Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

[Richard10002]

6 hours ago, Athy said:

You've raised a good point. My paternal grandfather, who was a builder, built three houses on the outskirts of Chesterfield just before the war (my Dad laboured for him during his vacation from University, I remember him telling me), and instead of selling them, he put tenants in them. When he retired they gave him a regular income for the rest of his life.

 

I'm not sure if builders still do this.

Sounds a bit like buy to let to me. He builds the houses with money he has saved, rents them to tenants, and sits on his fat backside collecting the income.

 

The fact is that there has always been a buy to let market, it just hasn’t been called that. Furthermore, it is the market that reacts to the demand from tenants, and not the other way round. Landlords don’t dictate rents, tenants do. If rents are too high, tenants don’t take the tenancy.

 

Some might think it’s “evil”, but without landlords, where would people who want to rent properties live. In fact, if there was more property available to rent, rents would fall. So those who complain that rents are too high should actually be clamouring for many more buy to let properties to become available. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, Richard10002 said:

Sounds a bit like buy to let to me. He builds the houses with money he has saved, rents them to tenants, and sits on his fat backside collecting the income.

 

The fact is that there has always been a buy to let market, it just hasn’t been called that. Furthermore, it is the market that reacts to the demand from tenants, and not the other way round. Landlords don’t dictate rents, tenants do. If rents are too high, tenants don’t take the tenancy.

 

Some might think it’s “evil”, but without landlords, where would people who want to rent properties live. In fact, if there was more property available to rent, rents would fall. So those who complain that rents are too high should actually be clamouring for many more buy to let properties to become available. 

Except that is not how a lot of today's Buy to Lets work. People who are already wealthy take out a Buy to Let mortgage (thereby displacing someone who was hoping to buy to live there, because they can bid higher for the property, as explained above) and then make the tenant pay their mortgage for them. The BtL process pushes up the general house prices and in a few years they can sell at considerable profit (they hope), bring on the house price crash!

[Richard10002]

5 hours ago, Neil2 said:

 

Yes, it's a bit like those who whinge about our generation and "free" further education, forgetting that we paid 35% income tax back then, I well remember my first pay packet by the time all the deductions had been taken off it was about half what I actually earned.  

 

For many many people of our generation buying your first house was bloody hard and entailed a lot of sacrifices in terms of material wealth.  And there was no end in sight to high interest rates.   I remember being genuinely scared when they went up to 15%.  And sorry WV but they did.

I recall rates at that level, and telling my bank manager that I would fix my rate with him when it fell to 11%, which it did, So I did. I can’t remember the exact year, but it was definitely in the 1990’s.

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What you are actually finding is that people are being forced to accept renting is normal since they now have no other choice. By removing the choice it liberates landlords to charge maximum for their properties. When you talk of 60 years ago, people renting then were doing so for decades (anecdotal, referencing several in my immediate family) whereas these days, as an example, my daughter has been moved on numerous times by landlords, despite dependable payment of rent, taking due care of the property and generally being a good tenant. The landlords either wanted to sell, upgrade the property and increase the rent or 'allegedly' move back in themselves. To be honest, anyone with children these days renting a property by choice is a brainless idiot who wants to put their children through the trauma of repeatedly moving house.

Not the experience my daughters relate from friends in Sheffield and Edinburgh (and what I see of their friends when visiting).  However both of them are in owned property.

 

To a certain extent your first sentence covers the point I am making at one time people accepted renting as the knew they couldn't afford to buy.   Now those who can't afford to buy don't accept they have no choice and moan.  Why didn't people 60 years ago who equally had no choice not spend their lives moaning.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

6 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I recall rates at that level, and telling my bank manager that I would fix my rate with him when it fell to 11%, which it did, So I did. I can’t remember the exact year, but it was definitely in the 1990’s.

The bank manager was clearly robbing you blind then if you think it was in the 1990's. The highest interest rate during that period was 14.875% in October 1989 ( https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/Repo.asp  )after that interest rates began to fall. if you were paying 15% in the 1990's you were being 'seen off'.

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Not the experience my daughters relate from friends in Sheffield and Edinburgh (and what I see of their friends when visiting).  However both of them are in owned property.

 

To a certain extent your first sentence covers the point I am making at one time people accepted renting as the knew they couldn't afford to buy.   Now those who can't afford to buy don't accept they have no choice and moan.  Why didn't people 60 years ago who equally had no choice not spend their lives moaning.

