Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 8:23:10 GMT
The funny thing is that BTL and cc-ing are directly linked. The massive increase in cc-ing boats has occurred at exactly the same time as the boom in BTL and could actually have been caused by it directly.
If we assume that a lot of cc boats are used as primary accommodation then is it possible that some of these people are not keen to pay someone else's mortgage but are turned away by banks in favour of people who already own other houses.
Another obvious side of BTL is that a large number of renters almost certainly own houses in their country of origin and are free to return there at any time so even if kicked out they are not homeless.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 29, 2018 8:23:46 GMT
That's alright it's Nick who has hijacked the thread, but that's because he's too thick to come up with his own threads. I realise that reading isn’t your strongest point (your strongest points being an inexhaustible supply of anger and paranoia) but if you were better at it you would see that it wasn’t me who raised the subject of landlords, it was some other ultra-left envious commie bloke. I was merely responding to their irrational flights of fancy. I've got more interesting things to do.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 29, 2018 8:29:53 GMT
The funny thing is that BTL and cc-ing are directly linked. The massive increase in cc-ing boats has occurred at exactly the same time as the boom in BTL and could actually have been caused by it directly. If we assume that a lot of cc boats are used as primary accommodation then is it possible that some of these people are not keen to pay someone else's mortgage but are turned away by banks in favour of people who already own other houses. Another obvious side of BTL is that a large number of renters almost certainly own houses in their country of origin and are free to return there at any time so even if kicked out they are not homeless. Sort of linked, but not in the way you imply. Plenty of CCers have sold their homes to fund a life on the water. The surge in London CCing is a result of an inadequate supply of homes. BTL has increased due to an undersupply of government-supplied rented accommodation. Market forces dictates that BTL only works because there are tenants out there wanting to rent. Yes I agree that the London market is distorted by foreign absent landlord ownership and that is bad. But the vast majority of BTL landlords outside of London, are British residents, and I suspect inside London too.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 29, 2018 8:30:49 GMT
I realise that reading isn’t your strongest point (your strongest points being an inexhaustible supply of anger and paranoia) but if you were better at it you would see that it wasn’t me who raised the subject of landlords, it was some other ultra-left envious commie bloke. I was merely responding to their irrational flights of fancy. I've got more interesting things to do. Like plugging your outrage into the national grid and running several large towns from it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 8:33:28 GMT
BTL is not a response to a lack of government funded housing.
Would you invest in BTL if it gave you 0.0% return ie made no difference to you?
BTL is a result of 1980s right to buy and 1990s BOE interest rate independence.
Eta I was referring to tenants not landlords.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 29, 2018 8:42:42 GMT
BTL is not a response to a lack of government funded housing. Would you invest in BTL if it gave you 0.0% return ie made no difference to you? BTL is a result of 1980s right to buy and 1990s BOE interest rate independence. Eta I was referring to tenants not landlords. BTL is a consequence of a lack of government funded housing. No-one disputes that BTL landlords are in it for the money. Yes the right to buy (at below replacement cost) and failure to reinvest even that money back into new housing stock is a major contributor. Perpetuated by successive governments elected by people like you. As are low interest rates - for 2 reasons, one being zero or negative return on savings which encourages money to be invested elsewhere, and secondly of course that borrowing money to BTL is cheaper. In my case it was the former, I had a lump sum from my pension and loss of licence insurance and decided to buy a flat with it rather than stick it in a savings account and watch it dwindle. Coincidentally this has provided a very pleasant home for a Doctor, an oil worker, and a mature student. So it is win win.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 29, 2018 8:48:08 GMT
I didn’t say they were doing it for philanthropic reasons. It doesn’t matter what the reason is, what matters is that some people do what the government won’t do, which is to provide housing for the renting sector. Clearly you are envious of people who through their own hard work have money to spare, but it would be very mean spirited of you if you wanted them eliminated and all the people whom they provide homes for, out on the street just to satisfy that envy. If they really wanted to be philanthropic (rather than just making a large return on their capital) they should have built almshouses, you are trying to make them sound like the saviours of the oppressed Many have had to turn to renting from private landlords 'cos many council houses have been bought! It's like buying a bus to make into your home - another state-subsidised bus off the route, passengers have to go by evil private taxi.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 8:50:59 GMT
Perpetuated by successive governments elected by people like you. Not quite like me as I have never voted in a general election but I do understand your point it is a result of democratic choice yes.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 29, 2018 9:03:05 GMT
Who is the government housing minister? Clearly they have failed. How abouts going round their house right now and giving them a big kick in the cratch??!!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 29, 2018 9:06:46 GMT
When everyone has paid off their mortgages and all own their own houses, then what's needed is a War to blow them all to smithereens, and so the mortgage/loan/begging/borrowing begins all over again!
Insurance companies like wars, it means they don't have to pay out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 9:07:47 GMT
I no longer live aboard but plan to again in 5 years or so, how much things change does worry me, i have a mooring at the minute in a very handy location so maybe i will have to hang to it, maybe not...
Surly the only way it will work is for CRT or whoever is in charge when the changes come, will have to supply more moorings, on the towpath?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 9:22:50 GMT
Even if it became necessary for all boats to have a home mooring (which I suspect is unlikely) that would not prevent anyone continuously cruising, though of course if would add another layer of expense.
I suspect a lot of farmers would suddenly come into money.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 9:36:54 GMT
Even if it became necessary for all boats to have a home mooring (which I suspect is unlikely) that would not prevent anyone continuously cruising, though of course if would add another layer of expense. I suspect a lot of farmers would suddenly come into money. Rog That seems likely. I wonder what would happen if mooring times were altered to eradicate the 14 day allowance. For example if cc ers had to move every 48hr or something. That might have an interesting effect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 10:23:11 GMT
Even if it became necessary for all boats to have a home mooring (which I suspect is unlikely) that would not prevent anyone continuously cruising, though of course if would add another layer of expense. I suspect a lot of farmers would suddenly come into money. Rog True dat! I pulled out of a marina back in April 2016, CC till now, but i always had the marina listed as my home mooring on the licence website, not because i wanted to cheat anything, but because you can not remove it without calling them, i never got round to calling them. I wonder how easy it would be to do this forever, there must be a few moorings/marinas with owners who tell CRT nuffink in terms of boaters in/on their property.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 29, 2018 10:51:18 GMT
Ok let's think about this. Someone is able to raise an amount of money to pay someone a monthly payment which is paying a mortgage. If you took the "landlord" out of that picture then the logical outcome is that you would have a natural housing market where these people - far from being homeless - would be paying off a mortgage for something which they would then own. BTL is far more likely to cause homelessness because the person who owns the property has their own accommodation sorted out no worries but is perfectly happy to take money off someone and boot them out if it gets awkward or interest rates go up. No envy, no sanity involved just logic. Your assertion that BTL landlords are saving people from being homeless is simply rubbish. Anyway I blame Gordon Brown. At least the Tories had a go at trying to control the problem as if allowed to run away out of control it could destroy the economy. Its nothing to do with "FAIR" as that does not exist. Its to do with unnatural behaviours. Obviously the banks prefer a BTL to a family looking to buy but banks don't give a shit about anyone. What would happen to all those tenants if those rented homes suddenly ceased to exist? They'd go storming round to Parliament and string the housing minister from a lamppost. And if they couldn't be bothered, then let them sleep under the bushes (move over andyberg). The housing shortage is a deliberate ruse by the politicians to keep people in a panic and to steal their money. There is no good reason why, say, a million new houses couldn't be built this year - it would certainly give the unemployed something to do!
|
|