mercsl

Repeat after me ... Buy to let ...buy to let ...

The' lucky generation' is any that were of an age that they didn't have to serve in any war we have had over the past few centuries. Boomers gave you the internet (and hence this forum)

Don't remember anyone blaming the previous generation for the economic troubles of the 70s , guess serving in ww2 gave them a get out of jail card. The majoirity of the bankers were in their 30s not boomers, grey hair is pushed out early these days. Madoff was a boomer though ... Medical advances look like they will prolong boomers for many more years than previous generations so not going anywhere soon

I think you will find most people believe the true immigration rate to be far greater than reported, as things falter in Europe expect many more on our doorstep in the coming years until they cut off the benefits tap. For those actually wanting to work here we are still more attractive than what they will have back home. Even if it continued to be high for just five more years the damage is done, we have to build just so many homes to make up for the last 13 years of mass immigration into this country.House prices and rent espeically in the job rich south east will be cushioned by this for the foreseable future Those needing a family house are espeically worse off, of the new builds most of them have been flats so giving houses a much larger premium over flats

The reports meant referred to the urban area of leeds, approx 486k acording to census around 2003.True figure for immigration is much more than reported as most hpc'ers agree , bulls and bears. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053652/UK-population-hit-70m-2027.html These people need to be housed somehow and we have the lowest level of building new homes since the 1920s, even if we accept the lowest figures for immigration the country is up the creek. You would make your points better if you gave up the angry little man routine ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2008/aug/13/iscouncilhousingreallymaki Half of that 450k in 1968 was council housing , this carried during the 60s, 70s and made the true price of housing artificially low. Why stretch for a private house when you can get one of the council. With a city the size of leeds needed each year from immigration expect the problem to grow in the south. Also so may people living on their own compared to back then.

The boomers actually had to live though a full blown house price crash 1989-1995 , 50% haircuts in parts of central london and interest rates at 15% A lot of people simply did not recover financially from that. Social mobility has improved greatly from 20 years ago, back in the day 100k went to uni, now more like 400k No one had a gap year You lot have benefited from much wiser governments knowing house price crash = electoral defeat , nice low interest rates for as far as the eye can see Just look at SO many of the examples you have held up as house price madness since 2003/2004 of 20 somethings amassing huge btl portfolios , the banks happy to lend to anyone not just boomers. It's just SO much more uncomfortable for hpc'ers to realise many people in their own age group have made out like bandits over the boom , easier to simply blame boomers. Many misjudged the future based on what you thought the past told you , most of here could have got on the ladder but wanted to time the market

You can't choose your time in history you live in, just get over it if you think you missed out somehow. It's like people wishing for things to be like they were in 1939 before world war 2 , things have changed totally and that world is gone forever. Some on here obviously don't have any real memories of the 60s, 70s and how hard things were for a lot of people. Credit in the uk came of age late 90's onwards , hardly prime boomer years, you would have been pushing 40 if born in 1960 by then. Non boomer hpc'ers hate this but many people in their own age group made out like bandits during the boom , they just failed to take up the oppurtunity. Thats what really gets to them and the need to post like thirty eight thousand posts. I know plenty of early thirties that have healthy btl portfolios.They whinge from the sidelines but did not have the guts to get into the market. Easy credit was available to all , plenty of examples of 20 year old payroll clerks getting into buy to let. Someone who would have been 30 in 2004 would have been born in 1974, not a real boomer by any means. You could get a 100% or plus mortgage , even a 25 year old could qualify(born in 1980 if applying in 2005). Hell they we're giving out money to anyone.

I'm so nice they should let me register as a charity .... I actually only raise the rent when a tenant decides to move out and I remarket it. Typically get nice 2-3 year stays.

Tax relief on mortgage interest is simply what is available to any business activity that has its gross income taxed....not a hand out. Hrmc see btl as a business. Just because you don't like btl you wrongly see it as a subsidy. Btl interest rates have always been more than residential. Both owner occupiers and btl'ers have ended up with very low interest rates but then some people fixed for five years at the wrong time. Paying 2.39% on one of my btl's , been like that for three years and no sign of rising , just lucky was with the right bank that went down. Btl finance is harder, no good deals unless you have 30% equity Would not touch lha with a barge pole , rather leave my flats empty , social problems are not worth the hassle. I suspect lha does provide a floor generally for rents but that's not btl'ers fault , the government can go out and build 400k council houses per year tomorrow but it's not.

Not selling a product or service ? For many landlords are providing tenants ( residential and business) the flexibility to not tie their capital up with a large up front cost. Many businesses lease premises would be silly to buy it up front when you are just starting out. Landlords also provide labour mobility , playing a more important role these days , if everyone has to buy a house in the time of their career when they needed to be mobile this would have a detrimental effect on the economy. Many of you say that renting enables you to put your money into activities which give you a greater return such as gold. Without government intervention or even no government landlords would keep people off their land the old fashioned way , violence. Thing is btl pay enough taxes along the way anyway , cgt and income tax at typically the highest rate.

Central London here , markets seems to be doing quite well considering, 15-20% up from peak 2007 quite often for good properties. Rents have soared. Nightlife never busier. Outside London might as well be outer Mongola , I never saw the sense in investing up north like some others. Lots of areas are stagnating for sure. Eastbourne looks pretty dead , bedford seen same properties still for sale for nearly a year. Since I'm not interested in selling, btl's are income streams in retirement, I'm not too fussed about price movements in the mean time. The costs of selling , cgt and estate agents fees and then buying back in at some other point and paying a huge wedge of stamp duty does not appeal. In it for the long term.

Hardly any people can buy their first house without borrowing , just a fact of life. You see 'financialisation' but others see simply as opening up of house financing to many more people than previously. Even in the golden era of house buying 60s/70s for a lot of people they were locked out and went the council house route. My uncle had a steady job for the council but only a social contact he hand secured him his first mortgage. Of course the more that can borrow to buy a house the more the demand. I would say consumers attitudes changed , very much like the US , where they just cared what everything just cost them a month and went for it not really understanding the long term costs. Interest only allowed more people to get on the ladder , keeping the repayments low until salaries improved..of course some never intended to go repayment or pay off anything but thats their choice. Take your point about the vets, lots things being packaged up and resold to us ...

Borrowing money and property development was alive and well back then ....

Financialisation of the housing market goes back to ancient rome and beyond , nothing new there... If someone has the ability to borrow more than you or simply has a bigger pile of cash then you can be outbid, simple as that. Duel income couples can outbid singles no problem but I don't hear you moaning about them at all or crying for a duel couple housing tax. Used to be 3x the main wage earner but that is a thing of the past now. If you are single you are really up against it. If the figures for the rent don't add up then doing a BTL does not make sense, the bank won't give you a btl mortgage anyway if you don't cover the mortgage by about +25%. BTL mortgages are twice the interest rate of residential. If I make a net loss on my BTL (rent less deduction for mortgage) that is a real loss, every single month. If there is a void for some months I will need to fund that myself. Once mortagage costs and expenses exceed rent then BTL landlords are typically paying at 40% rate, a fair whack. Plus theres CGT when we sell. If there was no deduction for interest then you would be taxing the BTL landlord on the entire rent at 40% , that would be ridiculous. You cannot deduct interest from your income tax if you are a owner occupier but you are not subject to tax at your highest rate so why should you? You also pay no CGT. Every other activity hrmc taxes allows for deductions, consistent principal which is allowed for btl which is classed a business activity by them.