Because they weren't being shifted out of their houses every two years. OH's parents rented for about 20 years before the builder sold the property to them, oddly enough, not at half the market value either.

[Richard10002]

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Except that is not how a lot of today's Buy to Lets work. People who are already wealthy take out a Buy to Let mortgage (thereby displacing someone who was hoping to buy to live there, because they can bid higher for the property, as explained above) and then make the tenant pay their mortgage for them. The BtL process pushes up the general house prices and in a few years they can sell at considerable profit (they hope), bring on the house price crash!

I have been selling property for a living for over 30 years, on the edge of Manchester City Centre, and I have never experienced the scenario that you describe where landlords deliberately pay more for a property than an owner occupier will, just because they can.

 

in fact, my specific experience over at least the past 5 years is that we sell most houses to owner occupiers, because the prices they are willing to pay far far exceeds the price at which a landlord can make their desired return.

 

What I have found, over the years, is that landlords tend to buy more, and pay more, than owner occupiers, during recession, knowing that prices are depressed because owner occupiers dont have the confidence to buy. That’s not the landlords fault - at least I don’t think so.

 

Landlords pay a price at which they can get their desired return.... no more and no less. 

 

Tenants have been paying landlords mortgages and incomes since time began. I’m not sure why it has become something that is wrong over the past few decades.

 

Somebody quoted the “average price” of a terrace in Stockport as £162k. This actually means that there are plenty of terraces asking less than the average... and there will be plenty of 1 and 2 bedroomed flats for way less than £162k as well.

 

A couple earning average wage in Stockport should have no difficulty buying their own home, thus depriving an evil landlord of their rent to pay his mortgage.

 

 

[Richard10002]

14 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The bank manager was clearly robbing you blind then if you think it was in the 1990's. The highest interest rate during that period was 14.875% in October 1989 ( https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/Repo.asp  )after that interest rates began to fall. if you were paying 15% in the 1990's you were being 'seen off'.

Is that the base rate, or Nat West Mortgage rates? I wasn’t being robbed blind... I was, and still am, in the business, so I borrowed at competitive rates at the time. I may be out with my dates, and it could have been late ‘80’s..... it was 30 years ago

[nbfiresprite]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Can somebody explain what is wrong with renting a house.  When I was young it was the norm and nobody bothered.

The average Two bed house in Poole will cost about £900 month £10.800 per year that sort of money would be better spent paying off a mortgage. My daughter fortunately had a trust fund from her grandparents to cover the deposit. The monthy payment is still less than renting. 

[Wanted]

Only when folk realise that the neoliberalist wet dream will devour everything in it's path, that individuals capitalising on the basic needs of others is wrong and that profit above humanity is in direct contradiction to natural evolution will we begin to live in a society that we can all enjoy. 

 

The arrogance of those who believe we as a human race achieved all that we have in our time by working in competition with each other is staggering. We are sold the myth that our aspirations end at homeownership, however, a 3rd of our MP's are buy to let landlords literally blocking the so-called aspiration that their backwards political theology preaches. 

 

I'd like to think that we are closer to a revolution than we have ever been in recent years, a revolution that I hope sees homes are taken and workers rising up. If that all sounds a bit far fetched, ask yourselves how the hell did that clown in America become president, it was a direct result of neoliberalism, the losers in this capitalist game become politically disenfranchised and inevitably get swept up in this populist brand of fascism that has reared its head. 

 

What has that got to do with buy to let? essentially it's a transference of wealth, from poor to rich and as soon as folk can't afford the socks that they are told to continually pull up, they will turn, and as Marx said,  'The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains'

 

 

   

[MtB]

7 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Except that is not how a lot of today's Buy to Lets work. People who are already wealthy take out a Buy to Let mortgage (thereby displacing someone who was hoping to buy to live there, because they can bid higher for the property, as explained above) and then make the tenant pay their mortgage for them. The BtL process pushes up the general house prices and in a few years they can sell at considerable profit (they hope), bring on the house price crash!

 

You really have little idea about how btl works. Or worked back then. Firstly I was not ’wealthy’ I was poor as a church mouse when I bought my first btl, done in desperation at my pension plan going down the tubes. I became wealthy BECAUSE of those shrewd and lucky decisions which seemed such a big risk at the time. 

