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?
Scroll to see replies
It's not buying to let that's immoral, it's how you act towards your tenants.
If you charge a reasonable rent (though I'm in favour of rent controls, especially in places like London), keep the house in good condition, do repairs promptly, don't evict your tenants at the drop of the hat, give proper notice of visits, protect the deposit and generally act within the law and according to basic standards of human decency, then no, it's not immoral.
Unfortunately, too many landlords (BTL or otherwise) are money grabbing, skinflint pricks with no knowledge of or regard for the law of the land.
If you charge a reasonable rent (though I'm in favour of rent controls, especially in places like London), keep the house in good condition, do repairs promptly, don't evict your tenants at the drop of the hat, give proper notice of visits, protect the deposit and generally act within the law and according to basic standards of human decency, then no, it's not immoral.
Unfortunately, too many landlords (BTL or otherwise) are money grabbing, skinflint pricks with no knowledge of or regard for the law of the land.
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.
How is it immoral? That's like saying it's unfair that you have to pay your mortgage. In theory you are providing a service (a house) for someone else and like you would have to pay your mortgage to live in your house, someone has to pay their rent to live in your house (which you have bought don't forget, it's not like they have bought the house).
If that seems immoral to you then just remember that it's the tenant's choice. Personally I would never rent because it is dead money better saved in a bank.
Life isn't free.
No, I don't think so. It's not just a way of making money either, it's also projects and a hobby to some to turn derelict places into liveable spaces- and rent them. All these abandoned properties that are unusable - I'm glad someone with money is able to restore them and rent them out. It takes money to restore buildings and time, by renting out for a while before selling eventually is just normally a way of getting back what they spent..
It's not really immoral... Although sometimes with the rent prices in my area and knowing some landlords in the area own up to 60 properties and rent them all to students for ridiculous rates and don't bother doing then up- that's a ****ty thing to do in my opinion.. Maybe immoral but.. Subjective.
It's not really immoral... Although sometimes with the rent prices in my area and knowing some landlords in the area own up to 60 properties and rent them all to students for ridiculous rates and don't bother doing then up- that's a ****ty thing to do in my opinion.. Maybe immoral but.. Subjective.
Original post by Origami Bullets
It's not buying to let that's immoral, it's how you act towards your tenants.
If you charge a reasonable rent (though I'm in favour of rent controls, especially in places like London), keep the house in good condition, do repairs promptly, don't evict your tenants at the drop of the hat, give proper notice of visits, protect the deposit and generally act within the law and according to basic standards of human decency, then no, it's not immoral.
Unfortunately, too many landlords (BTL or otherwise) are money grabbing, skinflint pricks with no knowledge of or regard for the law of the land.
If you charge a reasonable rent (though I'm in favour of rent controls, especially in places like London), keep the house in good condition, do repairs promptly, don't evict your tenants at the drop of the hat, give proper notice of visits, protect the deposit and generally act within the law and according to basic standards of human decency, then no, it's not immoral.
Unfortunately, too many landlords (BTL or otherwise) are money grabbing, skinflint pricks with no knowledge of or regard for the law of the land.
So true..
Original post by NessEB
How is it immoral? That's like saying it's unfair that you have to pay your mortgage. In theory you are providing a service (a house) for someone else and like you would have to pay your mortgage to live in your house, someone has to pay their rent to live in your house (which you have bought don't forget, it's not like they have bought the house).
If that seems immoral to you then just remember that it's the tenant's choice. Personally I would never rent because it is dead money better saved in a bank.
Life isn't free.
If that seems immoral to you then just remember that it's the tenant's choice. Personally I would never rent because it is dead money better saved in a bank.
Life isn't free.
So where would you live?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by dannydoy
I'd (reluctantly) live with my parents until I had enough for a deposit.
Which is what I'm doing now.
Obviously everyone is different. I know some people who rent houses to see what the area is like and I know others who always rent and have never owned a house but are constantly moving.
Hang on a sec.. in London and the commuter belt therein, for many, many people I wouldn't call renting a 'temporary option' by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. If I want to buy to be able to commute to my job I'll need to rent for the next twenty years.
No it's not
Original post by Aoide
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.
There are a few problems with this.
Firstly, I think the point is: if landlords didn’t (or couldn’t) obtain such huge rents from their property, it would reduce demand for property and make it far more affordable for those people currently unable to afford a house. Buy-to-lets perpetuate the unaffordability of housing, rather than resolve it.
