Death of buy-to-let: landlords wake up to Osborne's 150pc ta
Discussion
No, in his mind people arnt fussed whether they rent or buy, and 'housing people' is what matters.
The idea that people only rent because they cannot afford to buy, and that BTL investors are exacerbating that by pushing up the value of starter homes, forcing more people to rent the houses they should be able to buy, seems lost on people in this thread.
The idea that people only rent because they cannot afford to buy, and that BTL investors are exacerbating that by pushing up the value of starter homes, forcing more people to rent the houses they should be able to buy, seems lost on people in this thread.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Unless the people that were renting can now buy so less demand for rental and the price comes down.
Just how far do you think house prices will drop? Because if it's from £120k to £100k then that only drops the deposit from £12k to £10k. Not a massive difference.If you're expecting from £120k to £60k then fook me I'm buying 6 of them to rent out.
Doesn't work.
Zoobeef said:
Just how far do you think house prices will drop? Because if it's from £120k to £100k then that only drops the deposit from £12k to £10k. Not a massive difference.
If you're expecting from £120k to £60k then fook me I'm buying 6 of them to rent out.
Doesn't work.
I don't think they will drop at all actually, I was just forming an argument for the debate. If you're expecting from £120k to £60k then fook me I'm buying 6 of them to rent out.
Doesn't work.
I think some homes will be released to the market and that may restrict future growth for a short period, but remember this is just a proposal at this stage and may not become law at all.
If the Government want to attack investment BTL's I think a higher rate of CGT on them would be a simpler method, but when has a Government ever managed to simplify matters?
PurpleMoonlight said:
98elise said:
The 1 BTL property will also have housed 1 family, removing 1 person from the demand side. If that family bought the property then we would still be in the same situation.
As I keep saying the main driver is lack new supply to meet demand, existing stock canont meet demand no matter what way you dress it up. If you made all BTL's into owner occupier properties overnight then we would still have exactly the same upward pressure.
Can you really not see that BTL's are part of the problem as they remove purchasable properties from the housing supply chain for those who desire to purchase?As I keep saying the main driver is lack new supply to meet demand, existing stock canont meet demand no matter what way you dress it up. If you made all BTL's into owner occupier properties overnight then we would still have exactly the same upward pressure.
Lets make it simpler huh. One person owning 5 BTL's potentially denies 5 owner occupiers. The pressure on the remaining housing stock for owner occupiers to buy is therefore greater than it otherwise should be, and that increases prices.
If we had enough stock to satisfy demand, then prices would be stable. If we had more supply than demand prices would drop.
98elise said:
If we had enough stock to satisfy demand, then prices would be stable. If we had more supply than demand prices would drop.
Prices wouldnt be stable, they would go up roughly in line with inflation. And, yes, they would be whats called pent up demand, ie demand which is unable to be satisfied by the market, which is what those tenants would then be, assuming at some point they still want to buy a property.
So you're wrong on all accounts.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Can you really not see that BTL's are part of the problem as they remove purchasable properties from the housing supply chain for those who desire to purchase?
Lets make it simpler huh. One person owning 5 BTL's potentially denies 5 owner occupiers. The pressure on the remaining housing stock for owner occupiers to buy is therefore greater than it otherwise should be, and that increases prices.
I rent 8 properties out. Of those properties, 7 of the tenants would not be able to get a mortgage. So where do they live? There is no social housing available in the short/medium term and there are a couple of them that may be classed as "priority" - the rest wouldn't be.Lets make it simpler huh. One person owning 5 BTL's potentially denies 5 owner occupiers. The pressure on the remaining housing stock for owner occupiers to buy is therefore greater than it otherwise should be, and that increases prices.
Prior to 2007, mortgages were available to pretty much anyone. I bought a place off a girl who worked part time in a pub - we exchanged late on a Friday afternoon & Monday morning the bailiffs were at the door looking to repossess as they hadn't got the paperwork in time. Are you suggesting we go back to the situation where mortgages were pretty much available to anyone who can sign their own name?
It seems to me, the majority of people complaining are those based in London/South East that are being priced out of buying & are stuck with renting. I'm sorry, but that's tough. It's the capital city & has always and will always be expensive. I have more sympathy with people being priced out of rural areas because of 2nd home owners.
Condi said:
98elise said:
If we had enough stock to satisfy demand, then prices would be stable. If we had more supply than demand prices would drop.
Prices wouldnt be stable, they would go up roughly in line with inflation. And, yes, they would be whats called pent up demand, ie demand which is unable to be satisfied by the market, which is what those tenants would then be, assuming at some point they still want to buy a property.