 

Secondly property values rising are of no consequence to pension btl investers like me as we will not be selling. Ever. Why would I sell? The rent income is what i did it for. The focus is to pay off the mortgage(s) so my kids struggling to buy their own are garanteed a free house when I die. How evil is that?

 

[Gareth E]

6 hours ago, Wanted said:

Only when folk realise that the neoliberalist wet dream will devour everything in it's path, that individuals capitalising on the basic needs of others is wrong and that profit above humanity is in direct contradiction to natural evolution will we begin to live in a society that we can all enjoy. 

 

The arrogance of those who believe we as a human race achieved all that we have in our time by working in competition with each other is staggering. We are sold the myth that our aspirations end at homeownership, however, a 3rd of our MP's are buy to let landlords literally blocking the so-called aspiration that their backwards political theology preaches. 

 

I'd like to think that we are closer to a revolution than we have ever been in recent years, a revolution that I hope sees homes are taken and workers rising up. If that all sounds a bit far fetched, ask yourselves how the hell did that clown in America become president, it was a direct result of neoliberalism, the losers in this capitalist game become politically disenfranchised and inevitably get swept up in this populist brand of fascism that has reared its head. 

 

What has that got to do with buy to let? essentially it's a transference of wealth, from poor to rich and as soon as folk can't afford the socks that they are told to continually pull up, they will turn, and as Marx said,  'The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains'

 

 

   

One of your answers to this great injustice, I understand, is to open all borders. Britain isn't the richest country in the world but it's certainly above average. It operates a socialist 'needs based' welfare system where, for example, if someone has nowhere to live, the government takes it upon itself to find that home, and pay for it. If the homeless person has children all the better for them, they will receive large sums of money each month, in the attempt to ensure that the family will receive a percentage of average income, so the children won't be living in poverty.

 

Most of these benefits, as alluded to earlier, are not based on contributions. Whilst some other western European countries may have welfare systems that are equally, or more generous even, they are mostly based on the notion that you put in, you take out. You cannot simply rock up, demand housing and a level of income that 'allows you and your family to take part in normal society'.

 

Considering the above, it's fair to say that Britain would be a highly desirable choice for many people, particularly families with children, once the borders come down.

 

Care to explain how triggering a massive new demand on housing will be of benefit to the oppressed working classes that you champion? And by the way, are you a fan of Pol Pot's ideology?

Edited August 23, 2018 by Gareth E

[Athy]

13 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You must have found a pretty rubbish Building Society 

Why would you think so? On the contrary, we studied all our options carefully (I remember the piles of brochures from banks and BSs on the table beside our settee) before making our choice, which was a well-known building society whose name I can't remember - I think it became a bank and then closed down a few years later. We continued to study the market, and later took steps to reduce our mortgage payments by taking a couple of fixed-rate schemes and by paying off as much of the loan as we could. I would say that we were informed and prudent.

   Since about 2005, when we managed to pay off the rest of our mortgage, we've had no contact with the mortgage market, so I'm not sure how the market is now - though I would think that, with very low interest rates, mortgages are far more affordable now than they were when we started. 

   Regarding renting, far from being necessarily a second-best option, it does have advantages over ownership. The first is flexibility: it is quicker and easier to move house if you want to. The second is that if something goes wrong, you don't need to fix it yourself, as I am very aware, having just paid for a new shower installation in one of our properties. When we got married, I was living in a tied house which cost me a modest deduction from my salary each month, I'd been there about six years and I would have been perfectly happy to continue living there, but Mrs. Athy told me that I wanted to buy a house.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Athy

[Wanted]

44 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

One of your answers to this great injustice, I understand, is to open all borders. Britain isn't the richest country in the world but it's certainly above average. It operates a socialist 'needs based' welfare system where, for example, if someone has nowhere to live, the government takes it upon itself to find that home, and pay for it. If the homeless person has children all the better for them, they will receive large sums of money each month, in the attempt to ensure that the family will receive a percentage of average income, so the children won't be living in poverty.

 

Most of these benefits, as alluded to earlier, are not based on contributions. Whilst some other western European countries may have welfare systems that are equally, or more generous even, they are mostly based on the notion that you put in, you take out. You cannot simply rock up, demand housing and a level of income that 'allows you and your family to take part in normal society'.

 

Considering the above, it's fair to say that Britain would be a highly desirable choice for many people, particularly families with children, once the borders come down.