The problem with the restaurant analogy is that the housing isn’t consumed like the food. The owner still has a £200k house worth £200k, even after someone has lived there for a year and paid him £7k for the privilege. It’s not about the service being permanent or temporary, but rather there are such negligible (non-existent) depreciation costs for the landlord in relation to the profits he makes on the service provided.
I don’t think renting is immoral per se, but I do think astronomical rents are. I’m currently paying off my landlord’s mortgage for him, which strikes me as a bit perverse. All he needed to do was scrape up his inheritance for the deposit, and now his tenants pay the mortgage whilst he lounges about the house. This sort of letting relationship is parasitical / predatory, and on the cusp of being immoral in my book.
(edited 11 years ago)
Well, no, I'm paid the same amount every month and, before I've saved for a sufficient amount of time, I won't be able to buy the property. Or any property. My point was that I'll be renting on an indefinite basis for two decades, whether I change houses or not is neither here nor there. Renting may well be 'temporary' option for the owner, but it certainly isn't for many tenants.
(edited 11 years ago)
What's wrong with being a rich person looking to get richer at the necessary expense of a considerably less wealthy person? Nothing much..
Firstly, maintenance costs are minute compared to the amount brought in as tenants usually pay bills and council tax on top, and secondly, no. If fewer properties were bought to let far, far more people would be able to afford a mortgage.
Yes, when you know there's a housing shortage, which we all do. It's like a who ate all the pies situation, no more pies left for anybody else. Just take what you need, not more than you need.
If the plot was bought by 10 people for the sake of letting out... Obviously it could be classified as immoral.
But I don't believe such a scenario exists here...(at least where I am)
Posted from TSR Mobile
But I don't believe such a scenario exists here...(at least where I am)
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's profiting from the otherwise homeless, to fund a scheme that makes it even more difficult for the homeless to own a home.
Rent paid means the tenants can save up less towards the purchase of their own home. That rent goes to the landlord to help them buy even more properties. When the tenants finally do save up enough money, there are fewer left meaning they have to save up even more. Knowing this, the landlords can raise rent even further and so on. In short, those who have money get richer, and those who don't get used and left behind.
Rent paid means the tenants can save up less towards the purchase of their own home. That rent goes to the landlord to help them buy even more properties. When the tenants finally do save up enough money, there are fewer left meaning they have to save up even more. Knowing this, the landlords can raise rent even further and so on. In short, those who have money get richer, and those who don't get used and left behind.
Original post by Archimonkey
Yes, when you know there's a housing shortage, which we all do. It's like a who ate all the pies situation, no more pies left for anybody else. Just take what you need, not more than you need.
What would individuals do if they couldn't afford to buy, and nobody had a property to rent out to help them? Not everybody can afford a mortgage, that's just a fact, so why not make the most of a service that you can offer to somebody who would be grateful for it? I rented for ages and was actually pleased that there was someone with money who had the funds to buy a property for me to live in- the fact that I was giving him money every month didn't bother me, to be honest. Because without him, I would have had to move in with my parents years ago.
Also, the "don't take more than you need" thing. Do you NEED a computer? Do you NEED to pay for nice clothes? Not really, yet you do it, and I'm sure if you had the chance to invest money with a guaranteed return you would do so.
I am yet to meet somebody with the money to BTL who will not do so on "moral" grounds.
My uncle is really big into this as it's his retirement fund kinda thing. But I don't feel it's immoral I've helped him out with repairs and such going and checking properties etc. He pays someone when he's out of the country to clean, another person to do repairs etc. So giving people jobs, these are holiday lets however.
But the ones he has in other areas are very suburban that people would definitely not be able to afford otherwise, usually renting to people who don't have jobs (which he is a bit wary of) and has to ensure he is paid from the renter's benefits. It doesn't come directly to him. But these people wouldn't have a house otherwise as people have said the government aren't going to build a lot more anytime soon.
Also when I'm older I'll probably rent for a good while I don't want to be tied down for any length of time and owning my own house isn't really an aspiration for me.
But the ones he has in other areas are very suburban that people would definitely not be able to afford otherwise, usually renting to people who don't have jobs (which he is a bit wary of) and has to ensure he is paid from the renter's benefits. It doesn't come directly to him. But these people wouldn't have a house otherwise as people have said the government aren't going to build a lot more anytime soon.
Also when I'm older I'll probably rent for a good while I don't want to be tied down for any length of time and owning my own house isn't really an aspiration for me.
(edited 11 years ago)
I believe the sheer greed of the buy to rent landlords a few years ago helped push house prices up.
Capitalism is a good system. But not when abused, like any other system.
Capitalism is a good system. But not when abused, like any other system.
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