So you're wrong on all accounts.
Am I so wrong about supply and demand? Which one of these scenarios would cause a price drop?
1. Make BTL illegal and force all those properties onto the open market.....or
2. For every BTL build a new house and put that on the market.
98elise said:
Inflationary pressure is being pendantic, all things being equal its meaningless.
Am I so wrong about supply and demand? Which one of these scenarios would cause a price drop?
1. Make BTL illegal and force all those properties onto the open market.....or
2. For every BTL build a new house and put that on the market.
Both. Am I so wrong about supply and demand? Which one of these scenarios would cause a price drop?
1. Make BTL illegal and force all those properties onto the open market.....or
2. For every BTL build a new house and put that on the market.
98elise said:
Inflationary pressure is being pendantic, all things being equal its meaningless.
Am I so wrong about supply and demand? Which one of these scenarios would cause a price drop?
1. Make BTL illegal and force all those properties onto the open market.....or
2. For every BTL build a new house and put that on the market.
There is a need for rental properties, but in this country people are obsessed with buying houses. Some people are buying houses that other people would like to buy to live in, but these people want to rent them out to the people that really want to buy them. Am I so wrong about supply and demand? Which one of these scenarios would cause a price drop?
1. Make BTL illegal and force all those properties onto the open market.....or
2. For every BTL build a new house and put that on the market.
I am rather surprised that you cannot see how taking houses out of the pool available to buy doesn't push the price up.
It seems the BTL'ers are getting it from all angles. Picked up a copy of The Independent this morning in a cafe, there was an article about house prices in the Welsh Valleys. Apparently there's 10 houses to each buyer and prices are from as little as 5k for a terraced house. I have followed the market in the area on and off and in reality house prices start from about 20k for something you can live in. Now somehow the article managed to be anti Btl, investors were being blamed for pushing up prices, yet in the same article it showed evidence of houses selling for 5k. Madness.
The only conclusion I could come to, is that people either can not get a mortgage, for whatever reason that may be. Or they simply don't want one. Now in either case, there seems to be an actual need for property investors. Or what the hell would these people do??
The only conclusion I could come to, is that people either can not get a mortgage, for whatever reason that may be. Or they simply don't want one. Now in either case, there seems to be an actual need for property investors. Or what the hell would these people do??
rufusgti said:
The only conclusion I could come to, is that people either can not get a mortgage, for whatever reason that may be. Or they simply don't want one. Now in either case, there seems to be an actual need for property investors. Or what the hell would these people do??
What I take away from this is that people are having to move to work, and perhaps work is becoming more centralised, so some areas are being marginalised. All very well saying you can buy a livable house for 20k in parts of Wales, but how many people can commute from there to work. Very very few. Anywhere near areas of high employment you can forget any house under 100k. Anyway, why is this even being discussed still? The irrefutable facts have been presented;
The wages/price ratio has not been higher in many decades.
The amount of deposit required has gone up since the recession for most people (granted there are, some, 95% mortgages)
Rents are considerably higher than they were, making it harder to save for the deposit.
The number of under 30's living at home is higher than it used to be.
Which of these can you argue with?
Part of the reason for this is fewer people owning more houses, rather than more people owning fewer houses each.
Condi said:
What I take away from this is that people are having to move to work, and perhaps work is becoming more centralised, so some areas are being marginalised. All very well saying you can buy a livable house for 20k in parts of Wales, but how many people can commute from there to work. Very very few. Anywhere near areas of high employment you can forget any house under 100k.
Anyway, why is this even being discussed still? The irrefutable facts have been presented;
The wages/price ratio has not been higher in many decades.
The amount of deposit required has gone up since the recession for most people (granted there are, some, 95% mortgages)
Rents are considerably higher than they were, making it harder to save for the deposit.
The number of under 30's living at home is higher than it used to be.
Which of these can you argue with?
Part of the reason for this is fewer people owning more houses, rather than more people owning fewer houses each.
Or as I see it ;Anyway, why is this even being discussed still? The irrefutable facts have been presented;
The wages/price ratio has not been higher in many decades.
The amount of deposit required has gone up since the recession for most people (granted there are, some, 95% mortgages)
Rents are considerably higher than they were, making it harder to save for the deposit.
The number of under 30's living at home is higher than it used to be.
Which of these can you argue with?
Part of the reason for this is fewer people owning more houses, rather than more people owning fewer houses each.
post financial crash mortgage rules have inevitably been tightened , in some cases illogically, and thus more folk struggle to meet the new more stringent criteria.