 

Care to explain how triggering a massive new demand on housing will be of benefit to the oppressed working classes that you champion? And by the way, are you a fan of Pol Pot's ideology?

Quoting Marx doesn't make me a Marxist or even if I was it doesn't automatically mean I would support Pol Pot's ideology. If you understand anything about a Marxist theory you would know that Marx didn't see Pol Pot's version as his end game and actually looked towards a world that was symbiotic with human nature. But that is academic, I am not a Marxist. 

 

The trouble I have with your theory is that you are still coming at it from a neoliberalist stance. Yes, if we are to live in a society that pits individuals against each other as a positive thing then, of course, nothing will change, however if we radicalised our financial systems in the same way as we managed to do so with our health and social care systems then we would start to see the huge benefits of global migration. Global GDP would rise and people would be in places without persecution. Migrant numbers would stabilise and actually people would begin to return home. let's remember that even now, the UK is far from the no1 destination of those seeking refuge. I genuinely believe that the actual numbers of people who would move are fairly small in comparison to the feeling of how many would move. there are in access of 68 million displaced people already in this world, we grant about 16,000 asylum a year.

 

I concede though that whilst we only count the money as our bottom line then we won't see change.   

 

Incidentally,  I am putting my money where my mouth is and am currently triple bottom line accounting for the community interest company that I manage. For those that are unaware of TBL accounting, it means that when we look at our profits we only consider the finances as one part of the bottom line, the environment and people forming the other two lines. We, as a registered company are prepared to go bust if we do not meet either our financial or ethical targets and consider them to be of equal importance.    

[Victor Vectis]

15 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I’m outraged at your suggestion that there’s something wrong with playing with men. ?

Each to their own Nick but, given a choice, I prefer steam engines.

 

Now here's an idea.

 

When talking about housing why don't we talk about 'homes' rather than 'property'?

Property implies a commodity that can be traded for profit or loss whereas a home is shelter, somewhere to raise children etc.

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Victor Vectis said:

Each to their own Nick but, given a choice, I prefer steam engines.

 

Now here's an idea.

 

When talking about housing why don't we talk about 'homes' rather than 'property'?

Property implies a commodity that can be traded for profit or loss whereas a home is shelter, somewhere to raise children etc.

...and estate agents took up your suggestion long ago; they rarely advertise a "house" for sale, preferring the more emotive word "home", with all the cosiness which that word implies.

   But "property" also has a positive emotional tinge: the security of having something which belongs to you.

[KevMc]

11 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

When I was younger I spent hardly any time in the pub, I have only ever had old, second hand cars that I've learned the mechanical skills to keep on the road. We holidayed in the UK. I mostly wore jeans and T-shirts and rare meal out was in a Wimpy bar (remember them?). I was 23 when I bought my first house which cost just over 3 times my annual salary of £3,000 and you know what? paying for it was relatively easy. Fast forward to today where, allowing for inflation, my 1978 wage of £3000 is now worth £16,300, so what sort of shed are you going to get for £50,000? My first house was a comfortable, modern terraced house in Yate.

All these posts about how it was in the old days .. we had it tough living out of a cardboard box etc have got me thinking.

 

OK it is difficult for people to get a mortgage, and maybe rent is chewing up 50% of many incomes BUT the important thing is, are we happy? 

 

I see many people with a lot less disposable income than I have who make the most of what they have - they enjoy life without expensive holidays, without 50inch plasma TVs , they eat and maybe drink frugally but they see the best in what they can afford. Those that are unhappy are the ones that look at the neighbour's 50inch TV, see them going on holiday and are jealous. 

 

I get home and when I approach the boat it's as if I am stepping out of the rat race into an little waterside idyll - yes, I'd like a million or 3 in the bank but would it make me happier? 

[mrsmelly]

10 hours ago, Jerra said:

Can somebody explain what is wrong with renting a house.  When I was young it was the norm and nobody bothered.

There's nowt wrong with it but the difference today is most kids have zero choice when in the past both buying and renting for many of us was a choice. Go pack only a little bit further to my mums childhood when she lived in poverty and house rental was still more affordable. Her mum paid two Bob a week for a small terrace house in Hull in the 1920s when a labourer wage was two pounds a week so rental was considerably cheaper then than today. I do think young people want all manner of new badge driven crap such as an I phone etc and seem to think they need to stitch themselves up with silly new car leasing for years when today's cars are much more reliable than the bangers we all had to drive and old cars like mine today remain reliable but all that is another matter.

