Should there be a ban on buying more than one property

[Calahonda 11]

homes under the hammer glorifys the greed of these leaches

 

Yes, the rotten sods risk their own money to buy and renovate property, rent it out at a fair market price and take the risk of bad tenants, in order to provide for their retirement. Far better to be a well pensioned public sector worker who opts for early enhanced retirement benefits.

 

The mind boggles.

[truman 10]

homes under the hammer glorifys the greed of these leaches

 

What about the ones who buy almost derelict properties and bring them back onto the market? are they "leaches" (sic)

[ENG601PM 10]

if buy to let was stopped the housing market would be flooded with cheaper properties.

 

If buy to let was stopped the streets would be flooded with homeless people.

[arthurseaton 10]

If buy to let was stopped the streets would be flooded with homeless people.

 

That old Chestnut. Buy to let isn't going to be stopped. We're just going back to a rental model pre btl boom like in the 90's where a small minority of working age people rent for a variety of reasons, and the majority buy. The government have a vested interest in returning to this model and are actively pursuing tax legislation to bring it about. Taxes always change behaviour . Property investment is no different. Don't worry about the streets being full of homeless people. A few over leveraged landlords maybe. The rest of us will be just fine.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Why’s that?

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 11:04 ----------

 

[/color

 

 

Because if I won a good amount of brass on the lottery, I might buy an old tumble down terrace of houses, do them all up and rent them out. Or would you prefer for them to remain derelict, and half a dozen families remain homeless. Your choice is -

 

Angel1.

[arthurseaton 10]

Yes, it's the house price inflation- not at all the same thing as RPI or CPI- that's the problem.

But nobody has any real clue how to remedy it by lawful means.

 

I think you'll find the lawful means by which this is being remedied in London and the South East is proving pretty effective. Governments in capitalist societies don't change behaviour by banning things. Far more profitable to tax behaviour out of existence. Buy to let is finished in the south east as it only worked when the investor could count on capital growth as I'm sure you're aware. With falling property prices even the banks pitiful interest rates look a better bet. As for foreign investment, Even Abramavich can't get his Visa so his cronies are going to be feeling a little worried don't you think. All lawful. All popular with the voting public. And all lucrative for the treasury. The government certainly 'has a real clue' I reckon

[Phanerothyme 12]

No. Next question?

[Guest makapaka]

Why’s that?

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 11:04 ----------

 

[/color

 

 

Because if I won a good amount of brass on the lottery, I might buy an old tumble down terrace of houses, do them all up and rent them out. Or would you prefer for them to remain derelict, and half a dozen families remain homeless. Your choice is -

 

Angel1.

 

I don’t have an issue with property development - you could do them

up and sell them.

 

You would have increased the housing stock and sold them at a market rate. Fine by me.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 22:48 ----------

 

What about the ones who buy almost derelict properties and bring them back onto the market? are they "leaches" (sic)

 

Not if they then sell them no.

[Calahonda 11]

 

I don’t have an issue with property development - you could do them

up and sell them.

 

You would have increased the housing stock and sold them at a market rate. Fine by me.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2018 at 22:48 ----------

 

 

Not if they then sell them no.

 

‘Sell them on’, the capitalist swine would then most probably make money, wash your mouth out with carbolic soap.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Calahonda

[realcockney 10]

homes under the hammer glorifys the greed of these leaches

 

Leaches eh? what about the ones that buy derelict properties or ones that are so bad nobody wants them in their current state? they do them up incurring a lot of work and cost/ then they sell them on for a profit ! good heavens whats wrong with that?

[Jeffrey Shaw 92]

Leaches are people like Rosemary and Archibald.

Leeches, however...

[mrcharlie 10]

At the very least, ALL buy-to-let properties should be capped at the same rate as council properties,

 

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 14:41 ----------

 

[/color]

When ever a buyer says we are going to live in it we cheer.

 

LOL, they mean live in it for a year and sell on, thus escaping capital gains tax. Is it still 40%??

Edited May 25, 2018 by mrcharlie