andyofborg Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Then there are the well paid working people who rent council houses when they could afford private but prefer to save money and occupy a council house what the poorly paid really need but can't have. at what point did council houses become the place where only the poor lived? it was certainly never the case in the "good old days". And it does not help when the LA pays out £495 a month for a 3 bed in any area of Sheffield. They are part responsible for keeping rents high. You can get £495 for a 3 bed in Page Hall when its only worth £375. More fool the LA for getting rid of local rent officers. If Page Hall is getting £495 for a run down terrace then you will be expected to pay more for a better area. there is currently a shortage of housing which has pushed rents up, housing benefit has to keep up with that or a large chunk of the population will end up homeless which costs councils even more. a return to the rent controls of the 60s-80s might help. however, a large number of rental properties are secured against large mortgages and a controlled rent might not cover the mortgage and other costs which one way or another leads to the property being repossessed which leaves the tennant out on the street. ultimately, this is a result of an unsustainable property boom and no amount of fiddling at the edges will resolve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Imagine how much better things would be if all the money that was invested in buy to let had been invested in build to let. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Well glad to see no one really explored the bigger picture, and the ,oral crew sang up, as well as the envious chirping along. W So he was a landlord, exploiting the rental system, which I cannot say is right or wrong, but hold on a moment, always ask the Question .....WHO BENEFITS. Well who set up the scam in the beginning, who held the purse string, which decided the rate of rental return, that needed a sucker to front and work the business, who was keen to get ahead. Who was the mutt who would work their socks off for the hope of more wealth, the dream of economic freedom, while all the time paying for the debt/loan. So this landlord in effect works for free for the banks organising money collection so the banks can get their cut. The more that suckers work to pay loans, the bigger the bonuses at the end of the year for the financial sector, who do bugger all, create bugger all, allowing the chosen generals to do all the work for them. Such is the role of the lazy money lenders. So maybe he was suckered into loans and more loans, as that is the only way to get ahead, when you start from very little. Its a game in which which ever way the loan goes the banks win, and how they will win. The game is to flog everything in auction for a fraction of what it is worth, ans who but other keen investors will get it for pennies in the pound, and as for his house, should go to a needy banker for around a million at best. So next time so many smell a bit of blood, as the money lenders hint at the feast to come, remember who was actually pulling the strings, and just lending money, taking fees, and then demanding it back, while some moron in effect has been working for the banks all along, but under the illusion they were working for themselves. Beware of the money lenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstar999 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 MrSmith is spot on with his comments. So obvious and if people can't see this ....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2085486/As-family-led-life-privilege-face-5m-debt-said-upper-crust-recession-proof.html#ixzz1jGeAujbd This parasite who lived off of the rents extracted from the good people of Barnsley and other parts of Yorkshire is facing bankruptcy. This lazy scrounger expected commoners to buy him 84 houses and keep him in luxury. Let's hope he is bankrupted and learns a valuable lesson in life. These rent seekers must be financially obliterated if our country is to prosper. They add nothing to society, they just take take take and force people into poverty in order for them to live beyond their means. We should also change the law and ban 'buy to let', these parasites do not function alone! i bet he runs a limited company....and gets off scott free.....as for buying to rent...the country is full of it....because the councils sold of all the houses and pocketed the money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 MrSmith is spot on with his comments. So obvious and if people can't see this ....? I think I've agreed with Smith on previous occasions samstar. But in this case, his logic is flawed. He is agreeing with the OP and arguing with the scenario of there being no private landlords, and there is no argument at all for it. It's impossible (unless you exclude mass homelessness) - it assumes that anyone (who isn't already housed in social housing) could afford to be a first-time buyer, which isn't plausible; and even in the past, with low house prices, it has never been the case. (and if it was, then all the social housing stock would have already been bought up by now, by anyone with more than 5 years stay - and this isn't the case either). Shown here... Without private landlords there would be the same amount of houses and they would be more affordable for first time buyers. The word 'more' here blows your entire argument. For the OP's idea to work, there would have to be houses that are affordable to EVERYONE (who aren't already housed in social housing). Hence my earlier comment to chemist about his housing of me. I like your en-suite chemist, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I think I've agreed with Smith on previous occasions samstar. But in this case, his logic is flawed. He is agreeing with the OP and arguing with the scenario of there being no private landlords, and there is no argument at all for it. It's impossible (unless you exclude mass homelessness) - it assumes that anyone (who isn't already housed in social housing) could afford to be a first-time buyer, which isn't plausible; and even in the past, with low house prices, it has never been the case. (and if it was, then all the social housing stock would have already been bought up by now, by anyone with more than 5 years stay - and this isn't the case either). Shown here... The word 'more' here blows your entire argument. For the OP's idea to work, there would have to be houses that are affordable to EVERYONE (who aren't already housed in social housing). Hence my earlier comment to chemist about his housing of me. I like your en-suite chemist, by the way. If you read again I haven't said there should be no private landlords, what I said is private landlords should built to let and not buy the houses that historically are the houses first time buyers can afford. Because buy to let people have better access to money they affectively forced potential first time buyers out of the market and forced up house prices, there is nothing wrong with housing associations for providing affordable rental properties. How many people do you know that are paying £100 a week for a house that was only worth £20,000 - £30,000 before the property bubble, many of these people would love to buy a house but find themselves having no choice but to rent. It wasn’t only the fault of the buy to let landlords they just took advantage rightly or wrongly of a policy that allowed it to happen. Many of the first time buyer houses in my area rose from £20,000 to £90,000 in just 5 years and it definitely doesn’t cost much more to build a house now than it did before the bubble. The potential first time buyers are now having to pay twice as much in rent than they would have paid in mortgage payments before the bubble. Many are now affectively trapped into a situation in which they can’t get home security, I know one young couple that have been forced by their private landlords to move three times in just two years. If we must have a private landlord sector then tenants need some kind of secure tenancy so they can make an home and not just a temporary home in which they could have to move every 6 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 i bet he runs a limited company....and gets off scott free.....as for buying to rent...the country is full of it....because the councils sold of all the houses and pocketed the money... from the article it appears that his sole source of income is the rent from his properties so whether he operates through a limited company is a bit immaterial and the article also states that him and his family are likely to lose their home, so he won't escape scott free. the government of the day forced the councils to sell off all the houses and placed strict limitations on what they could do with it. the sellling off of council houses didn't drive the buy to let boom, that was driven by cheap credit and poor returns from traditional investments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Because buy to let people have better access to money they affectively forced potential first time buyers out of the market and forced up house prices I'm not sure that they do have better access, and even if they do now it is only a recent development. Historically, it was always very difficult to get loans for this sort of investment. The big driver in house price rises was cheap credit and a shortage of housing not buy to let. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2085486/As-family-led-life-privilege-face-5m-debt-said-upper-crust-recession-proof.html#ixzz1jGeAujbd This parasite who lived off of the rents extracted from the good people of Barnsley and other parts of Yorkshire is facing bankruptcy. This lazy scrounger expected commoners to buy him 84 houses and keep him in luxury. Let's hope he is bankrupted and learns a valuable lesson in life. These rent seekers must be financially obliterated if our country is to prosper. They add nothing to society, they just take take take and force people into poverty in order for them to live beyond their means. We should also change the law and ban 'buy to let', these parasites do not function alone! I hope they manage to repay their debts and keep their homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.