Buying a house (and renting)

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

The trouble is that so many people see houses as profit rather than homes. The obsession with house prices going up coupled with the greed of raking in money by renting property out leads to this shitty situation.

It'll never happen, but there should be a ban on making any profit from housing rent. Let councils and not for profit organisations provide for those that are unable or don't want to buy. People should be allowed to rent out their homes (if they're travelling or long term working away for instance) but they can only charge rent to cover their costs.

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

My own four point, not very detailed plan on all this:

I think it should be ok ultimately to own two homes as it's relatively easy to inherit a house, although I get that inheritance has its own issues.

Once I seize control I think it'd be good to see:

- Limits on ownership to two properties (maybe limits within a household too to prevent people from just putting property in their spouse or children's names - although this would come with its own headaches)
- The property you don't reside in having more prohibitive empty-house taxation than there currently is
- Rent control on the property you rent out (say, what you bring in via rent shouldn't turn a profit)
- Ability to sell excess property to a national stock at a higher than market rate

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

Having somewhere to live is a basic human right and suitable accomodation should be able to be provided to everyone without the need for some fatcat landlord to sit there hoovering up profit.

Jenuall wrote:Having somewhere to live is a basic human right and suitable accomodation should be able to be provided to everyone without the need for some fatcat landlord to sit there hoovering up profit.

As I put in my post I think there should be a mass expansion of government housing and the government should look to build/own enough supply to limit real terms house price growth.

If someone wants to rent a non-council home from a private landlord despite that for whatever reason I'm not sure I buy that shouldn't be possible.

Ecno wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

Welcome to my New World Order .

Just wait until you hear what I've got in store for the so-called 'free market' .

Ecno wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

There's nothing in our rules to stop that.

They just wouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

There's nothing in our rules to stop that.

They just wouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

Why would you do that if you couldn't make a profit. If some company identifies that there's a surplus of people wanting to rent accommodation with 60s style conversation pits and for whatever reason no Housing Association wants to fulfil this need. Why can't they make a profit?

Ecno wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

There's nothing in our rules to stop that.

They just wouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

Why would you do that if you couldn't make a profit. If some company identifies that there's a surplus of people wanting to rent accommodation with 60s style conversation pits and for whatever reason no Housing Association wants to fulfil this need. Why can't they make a profit?

If there's no housing association but there is a need for homes, then the council can do it.

Why would we allow people to make profits from other people's desperate need for a roof over their heads?

We are in the current situation because people have put profit (whether from selling houses or renting them out) over the actual needs of people. It needs to stop.

Qikz wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It'll come as no shock to anyone that my parents gave me my deposit, though it was only £8k as I bought via Help to Buy and the house itself was just shy of £150,000.

After 5 years I remortgaged to pay off the £20k Help to Buy loan but that was all based from my own salary.

150k for a house, where do you live out of interest? I live in a 1 bed flat and it cost me 275k, I couldn't get a mortgage near high enough so I had to settle for buying 40% and paying rent on the other 60 :/

The North East. Redcar specifically.

150k got me a 3 bedroom 3 storey semi-detached townhouse with private driveway, garage and a massive back garden.

£275k around here will get you a large 4 or 5 bedroom detached house in one of the nicer areas. Hell, you can get a 4 bedroom 3 storey semi-detached townhouse for around £175k in Redcar at the moment.
Think my parents 5 bedroom house with double garage is valued at somewhere around £300-330k

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

There's nothing in our rules to stop that.

They just wouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

Why would you do that if you couldn't make a profit. If some company identifies that there's a surplus of people wanting to rent accommodation with 60s style conversation pits and for whatever reason no Housing Association wants to fulfil this need. Why can't they make a profit?

If there's no housing association but there is a need for homes, then the council can do it.

Why would we allow people to make profits from other people's desperate need for a roof over their heads?

We are in the current situation because people have put profit (whether from selling houses or renting them out) over the actual needs of people. It needs to stop.

And if government housebuilding was adequate it wouldn't be a problem

My scenario is addressing people's wants not needs.

Ecno wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

There's nothing in our rules to stop that.

They just wouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

Why would you do that if you couldn't make a profit. If some company identifies that there's a surplus of people wanting to rent accommodation with 60s style conversation pits and for whatever reason no Housing Association wants to fulfil this need. Why can't they make a profit?