These folk then either rent or don't leave home
Meanwhile many people seem to struggle with idea of saving for a deposit by foregoing holidays new cars or the other fripperies of 20 something life.
Finally for many good reason social housing provision is a much smaller proportion of the housing market and the slack is being taken up by multitudes of b2 l investors looking for a realistic return on their cash in a world of QE.
2.5pi said:
Or as I see it ;
post financial crash mortgage rules have inevitably been tightened , in some cases illogically, and thus more folk struggle to meet the new more stringent criteria.
These folk then either rent or don't leave home
Meanwhile many people seem to struggle with idea of saving for a deposit by foregoing holidays new cars or the other fripperies of 20 something life.
Finally for many good reason social housing provision is a much smaller proportion of the housing market and the slack is being taken up by multitudes of b2 l investors looking for a realistic return on their cash in a world of QE.
Fine, but I would argue that very little of the BTL investors properties are filled with social housing tenants. The majority are working people who simply cannot afford the deposit, and in many cases are paying more in rent than they otherwise would be with a mortgage. post financial crash mortgage rules have inevitably been tightened , in some cases illogically, and thus more folk struggle to meet the new more stringent criteria.
These folk then either rent or don't leave home
Meanwhile many people seem to struggle with idea of saving for a deposit by foregoing holidays new cars or the other fripperies of 20 something life.
Finally for many good reason social housing provision is a much smaller proportion of the housing market and the slack is being taken up by multitudes of b2 l investors looking for a realistic return on their cash in a world of QE.
Now, dont get me wrong, if I had spare money to invest a BTL would seem a sensible option, I dont doubt anyone's motives for doing so, but that doesnt make it socially or morally beneficial.
Condi said:
rufusgti said:
The only conclusion I could come to, is that people either can not get a mortgage, for whatever reason that may be. Or they simply don't want one. Now in either case, there seems to be an actual need for property investors. Or what the hell would these people do??
What I take away from this is that people are having to move to work, and perhaps work is becoming more centralised, so some areas are being marginalised. All very well saying you can buy a livable house for 20k in parts of Wales, but how many people can commute from there to work. Very very few. Anywhere near areas of high employment you can forget any house under 100k. Even in Cardiff there's areas where houses sell under 100k.
Like I said earlier in the thread. There's affordable housing in the uk, but not for first time buyers who want a Victorian house in London.
Condi said:
Fine, but I would argue that very little of the BTL investors properties are filled with social housing tenants. The majority are working people who simply cannot afford the deposit, and in many cases are paying more in rent than they otherwise would be with a mortgage.
Now, dont get me wrong, if I had spare money to invest a BTL would seem a sensible option, I dont doubt anyone's motives for doing so, but that doesnt make it socially or morally beneficial.
Where I'm renting out homes oop North all my tenants would in the past have been housed in council houses. I know I'm a way better landlord than LA who take forever to sort out any problems and seem to piss money away in ever more bizarre one size fits all " initiatives" whilst not sorting the biggest problem all their tenants experience , that of anti social behaviour by scrotes who make others lives a misery.Now, dont get me wrong, if I had spare money to invest a BTL would seem a sensible option, I dont doubt anyone's motives for doing so, but that doesnt make it socially or morally beneficial.
That is why many HB tenants actively prefer to live in a mixed residential area where landlords take action to evict problem tenants to ensure that their asset is protected.
2.5pi said:
Where I'm renting out homes oop North all my tenants would in the past have been housed in council houses. I know I'm a way better landlord than LA who take forever to sort out any problems and seem to piss money away in ever more bizarre one size fits all " initiatives" whilst not sorting the biggest problem all their tenants experience , that of anti social behaviour by scrotes who make others lives a misery.
That is why many HB tenants actively prefer to live in a mixed residential area where landlords take action to evict problem tenants to ensure that their asset is protected.
You're similar to me. A lot of my tenants would have been in council houses 20 years ago. The problem is today is that there are not enough council houses as when the councils started selling them off they never replaced them. So now the council properties are given out sparingly based on needs. That is why many HB tenants actively prefer to live in a mixed residential area where landlords take action to evict problem tenants to ensure that their asset is protected.
I mentioned earlier a lot of my tenants would not be in a position to get a mortgage - most of them would not be eligible for a council house either under current rules. I have a 51 year old labourer as a tenant - he wouldn't get a mortgage under current lending rules, nor would he want one. Realistically, he has very little chance of getting a council flat as he's a single bloke earning a wage so he isn't a priority to the council. I provide a good standard of home for him to live in at a price (a) he can afford and (b) I'm happy with.
