Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

This I think might be somewhat of a hot topic, one that due to the very nature of this site might be impossible to discuss rationally - however it is worth a try. Mods - If it gets crazy, feel free to delete! :P

Due to the recent conversations on here regarding the moral centre of people I have been thinking - What would I be prepared to do for wealth? And more importantly, who would I be happy to take advantage of to get reward.

Now we know that certain MP's have no problems morally with taking something that does not belong to them, at the expense of alot of people - even though it only affects each one slightly. Other MP's know this is wrong and do not abuse the system. Relating this to house prices, what do you consider to be morally acceptable, regardless of what happens to be legal?

It has been said on here that both BTL and STR are both in it for the money. I agree, but that doesn't make each equal.

My general feeling is that BTL is morally wrong since you are depriving other people of the opportunity to purchase a home, both through lowering the available property and artifically inflating prices. This is even more true in the case of the Wilsons and other like them with huge portfolios. The homes that should be bough to live in are no longer within their reach.

However, STR is different - sure, you are in effect allowing another person to suffer misforture and then profit yourself, but since the decision to buy in the first place was theirs (and if they are renting then they themselves are in it for profit), your act is passive and I feel morally acceptable.

Even the simple act of encoraging HPI could be considered morally wrong since the act of rising prices cut off more and more people at the bottom of the market. (However, I agree that since I am a bear, I am quite likely to say this!)

Anyone agree? Or does it need constructive critism? I am equally happy to hear from the Bulls and Bears here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This I think might be somewhat of a hot topic, one that due to the very nature of this site might be impossible to discuss rationally - however it is worth a try. Mods - If it gets crazy, feel free to delete! :P

Due to the recent conversations on here regarding the moral centre of people I have been thinking - What would I be prepared to do for wealth? And more importantly, who would I be happy to take advantage of to get reward.

Now we know that certain MP's have no problems morally with taking something that does not belong to them, at the expense of alot of people - even though it only affects each one slightly. Other MP's know this is wrong and do not abuse the system. Relating this to house prices, what do you consider to be morally acceptable, regardless of what happens to be legal?

It has been said on here that both BTL and STR are both in it for the money. I agree, but that doesn't make each equal.

My general feeling is that BTL is morally wrong since you are depriving other people of the opportunity to purchase a home, both through lowering the available property and artifically inflating prices. This is even more true in the case of the Wilsons and other like them with huge portfolios. The homes that should be bough to live in are no longer within their reach.

However, STR is different - sure, you are in effect allowing another person to suffer misforture and then profit yourself, but since the decision to buy in the first place was theirs (and if they are renting then they themselves are in it for profit), your act is passive and I feel morally acceptable.

Even the simple act of encoraging HPI could be considered morally wrong since the act of rising prices cut off more and more people at the bottom of the market. (However, I agree that since I am a bear, I am quite likely to say this!)

Anyone agree? Or does it need constructive critism? I am equally happy to hear from the Bulls and Bears here.

Everyone is a VI on here - whether its up or down. Banks failing, people losing their jobs is greeting with rapturous applause from the bears who think they will get a cheap house.

The bulls want their investments to grow. There are no morals. Its all about looking after yourself.

Edited by Gideon Gono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this on texts from last night http://twitter.com/TFLN

TFLN(704): You know the commpass Jack Sparrow has? The one that just points at whatever you want? Thas pretty much my moral compass.about 22 hours ago from web

I reckon its about right.

The site is very funny btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
due to the very nature of this site might be impossible to discuss rationally

Does that mean what I think it means........

(hatchet in hand, with a wild-eyed stare)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone is a VI on here - whether its up or down. Banks failing, people losing tier jobs is greeting with rapturous applause from the bears who think they will get a cheap house.

The bulls want their investments to grow. There are no morals. Its all about looking after yourself.

But that is not true for me. I would look after myself and my family - but only in a moral way.

I have a VI, I admit as much in the post. However, I see it in the same way as buying an offer in the supermarkets - they dictate the price and I buy. A house is the same, the market dictates the price and I will buy. I consider this moral, I am not tricking or depriving someone of something to progress myself.

Banks failing, people losing jobs as a symptom of a bigger problem, not caused by bears themselves. Don't shoot the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Childish nonsense ! Why not think a little deeper, than your own sorry situation !

So do you think that no one should be allowed to rent then?

And if you have a rental market, would you prefer the government run it?

Talk about the Tax status of BTL, but not whether it is "morally right"

Who says I have a sorry situation? Or even that I own - or rent? I consider it irrelivent.

I just don't understand the whimsical way in which owning more than one home for profit is dismissed so easily - with so little consequence. One of the prime arguments the BTL's give is that there is a finite numer of homes available, so they are reinforcing my exact point - taking it first at the expense of others for their own benefit.

And why can we not talk about it? is that not what a forum does? Feel free to correct, but don't bother if insulting is all that you can bring. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Childish nonsense ! Why not think a little deeper, than your own sorry situation !

So do you think that no one should be allowed to rent then?

And if you have a rental market, would you prefer the government run it?

Talk about the Tax status of BTL, but not whether it is "morally right"

Of course it's immoral to use a monoply position to force others to pay you for their rights

Since when did our moral sense change to make this a non issue?

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This I think might be somewhat of a hot topic, one that due to the very nature of this site might be impossible to discuss rationally - however it is worth a try. Mods - If it gets crazy, feel free to delete! :P

Due to the recent conversations on here regarding the moral centre of people I have been thinking - What would I be prepared to do for wealth? And more importantly, who would I be happy to take advantage of to get reward.

Now we know that certain MP's have no problems morally with taking something that does not belong to them, at the expense of alot of people - even though it only affects each one slightly. Other MP's know this is wrong and do not abuse the system. Relating this to house prices, what do you consider to be morally acceptable, regardless of what happens to be legal?

It has been said on here that both BTL and STR are both in it for the money. I agree, but that doesn't make each equal.

My general feeling is that BTL is morally wrong since you are depriving other people of the opportunity to purchase a home, both through lowering the available property and artifically inflating prices. This is even more true in the case of the Wilsons and other like them with huge portfolios. The homes that should be bough to live in are no longer within their reach.

However, STR is different - sure, you are in effect allowing another person to suffer misforture and then profit yourself, but since the decision to buy in the first place was theirs (and if they are renting then they themselves are in it for profit), your act is passive and I feel morally acceptable.

Even the simple act of encoraging HPI could be considered morally wrong since the act of rising prices cut off more and more people at the bottom of the market. (However, I agree that since I am a bear, I am quite likely to say this!)

Anyone agree? Or does it need constructive critism? I am equally happy to hear from the Bulls and Bears here.

When it comes down to it I guess I would rather feed me and mine than you and yours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My general feeling is that BTL is morally wrong since you are depriving other people of the opportunity to purchase a home,

I trust you do not buy any food and thus deprive others of the opportunity to purchase a meal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Childish nonsense ! Why not think a little deeper, than your own sorry situation !

So do you think that no one should be allowed to rent then?

And if you have a rental market, would you prefer the government run it?

Talk about the Tax status of BTL, but not whether it is "morally right"

It is up to individuals to search their conscience and decide what they believe is morally right or wrong.

There are plenty of perfectly legal occupations that would make me feel uneasy about getting involved in and many people will not invest in companies that do not fit in with their ethics/morals. I do not consider this to be at all "childish".

FWIW, I think BTLers are a bit like fleas on a dog. They are not necessarily bad individuals and in small numbers are merely a mild irritation. However, when they reach a certain concentration, they cause considerable damage to their host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury

There are plenty of vocal bulls and hardnosed bears on here at the moment. For my mind, the site is in danger of descending even more into 'playground' status than ever.

I leave my morals at the door when logging on here.

What's with the genaralised comment about HPC.co.uk being a home for BNP? I think most people on here will agree that there is no place for such societal scum. That's my view anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'll bite and play devil's advocate. (No doubt people will take it the wrong way, but hey....)

First there may be a difference depending on what kind of bear you are. A bear can simply observe the inevitability of economic forces and predict an event. Another bear may actively wish for a turn of events that is to the benefit of said bear and that requires some form of harm, loss or difficulty to befall another. The first is morally neutral. The second may not be.

Secondly we need to be careful about how we discus the 'loss' of another. A bear is, in effect, be hoping for a redistribution of wealth. Many shirk from this and assuage their consience with the untruthful claim that they 'were all hoping to profit from HPI so its fair that they lose'. You are honest and accept that with STR there is the intention to gain at anothers expense. However the fact that the act is "passive" does not in itself make it moral. Failing to give evidence to prevent the concviction of an innocent person is passive, but not moral. The fact that "they choose to buy" is really no different from your choice not to buy - possibly resulting in being locked out of the market. If its moral to take advantage of people who choose to buy was equally moral to take advantage of those who choose not to buy, and rent them your BTL.

The BTL landlord probably considers themselves very moral - they purchased where other could not - and made the housing available for rent to those who could not afford to buy. True they did so for gain, but in that respect you are have already agreed they are the same as a STR. The net effect is the same - people live in the house. In effect people are accusing BTL of not allowing them to profit from HPI themselves. Difficult to use that as a case for saying one is moral while the other is not.

Summary - Someone who merely observes and forecasts is neutral. One who hopes to gain from HPC is morally no different from one who hoped to profit from HPI. I condemn the four legs good two legs bad style chants we often get on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have no morals, unfortunatly im a nice guy and i find it hard to be mean to anyone at all. i hate that. always letting people out in traffic, giving people the correct directions when they are lost. im just to soft really.

i wouldn't do BTL though.

i like to do upon others as others would do to me. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I trust you do not buy any food and thus deprive others of the opportunity to purchase a meal.

Clever, but not equal. I need both a home and food to survive. So, I buy both.

I don't buy more food than I need and sell it to others though. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I leave my morals at the door when logging on here.

What's with the genaralised comment about HPC.co.uk being a home for BNP? I think most people on here will agree that there is no place for such societal scum. That's my view anyway.

Your statement about the BNP (which I happen to agree with) shows that it is not possible to "leave morals at the door".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
Your statement about the BNP (which I happen to agree with) shows that it is not possible to "leave morals at the door".

Fair enough, maybe some people have some morals that they cannot do anything about, like not being racist, not robbing old ladies etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This I think might be somewhat of a hot topic, one that due to the very nature of this site might be impossible to discuss rationally - however it is worth a try. Mods - If it gets crazy, feel free to delete! :P

Due to the recent conversations on here regarding the moral centre of people I have been thinking - What would I be prepared to do for wealth? And more importantly, who would I be happy to take advantage of to get reward.

Now we know that certain MP's have no problems morally with taking something that does not belong to them, at the expense of alot of people - even though it only affects each one slightly. Other MP's know this is wrong and do not abuse the system. Relating this to house prices, what do you consider to be morally acceptable, regardless of what happens to be legal?

It has been said on here that both BTL and STR are both in it for the money. I agree, but that doesn't make each equal.

My general feeling is that BTL is morally wrong since you are depriving other people of the opportunity to purchase a home, both through lowering the available property and artifically inflating prices. This is even more true in the case of the Wilsons and other like them with huge portfolios. The homes that should be bough to live in are no longer within their reach.

However, STR is different - sure, you are in effect allowing another person to suffer misforture and then profit yourself, but since the decision to buy in the first place was theirs (and if they are renting then they themselves are in it for profit), your act is passive and I feel morally acceptable.

Even the simple act of encoraging HPI could be considered morally wrong since the act of rising prices cut off more and more people at the bottom of the market. (However, I agree that since I am a bear, I am quite likely to say this!)

Anyone agree? Or does it need constructive critism? I am equally happy to hear from the Bulls and Bears here.

I think there is a holier than thou element on the site.. not everyone but some....

People blame BTL'ers for stoking HPI (possibly) but equally they have stocked the crash as their unwise investments have crashed.

People say BTL encourages HPI... of course it will, but of much more importance (in fact 9 times more important) is just oridnary joe buying their house.

Is there a difference between the money motivation of BTL vs STR... personally I don't think so, one buys into a rising market the other short sells.... one provides rental accomodation to others and the other one relies on providing negative equity misery to others for their profit.... if you wanted to you could justifyably paint STR's in a very very dark light... they are both doing it for money end of story.

Personally I consider anything legal as being morally acceptable in the housing market... I don't depsise new build buyers who are happy to pay massively inflated prices to get the home of their dreams even though it pushes eveything up... if thats what they want then fine.

I don't despise STR's who rely on other falling into negative equity for their tax free unearned profit.

I don't despise BTL'ers who mount their debts up, snapping up house after after under the noses of FTB's.