[Gareth E]

1 hour ago, Wanted said:

Quoting Marx doesn't make me a Marxist or even if I was it doesn't automatically mean I would support Pol Pot's ideology. If you understand anything about a Marxist theory you would know that Marx didn't see Pol Pot's version as his end game and actually looked towards a world that was symbiotic with human nature. But that is academic, I am not a Marxist. 

 

The trouble I have with your theory is that you are still coming at it from a neoliberalist stance. Yes, if we are to live in a society that pits individuals against each other as a positive thing then, of course, nothing will change, however if we radicalised our financial systems in the same way as we managed to do so with our health and social care systems then we would start to see the huge benefits of global migration. Global GDP would rise and people would be in places without persecution. Migrant numbers would stabilise and actually people would begin to return home. let's remember that even now, the UK is far from the no1 destination of those seeking refuge. I genuinely believe that the actual numbers of people who would move are fairly small in comparison to the feeling of how many would move. there are in access of 68 million displaced people already in this world, we grant about 16,000 asylum a year.

 

I concede though that whilst we only count the money as our bottom line then we won't see change.   

 

Incidentally,  I am putting my money where my mouth is and am currently triple bottom line accounting for the community interest company that I manage. For those that are unaware of TBL accounting, it means that when we look at our profits we only consider the finances as one part of the bottom line, the environment and people forming the other two lines. We, as a registered company are prepared to go bust if we do not meet either our financial or ethical targets and consider them to be of equal importance.    

When the revolution comes, I wonder if you feel that you and your family are exempt from having your house taken over by the workers?

[Neil2]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Why would you think so? On the contrary, we studied all our options carefully (I remember the piles of brochures from banks and BSs on the table beside our settee) before making our choice, which was a well-known building society whose name I can't remember - I think it became a bank and then closed down a few years later. We continued to study the market, and later took steps to reduce our mortgage payments by taking a couple of fixed-rate schemes and by paying off as much of the loan as we could. I would say that we were informed and prudent.

   Since about 2005, when we managed to pay off the rest of our mortgage, we've had no contact with the mortgage market, so I'm not sure how the market is now - though I would think that, with very low interest rates, mortgages are far more affordable now than they were when we started. 

   Regarding renting, far from being necessarily a second-best option, it does have advantages over ownership. The first is flexibility: it is quicker and easier to move house if you want to. The second is that if something goes wrong, you don't need to fix it yourself, as I am very aware, having just paid for a new shower installation in one of our properties. When we got married, I was living in a tied house which cost me a modest deduction from my salary each month, I'd been there about six years and I would have been perfectly happy to continue living there, but Mrs. Athy told me that I wanted to buy a house.

Yes I think too many folk assume the rise of the private rented sector is a bad thing and automatically equate it with fat cat landlords.  In the rest of Europe and in the States there is a much more balanced view, it's either renting property or renting money and each has it's merits.  The stumbling block in this country is that we have traditionally seen and relied on our home as an investment, and no government has yet had the nerve to deal with this, so buying your own house is seen as a more sensible choice financially (even if it isn't).

 

[Wanted]

2 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

When the revolution comes, I wonder if you feel that you and your family are exempt from having your house taken over by the workers?

We’ll see, i’d Like to think that as me and my family live in a caravan on a yard with no excess room or belongings greater than our needs that we would be down the bottom of the scaffold rather than on it. I run as much on solar as possible and I only ever work for non profit organisations. I’m proud of being working class. 

Given that I live in Liam Fox’s constituency and only a Molotov cocktails throw from Jacob Rees Moggs estate, I am pretty sure that we are safe. 

 

 

 

 

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, Wanted said:

 

Given that I live in Liam Fox’s constituency and only a Molotov cocktails throw from Jacob Rees Moggs estate, I am pretty sure that we are safe. 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't sound as if Foxy and Moggy are!

[Gareth E]

26 minutes ago, Wanted said:

We’ll see, i’d Like to think that as me and my family live in a caravan on a yard with no excess room or belongings greater than our needs that we would be down the bottom of the scaffold rather than on it. I run as much on solar as possible and I only ever work for non profit organisations. I’m proud of being working class. 

Given that I live in Liam Fox’s constituency and only a Molotov cocktails throw from Jacob Rees Moggs estate, I am pretty sure that we are safe. 