So am I exploiting my tenant, exploiting the system, or providing a service where I and the tenant are both happy?
FYI - The property he lives in was up for sale with a high street estate agent. It needed some modernising as it was a mid 1980s flat with a 1980s kitchen and bathroom, but nothing to worry any mortgage lender. It was available for anyone to buy - be that an investor or a first time buyer. When I went to view it, there were 2 other young couples looking round. Neither were interested as it was "dead old fashioned". I put in a cheeky offer and got it. A lot of first time buyers want the moon on a stick these days and aren't prepared to compromise on what it is they "have to have right now".
northwest monkey said:
You're similar to me. A lot of my tenants would have been in council houses 20 years ago. The problem is today is that there are not enough council houses as when the councils started selling them off they never replaced them. So now the council properties are given out sparingly based on needs.
I mentioned earlier a lot of my tenants would not be in a position to get a mortgage - most of them would not be eligible for a council house either under current rules. I have a 51 year old labourer as a tenant - he wouldn't get a mortgage under current lending rules, nor would he want one. Realistically, he has very little chance of getting a council flat as he's a single bloke earning a wage so he isn't a priority to the council. I provide a good standard of home for him to live in at a price (a) he can afford and (b) I'm happy with.
So am I exploiting my tenant, exploiting the system, or providing a service where I and the tenant are both happy?
FYI - The property he lives in was up for sale with a high street estate agent. It needed some modernising as it was a mid 1980s flat with a 1980s kitchen and bathroom, but nothing to worry any mortgage lender. It was available for anyone to buy - be that an investor or a first time buyer. When I went to view it, there were 2 other young couples looking round. Neither were interested as it was "dead old fashioned". I put in a cheeky offer and got it. A lot of first time buyers want the moon on a stick these days and aren't prepared to compromise on what it is they "have to have right now".
I agree with the moon on a stick problem... But it's not all 1st time buyers: we bought our ex council house which had the original bathroom and no proper kitchen. We've completely refurbished the place. Quite a lot of our friends wouldn't consider doing that. I don't really understand FTBs who don't consider it - but I guess they are looking for a home not a project.I mentioned earlier a lot of my tenants would not be in a position to get a mortgage - most of them would not be eligible for a council house either under current rules. I have a 51 year old labourer as a tenant - he wouldn't get a mortgage under current lending rules, nor would he want one. Realistically, he has very little chance of getting a council flat as he's a single bloke earning a wage so he isn't a priority to the council. I provide a good standard of home for him to live in at a price (a) he can afford and (b) I'm happy with.
So am I exploiting my tenant, exploiting the system, or providing a service where I and the tenant are both happy?
FYI - The property he lives in was up for sale with a high street estate agent. It needed some modernising as it was a mid 1980s flat with a 1980s kitchen and bathroom, but nothing to worry any mortgage lender. It was available for anyone to buy - be that an investor or a first time buyer. When I went to view it, there were 2 other young couples looking round. Neither were interested as it was "dead old fashioned". I put in a cheeky offer and got it. A lot of first time buyers want the moon on a stick these days and aren't prepared to compromise on what it is they "have to have right now".
northwest monkey said:
2.5pi said:
Where I'm renting out homes oop North all my tenants would in the past have been housed in council houses. I know I'm a way better landlord than LA who take forever to sort out any problems and seem to piss money away in ever more bizarre one size fits all " initiatives" whilst not sorting the biggest problem all their tenants experience , that of anti social behaviour by scrotes who make others lives a misery.
That is why many HB tenants actively prefer to live in a mixed residential area where landlords take action to evict problem tenants to ensure that their asset is protected.
FYI - The property he lives in was up for sale with a high street estate agent. It needed some modernising as it was a mid 1980s flat with a 1980s kitchen and bathroom, but nothing to worry any mortgage lender. It was available for anyone to buy - be that an investor or a first time buyer. When I went to view it, there were 2 other young couples looking round. Neither were interested as it was "dead old fashioned". I put in a cheeky offer and got it. A lot of first time buyers want the moon on a stick these days and aren't prepared to compromise on what it is they "have to have right now".That is why many HB tenants actively prefer to live in a mixed residential area where landlords take action to evict problem tenants to ensure that their asset is protected.
About 6 months ago we had it valued by a few agents who all came in at £195-200k. We put it on at £185k for a quick sale and didn't get a sniff. All the locals would rather pay an extra £15-45k to get a brand new house in Hampton and apparently London-based FTB/STBs don't want to buy in Peterborough because 'it isn't aspirational'
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff