitting with quite a lot of empty housing and a rental shortage in certain parts of certain cities.
C.A.R. said:
Disappointing news; the property we were very keen has gone to another couple, purely on the grounds that their joint income was higher than ours. Bit depressing, but the letting agency had already messed us around by telling us we had 'first refusal' when this was never the case. Unfortunately letting agencies aren't governed / don't seem to have any care for complaints about them, which is pretty frustrating. Just seems they will string you along regardless of the facts.
It might not have been the letting agents fault. When we let our property out, there's usually two or three couples to choose from. We get given basic details of the tenants (children, pets, what they are employed as) plus what they are prepared to pay and we make our choice from there. If rental demand is high in your area, you need to make your case to the agent as they do tend to let us know who they think we should choose. trashbat said:
It's no use to you whatsoever, but here you go, in all of its foretold buy-to-let hate fury.
There are ten imaginary houses sitting empty on an imaginary street, and there are ten people wanting to buy them. Let's say the price will pan out at about £100k each.
Then ten more people come along and join the queue to buy those houses, but they don't want to live there, they want to use the house as an investment. The supply's static and the demand has doubled, so the price goes up significantly.
You only had £100k purchasing power so now you can't afford to buy, so you have to rent, only you're paying more for that now too, in order to pay for the BTL folks' inflated cost and another layer of profit. And you're not the only one like that, so all of a sudden there are more renters, so the supply for that is thinned and the demand increased, and guess what that means? Plus now you'll never be able to save to buy, because your rental costs have taken back what you were previously putting away.
And nobody can fix it because the majority of people have a vested interest, real or perceived, in their house price.
The BTL people will be along now to say it's more complicated than that, which it is, and how hard it is to be a landlord, and how they improve the quality of accommodation, and how noone could rent without them, and whatever else, but if property ownership was more closely linked to actual need then you would find it much easier to obtain one.
There are still 10 houses and 10 people housed so no demand increase? Your example assumes LL have stepped in taken all the supply.There are ten imaginary houses sitting empty on an imaginary street, and there are ten people wanting to buy them. Let's say the price will pan out at about £100k each.
Then ten more people come along and join the queue to buy those houses, but they don't want to live there, they want to use the house as an investment. The supply's static and the demand has doubled, so the price goes up significantly.
You only had £100k purchasing power so now you can't afford to buy, so you have to rent, only you're paying more for that now too, in order to pay for the BTL folks' inflated cost and another layer of profit. And you're not the only one like that, so all of a sudden there are more renters, so the supply for that is thinned and the demand increased, and guess what that means? Plus now you'll never be able to save to buy, because your rental costs have taken back what you were previously putting away.
And nobody can fix it because the majority of people have a vested interest, real or perceived, in their house price.
The BTL people will be along now to say it's more complicated than that, which it is, and how hard it is to be a landlord, and how they improve the quality of accommodation, and how noone could rent without them, and whatever else, but if property ownership was more closely linked to actual need then you would find it much easier to obtain one.
Edited by trashbat on Wednesday 8th October 16:44
In your world how much does it affect supply when someone uses shared ownership (say 50% own 50% rent)?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff