This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Why are rents so high
- What can I buy with £1 million
- Will buying and owning a house affect my student finance?
- My mum wants me to buy us a house
- Any hope for young buyers?
- Renting or buying a bike
- how to become a landlord
- Is moving back in with parents a good option?
- How are you planning to buy your first house?
- An inspector calls
- how does owning a property effect your student finance
- Will buying and owning a house affect my student finance?
- Saving money as a student
- How do you jugde the website is legit?
- Thrifty Tips for Tackling University's Cost of Living
- If you were given 1 million pounds to set up a business, what would it be and why?
- Am I spoilt? £140
- LSE accommodation- Carr Saunders or garden hall?
- Is there anything wrong about renting?
- 18th Bday Party
Is buying to rent immoral?
I got thinking recently with all these programs on TV about people buying homes to rent them for an income.
For you to buy a property to make money when another person is going to live there and pay you money (into a black hole, paying off the owners mortgage in many instances) Then when that tenant leaves they have nothing, but the owner might have half a house paid off. How is that fair?
I can see how student accommodation and short term accommodation can be OK but for the long term becomes more of an issue.
Further from this, why should investors be allowed to buy a persentage of someones idea and recieve money from it? (for doing nothing for the most part, just moving some electronic money)
Maybe I am just turning into a communist.
For you to buy a property to make money when another person is going to live there and pay you money (into a black hole, paying off the owners mortgage in many instances) Then when that tenant leaves they have nothing, but the owner might have half a house paid off. How is that fair?
I can see how student accommodation and short term accommodation can be OK but for the long term becomes more of an issue.
Further from this, why should investors be allowed to buy a persentage of someones idea and recieve money from it? (for doing nothing for the most part, just moving some electronic money)
Maybe I am just turning into a communist.
Scroll to see replies
You're right, it isn't fair. If you've got money to start with then you're likely to make more money by having more opportunity to take other people's money.
I don't know if that makes it immoral though...
I don't know if that makes it immoral though...
Yes, it is immoral when it is as overpriced as in this country, because shelter is a basic need. I hate to sound like a Guardian columnist but rent controls and/or house-building needed in short order.
As to investors, the tacit understanding is that they are paying for the investor's contacts. With an investor backing the project it makes it more credible, not to mention the cash injection. And at least there there is risk to the investor.
As to investors, the tacit understanding is that they are paying for the investor's contacts. With an investor backing the project it makes it more credible, not to mention the cash injection. And at least there there is risk to the investor.
It's not immoral at all.
People who pay rent are people who cannot afford a mortgage. However they still need a place to live, and that isn't going to be free. So they can rent. People who rent are also doing it for the short term, for a couple of years maybe until they can save up a bit for their own place.
You do get some evil landlords who charge way too much rent for what the house is worth. I would call that immoral.
People who pay rent are people who cannot afford a mortgage. However they still need a place to live, and that isn't going to be free. So they can rent. People who rent are also doing it for the short term, for a couple of years maybe until they can save up a bit for their own place.
You do get some evil landlords who charge way too much rent for what the house is worth. I would call that immoral.
Original post by dannydoy
I got thinking recently with all these programs on TV about people buying homes to rent them for an income.
For you to buy a property to make money when another person is going to live there and pay you money (into a black hole, paying off the owners mortgage in many instances) Then when that tenant leaves they have nothing, but the owner might have half a house paid off. How is that fair?
I can see how student accommodation and short term accommodation can be OK but for the long term becomes more of an issue.
Further from this, why should investors be allowed to buy a persentage of someones idea and recieve money from it? (for doing nothing for the most part, just moving some electronic money)
Maybe I am just turning into a communist.
For you to buy a property to make money when another person is going to live there and pay you money (into a black hole, paying off the owners mortgage in many instances) Then when that tenant leaves they have nothing, but the owner might have half a house paid off. How is that fair?
I can see how student accommodation and short term accommodation can be OK but for the long term becomes more of an issue.
Further from this, why should investors be allowed to buy a persentage of someones idea and recieve money from it? (for doing nothing for the most part, just moving some electronic money)
Maybe I am just turning into a communist.
Eh? It's perfectly fair.
The landlord provides a service that the tenent enjoys the use of.
Original post by Naami
It's not immoral at all.
People who pay rent are people who cannot afford a mortgage. However they still need a place to live, and that isn't going to be free. So they can rent. People who rent are also doing it for the short term, for a couple of years maybe until they can save up a bit for their own place.
You do get some evil landlords who charge way too much rent for what the house is worth. I would call that immoral.
People who pay rent are people who cannot afford a mortgage. However they still need a place to live, and that isn't going to be free. So they can rent. People who rent are also doing it for the short term, for a couple of years maybe until they can save up a bit for their own place.
You do get some evil landlords who charge way too much rent for what the house is worth. I would call that immoral.
........................................................
Landlords use a very advantageous position (their increased possession of assets) to extract yet more wealth from a very disadvantaged population, who gain no real advantage bar their satisfaction at gaining shelter. The word 'immoral' carries a strong stigma, but as a landlord you are by default indifferent to the plight of millions of homeless people.
The right to buy council houses arguably caused the problem. Not only pouring millions of pounds' worth of public assets (in the discounts) down the drain so a few people could pocket the money by reselling their property at the new market rate, but also then not replacing the homes by building more public housing! Thatcher's the reason why we won't be able to buy before the age of about 35.
The right to buy council houses arguably caused the problem. Not only pouring millions of pounds' worth of public assets (in the discounts) down the drain so a few people could pocket the money by reselling their property at the new market rate, but also then not replacing the homes by building more public housing! Thatcher's the reason why we won't be able to buy before the age of about 35.
(edited 11 years ago)
No it's not immoral. Its a way of making money.
If you have more than one home you get taxed a ridiculous rate if you ever want to sell it.
I'm getting an inheritance in the coming months off my grandad and i intend on buying a house to rent out. Its much better than putting the money into a bank.
If you have more than one home you get taxed a ridiculous rate if you ever want to sell it.
I'm getting an inheritance in the coming months off my grandad and i intend on buying a house to rent out. Its much better than putting the money into a bank.
Original post by Vintage
No it's not immoral. Its a way of making money.
If you have more than one home you get taxed a ridiculous rate if you ever want to sell it.
I'm getting an inheritance in the coming months off my grandad and i intend on buying a house to rent out. Its much better than putting the money into a bank.
If you have more than one home you get taxed a ridiculous rate if you ever want to sell it.
I'm getting an inheritance in the coming months off my grandad and i intend on buying a house to rent out. Its much better than putting the money into a bank.
Better for the property owner no doubt. But not good for the tenants.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by scrotgrot
Yes, it is immoral when it is as overpriced as in this country, because shelter is a basic need. I hate to sound like a Guardian columnist but rent controls and/or house-building needed in short order.
As to investors, the tacit understanding is that they are paying for the investor's contacts. With an investor backing the project it makes it more credible, not to mention the cash injection. And at least there there is risk to the investor.
As to investors, the tacit understanding is that they are paying for the investor's contacts. With an investor backing the project it makes it more credible, not to mention the cash injection. And at least there there is risk to the investor.
When the population density is so high in the UK it's no surprise property prices are so high. Property prices are regulated by the economy and you can't just simply impose rent controls on it.Most people do have their basic need of shelter met anyway, as they have home.
I don't think it's immoral. If someone buys, say, second or third property, what other than to rent would you do? You wouldn't keep it empty as it's not beneficial for anyone. You also in a way are helping people who have to live in rented property. Everyone has to live within their means
Original post by Audre
I don't think it's immoral. If someone buys, say, second or third property, what other than to rent would you do? You wouldn't keep it empty as it's not beneficial for anyone. You also in a way are helping people who have to live in rented property. Everyone has to live within their means
That's like saying 'I'm helping the environment by eating beef because it means there are fewer cows to produce methane'.
It's just a way to make money by doing essentially nothing. If people are willing to pay for it, I don't really see the problem 
Original post by thegodofgod
It's just a way to make money by doing essentially nothing. If people are willing to pay for it, I don't really see the problem
And if you're not, well, you live on the streets.
No not at all. If people didn't rent out housing where would all the individuals unwilling or unable to buy a house live. The fact they leave the deal with nothing doesn't devalue the service they recieved. If I go to a restaurant and buy a meal, I will be leaving the restaurant with less permenant goods and the owner will have permentant wealth in the form of my money however they aren't evil for selling me food. Whether an item is permenant of temporary is a poor indicator of its value.
Original post by Naami
People who pay rent are people who cannot afford a mortgage.
People who pay rent are people who cannot afford a mortgage.
Not true! I can certainly afford a mortgage, but I chose to rent because I don't feel like I want to be tied down to owning a house just yet and with work I travel a lot, so renting suits me. Also, renting is much more common throughout Europe than it is in the UK and many people could afford to a mortgage if they chose to.
In general though, totally agree with your post
Original post by dannydoy
It is not always that way. I have lived in rented accommodation for a few years now, in London possibly the worst most overpriced renting location possible.
But it is the landlord that must sort everything out:
People messy slobs get rats - Call landlord
People let ceiling rot causes damage - Call landlord
Boiler breaks - Call landlord
Shower breaks - Call landlord
Yobs smash window - Call landlord
If they refuse, hold back rent and seek legal action.
You see it takes a lot of obligation on both sides. When you own you need to deal with EVERYTHING yourself.
The real *******s are the estate agents. They make tons of money just for talking bull**** and filling in forms. They will drop you like a leper when you've signed the contract!
Original post by rockrunride
And if you're not, well, you live on the streets.
But isn't that another issue here?
If you're buying to rent, you're at least giving someone the opportunity to have a shelter, even if they don't own it?
Original post by thegodofgod
But isn't that another issue here?
If you're buying to rent, you're at least giving someone the opportunity to have a shelter, even if they don't own it?
If you're buying to rent, you're at least giving someone the opportunity to have a shelter, even if they don't own it?
Purchase to rent essentially reduces the amount of properties that are available for live-in ownership. Increased scarcity in property forces demand and prices up. What I'm saying, in very un-erudite words, is that if fewer people bought to rent, far far more people would own live-in property. You might argue that there will always be people that want to rent, but it's not really the point I'm making: the housing situation in the UK at the moment is such that it is extremely disadvantageous to rent compared to buying.
(edited 11 years ago)
I think it does depend a little on the context. People need to be able to rent housing; even if we all had the money to buy, we wouldn't necessarily choose to, for a variety of reasons.
I have been a private tenant for a number of years now as we try and save to buy a house. Is it frustrating that those who own a home can afford to buy the cheaper houses then then rent them out? Yes, very! Is it immoral? Not necessarily. A good landlord is an assest.
I feel that boundries are crossed when landlords exploit their tenants; either by profiteering, or not being mindful of their obligations. By buying a house to rent, the landlord should understand that they will be obligated to their tenants, and not simply raking in the rent each month. They need to provide a certain standard of facilities. Too often I have viewed homes with ill maintained facilities at rediculous rents. That is exploitative.
Additionally, private tenants have a right not to be harassed by letting agents charging rediculous fees for everything under the sun - even for extending your tenancy?! Also, the carrying out of constant inspections. I saw recently a letting agent advertising to prospective landlords with the banner: "Now with quarterly inspections". Really? Tenants do have a right to a private life! Not everyone is careless and likely to cause damage. You are assumed guilty before you step foot in the door.
Don't get me started on developers that buy properties and break them up in to bedsits. Sooner or later some communities won't have any small, affordable, family homes because of this sort of thing.
Sorry, that was a bit of a rant, but private tenants are exploited and are viewed by some landlords and letting agents as if they are less worthy of a decent standard of housing, and privacy, than a homeowner.
I have been a private tenant for a number of years now as we try and save to buy a house. Is it frustrating that those who own a home can afford to buy the cheaper houses then then rent them out? Yes, very! Is it immoral? Not necessarily. A good landlord is an assest.
I feel that boundries are crossed when landlords exploit their tenants; either by profiteering, or not being mindful of their obligations. By buying a house to rent, the landlord should understand that they will be obligated to their tenants, and not simply raking in the rent each month. They need to provide a certain standard of facilities. Too often I have viewed homes with ill maintained facilities at rediculous rents. That is exploitative.
Additionally, private tenants have a right not to be harassed by letting agents charging rediculous fees for everything under the sun - even for extending your tenancy?! Also, the carrying out of constant inspections. I saw recently a letting agent advertising to prospective landlords with the banner: "Now with quarterly inspections". Really? Tenants do have a right to a private life! Not everyone is careless and likely to cause damage. You are assumed guilty before you step foot in the door.
Don't get me started on developers that buy properties and break them up in to bedsits. Sooner or later some communities won't have any small, affordable, family homes because of this sort of thing.
Sorry, that was a bit of a rant, but private tenants are exploited and are viewed by some landlords and letting agents as if they are less worthy of a decent standard of housing, and privacy, than a homeowner.
Original post by Audre
When the population density is so high in the UK it's no surprise property prices are so high. Property prices are regulated by the economy and you can't just simply impose rent controls on it.Most people do have their basic need of shelter met anyway, as they have home.
I don't think it's immoral. If someone buys, say, second or third property, what other than to rent would you do? You wouldn't keep it empty as it's not beneficial for anyone. You also in a way are helping people who have to live in rented property. Everyone has to live within their means
I don't think it's immoral. If someone buys, say, second or third property, what other than to rent would you do? You wouldn't keep it empty as it's not beneficial for anyone. You also in a way are helping people who have to live in rented property. Everyone has to live within their means
Yes, it's not in the interest of the young and mobile to own a home until we find a decent place to work. Renting is not immoral, but renting at that price is. That doesn't mean landlords shouldn't do it, I certainly would if I was in their situation, and they certainly have to cover the bill.
But the real scourge is that the government pays landlords, month after month after month, housing benefit to cover the disparity between wages and rent. The government is petrified to pop the housing bubble because it's the main investment of most Britons - but it's got to happen sooner or later. The question is whether the bubble can be let down gently.
The country is not densely populated - denser than Europe, maybe, but you'd have to be mad to call it "dense". Developers buy up land and then sit on it, trickling out a few homes every now and then, keeping supply just scarce enough so that they can leech as much profit as possible. That's why I believe the government must embark on a house-building programme in the short term and a land value tax in the longer term.
Government doesn't like council housing though. They have to underwrite the rent payments the destitute tenant won't pay and fix all the stuff the tenant smashes up. And they are also freed from the shackles of responsibility: the main reason Maggie did the right to buy was to lock people into a private mortgage so they couldn't afford to go on strike any more. Land is power, the only true currency until we conquer another planet.
Related discussions
- Why are rents so high
- What can I buy with £1 million
- Will buying and owning a house affect my student finance?
- My mum wants me to buy us a house
- Any hope for young buyers?
- Renting or buying a bike
- how to become a landlord
- Is moving back in with parents a good option?
- How are you planning to buy your first house?
- An inspector calls
- how does owning a property effect your student finance
- Will buying and owning a house affect my student finance?
- Saving money as a student
- How do you jugde the website is legit?
- Thrifty Tips for Tackling University's Cost of Living
- If you were given 1 million pounds to set up a business, what would it be and why?
- Am I spoilt? £140
- LSE accommodation- Carr Saunders or garden hall?
- Is there anything wrong about renting?
- 18th Bday Party
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I think I have a Cifas Marker on my name , can I still open any banks ?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Has anyone had their student finance paid into their partners or parents bank?Last reply 1 month ago
Introduction to UK Financial regulations and professional integrity SCAMTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
I think I have a Cifas Marker on my name , can I still open any banks ?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Has anyone had their student finance paid into their partners or parents bank?Last reply 1 month ago
Introduction to UK Financial regulations and professional integrity SCAM