 

 

 

 

Well that's fine then. I'm wondering though, whether you'd see a risk to the security of your family as an acceptable risk, in order for the changes you seek to go ahead?

 

That's the problem you see. Although many people talk of support for far left ideologies, some to the point of apparent obsession; their families, friends and loved ones would still come first. This is human nature I guess, a natural instinct that the vast majority adhere to, above everything else. So, the changes you seek would never come about through the ballot box. Instead, they would require, as you stated earlier, a revolution, most likely a violent one. Unfortunately for those seeking this their thinking is that of a very small minority so naturally, counter revolution would follow, with inevitable success.

 

More likely I think is the opposite of what you aspire to. America achieved a revolution of sorts democratically, through the ballot box. It voted to protect its nation, curb globalism and remove some of the 'neo' from neoliberalism. 

[Victor Vectis]

11 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

America achieved a revolution of sorts democratically, through the ballot box. It voted to protect its nation, curb globalism and remove some of the 'neo' from neoliberalism. 

In its (short) history the US of A has always acted in its own interest and bu99er anyone else.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

11 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I have been selling property for a living for over 30 years, on the edge of Manchester City Centre, and I have never experienced the scenario that you describe where landlords deliberately pay more for a property than an owner occupier will, just because they can.

 

in fact, my specific experience over at least the past 5 years is that we sell most houses to owner occupiers, because the prices they are willing to pay far far exceeds the price at which a landlord can make their desired return.

 

What I have found, over the years, is that landlords tend to buy more, and pay more, than owner occupiers, during recession, knowing that prices are depressed because owner occupiers dont have the confidence to buy. That’s not the landlords fault - at least I don’t think so.

 

Landlords pay a price at which they can get their desired return.... no more and no less. 

 

Tenants have been paying landlords mortgages and incomes since time began. I’m not sure why it has become something that is wrong over the past few decades.

 

Somebody quoted the “average price” of a terrace in Stockport as £162k. This actually means that there are plenty of terraces asking less than the average... and there will be plenty of 1 and 2 bedroomed flats for way less than £162k as well.

 

A couple earning average wage in Stockport should have no difficulty buying their own home, thus depriving an evil landlord of their rent to pay his mortgage.

 

 

You make an assertion, and then almost immediately contradict it, how does that work? This 'paying of landlord's mortgages' hasn't gone on since time began. When it was builders who were renting out houses they would buy a plot of land on which they would put the house. This was bought with profits from previous house builds, as I said earlier if we are happy with the status quo, aren't too bothered about poorer people having nowhere to live and don't whine too much about rough sleepers, let's just maintain the current broken system. The house builders are content to keep the market 'lean' and I'm sure landlords wouldn't object to local authorities building council houses which undermine the current rents that they receive

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

You really have little idea about how btl works. Or worked back then. Firstly I was not ’wealthy’ I was poor as a church mouse when I bought my first btl, done in desperation at my pension plan going down the tubes. I became wealthy BECAUSE of those shrewd and lucky decisions which seemed such a big risk at the time. 

 

Secondly property values rising are of no consequence to pension btl investers like me as we will not be selling. Ever. Why would I sell? The rent income is what i did it for. The focus is to pay off the mortgage(s) so my kids struggling to buy their own are garanteed a free house when I die. How evil is that?

 

How many 'poor church mice' have the funds to put down a deposit on a house? or perhaps you are right, I don't understand how BtL works and landlords don't need a deposit.

56 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

Yes I think too many folk assume the rise of the private rented sector is a bad thing and automatically equate it with fat cat landlords.  In the rest of Europe and in the States there is a much more balanced view, it's either renting property or renting money and each has it's merits.  The stumbling block in this country is that we have traditionally seen and relied on our home as an investment, and no government has yet had the nerve to deal with this, so buying your own house is seen as a more sensible choice financially (even if it isn't).

 

This 'traditionally seen' actually started in the early 1970's when house prices first started rocketting and gazumping became a national pastime. Between 1955 and 1969 when my parents paid off their mortgage, the price of their house had barely increased, merely kept pace with inflation. From the 1970's housing became an investment vehicle to make money for those who already had wealth.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

How many 'poor church mice' have the funds to put down a deposit on a house? or perhaps you are right, I don't understand how BtL works and landlords don't need a deposit.

 

You clearly don’t. I did it without putting a penny of new cash into my project, as did thousands of my peers. I’m sure you can figure out how i did it if you think about it properly.