If there's no housing association but there is a need for homes, then the council can do it.

Why would we allow people to make profits from other people's desperate need for a roof over their heads?

We are in the current situation because people have put profit (whether from selling houses or renting them out) over the actual needs of people. It needs to stop.

And if government housebuilding was adequate it wouldn't be a problem

My scenario is addressing people's wants not needs.

Well yeah, my scenario involves councils building houses.

Which addresses people's wants AND needs.

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Ecno wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Ecno wrote:There's nothing instinctively wrong with people/companies owning homes and renting them out. Not everybody wants to buy at every specific moment/may want to rent at that time outside of affordability issues.

Do you mean inherently? If not I'm unsure what you're saying but fairly confident I disagree.

I understand not everyone wants to buy, but as Moggy suggests, rental properties should be provided by organisations not seeking to make a profit. Enhanced tenancy protection should also be part of this great revolution.

I think it's fairly authoritarian to say that if someone wants to build a block of houses and someone else wants to rent them, they're not allowed to.

There's nothing in our rules to stop that.

They just wouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

Why would you do that if you couldn't make a profit. If some company identifies that there's a surplus of people wanting to rent accommodation with 60s style conversation pits and for whatever reason no Housing Association wants to fulfil this need. Why can't they make a profit?

If there's no housing association but there is a need for homes, then the council can do it.

Why would we allow people to make profits from other people's desperate need for a roof over their heads?

We are in the current situation because people have put profit (whether from selling houses or renting them out) over the actual needs of people. It needs to stop.

And if government housebuilding was adequate it wouldn't be a problem

My scenario is addressing people's wants not needs.

Well yeah, my scenario involves councils building houses.

Which addresses people's wants AND needs.

How many houses will the council build with conversation pits?

I mean I think everyone is on the same page about any reasonable case scenario over the next 30 years, that it needs to be government policy to build more council home.

What people want is affordable homes. Not paying rent to private landlords.

The rental market should be controlled and regulated by the government in every aspect. All designated rental properties owned by the government. Rent paid directly to the government. No commercial entity, private individual or couple allowed to own more than two domestic properties. Once this legislation is passed, owners of second, third, fourth, fifth properties and so on would have 24 months to sell their excess properties to the government at market rate. Renters have the right at any point to buy the property they have been renting at the going market rate, with their total rent paid since living there deducted off the total sale price.

Ecno wrote:How many houses will the council build with conversation pits?

God knows, but I am not sure these are deal breakers for most people.

Drumstick wrote:What people want is affordable homes. Not paying rent to private landlords.

The rental market should be controlled and regulated by the government in every aspect. All designated rental properties owned by the government. Rent paid directly to the government. No commercial entity, private individual or couple allowed to own more than two domestic properties. Once this legislation is passed, owners of second, third, fourth, fifth properties and so on would have 24 months to sell their excess properties to the government at market rate. Renters have the right at any point to buy the property they have been renting at the going market rate, with their total rent paid since living there deducted off the total sale price.

That's a pretty good idea.

The only problem with all this - government buying millions of properties and councils buildings millions of homes - is the cost. Who's going to foot the bill? Can the government afford it?

pjbetman wrote:

Drumstick wrote:What people want is affordable homes. Not paying rent to private landlords.

The rental market should be controlled and regulated by the government in every aspect. All designated rental properties owned by the government. Rent paid directly to the government. No commercial entity, private individual or couple allowed to own more than two domestic properties. Once this legislation is passed, owners of second, third, fourth, fifth properties and so on would have 24 months to sell their excess properties to the government at market rate. Renters have the right at any point to buy the property they have been renting at the going market rate, with their total rent paid since living there deducted off the total sale price.

That's a pretty good idea.

The only problem with all this - government buying millions of properties and councils buildings millions of homes - is the cost. Who's going to foot the bill? Can the government afford it?

Money printer go brr.

When has the government not been able to source money for, well, anything?

Oh and it can also put contracts out to tender for designated new build sites. Your big housebuilders like Persimmon will gladly pay them hundreds of millions.

Drumstick wrote:When has the government not been able to source money for, well, anything?

Oh and it can also put contracts out to tender for designated new build sites. Your big housebuilders like Persimmon will gladly pay them hundreds of millions.

I was hinting that the tax payer will be paying for it all. Particularly council tax.