I don't despise people who are clever enough to buy cheaply at auction and do a rough and ready do-up and then flog to an FTB for 40% profit.

I don't depsise home owners who buy the most expensive house in the street even though this raises the ceiling for the rest.

Etc etc etc.... if it's legal it's fine.... anyone criticising others legal actions and claiming saintly innocence for their own actions is living in dreamland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly not a pot noodle....full of toxic rubbish! ;)

so a bowl of noodles purchased in a health food shop=good, a bowl of noodles mass marketed=bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
I think there is a holier than thou element on the site.. not everyone but some....

People blame BTL'ers for stoking HPI (possibly) but equally they have stocked the crash as their unwise investments have crashed.

People say BTL encourages HPI... of course it will, but of much more importance (in fact 9 times more important) is just oridnary joe buying their house.

Is there a difference between the money motivation of BTL vs STR... personally I don't think so, one buys into a rising market the other short sells.... one provides rental accomodation to others and the other one relies on providing negative equity misery to others for their profit.... if you wanted to you could justifyably paint STR's in a very very dark light... they are both doing it for money end of story.

Personally I consider anything legal as being morally acceptable in the housing market... I don't depsise new build buyers who are happy to pay massively inflated prices to get the home of their dreams even though it pushes eveything up... if thats what they want then fine.

I don't despise STR's who rely on other falling into negative equity for their tax free unearned profit.

I don't despise BTL'ers who mount their debts up, snapping up house after after under the noses of FTB's.

I don't despise people who are clever enough to buy cheaply at auction and do a rough and ready do-up and then flog to an FTB for 40% profit.

I don't depsise home owners who buy the most expensive house in the street even though this raises the ceiling for the rest.

Etc etc etc.... if it's legal it's fine.... anyone criticising others legal actions and claiming saintly innocence for their own actions is living in dreamland.

You say that now, you've obviously not had the pleasure of meeting London2Manchester.

Much of what you say is quite correct, in particular about the motivations of STRers. They are playing a game just as big as the BTLers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clever, but not equal. I need both a home and food to survive. So, I buy both.

I don't buy more food than I need and sell it to others though. :P

Even more importantly:

If someone monoplises food, we can just make more with our labour, if someone monoplises land we can't make more land or food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clever, but not equal. I need both a home and food to survive. So, I buy both.

I don't buy more food than I need and sell it to others though. :P

shops do exactly that.

anyone can open a shop.

sadly, a FTB is outbid by a BTL by virtue the BTL gets to pay his mortgage PRE TAX and the FTB POST tax.

Edited by Bloo Loo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shops do exactly that.

anyone can open a shop.

sadly, a FTB is outbid by a BTL by virtue the BTL gets to pay his mortgage PRE TAX and the FTB POST tax.

The shop does not hold a monoply position in food

They can replaced by people making their own food and so the prices they can charge, must reflect this possibility.

People cannot make land with thier labour, and so a land monopolisist is not restricted by people's ability to create their own supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Failing to give evidence to prevent the concviction of an innocent person is passive, but not moral. The fact that "they choose to buy" is really no different from your choice not to buy - possibly resulting in being locked out of the market. If its moral to take advantage of people who choose to buy was equally moral to take advantage of those who choose not to buy, and rent them your BTL.

Finally... someone taking the question at face value and not as flamebait!

This is the matter that I was hoping we could get to - the moral aspect. You give a good representation of the other side, and I agree someone could equally claim the opposite to my post. But, the reason I feel my 'passiveness' is different and ok is that I don't force them to accept my offer. The failure to prevent evidence relies on me to show their innocence which is why it is morally wrong - where as the purchase of thier house does not affect them as they are free to say no, in fact if they could save money on their next purchase they would not even make a loss.

The BTL landlord probably considers themselves very moral - they purchased where other could not - and made the housing available for rent to those who could not afford to buy. True they did so for gain, but in that respect you are have already agreed they are the same as a STR. The net effect is the same - people live in the house. In effect people are accusing BTL of not allowing them to profit from HPI themselves. Difficult to use that as a case for saying one is moral while the other is not.

But isn't the fact that only BTL's are able to purchase due to the artifical pricing in the first place? the renters would be able to buy without the competition for people with more than one home? Thus the BTL is doing something that would not need to be done if they weren't there in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   292 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.