Is buying to rent immoral?

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.

But say you paid £10000 in rent, and your landlord just passed that onto the bank, why shouldn't you get a stake in the property?

Lying is immoral but everyone does it, that doesn't mean it isn't something that should be frowned upon. With housing, the situation is worse than a simple investment though, since people need a place to live. Imagine if someone could buy a river, then made people pay them for the water, would you be grateful for that just because you yourself couldn't afford to buy the whole river?

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.

Because it wouldn't be my property. I wouldn't have been the one to save for a deposit, I wouldn't have been the one to sort out letting agreements, the property before it is let, finding potential tenants, possibly paying a letting agency fees..

I also wouldn't be responsible for any repairs that need doing. Having a landlord gives you a certain amount of security incase anything goes wrong. If the boiler breaks in your home you could be out of pocket by hundreds. If it happens in a rented property, ring your landlord, job done.

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!

think outbidding a homeless person then renting the house to them

Homeless people don't 'bid' for houses. They either go for state support, try to rent bedsits.

Homeless people generally have very little money. Even if house prices were £10k a home they WOULDN'T HAVE ONE.

They don't give a damn, most of them have much more significant troubles than housing.

HOMELESSNESS IS NOT THE PROBLEM ITS THE RESULT OF A PROBLEM.

Geez why does nobody get that...



Lack of jobs, mental instability, drug addictions, crime.

What's wrong with being a rich person looking to get richer at the necessary expense of a considerably less wealthy person? Nothing much..

Homeless people don't 'bid' for houses. They either go for state support, try to rent bedsits.

Homeless people generally have very little money. Even if house prices were £10k a home they WOULDN'T HAVE ONE.

They don't give a damn, most of them have much more significant troubles than housing.

HOMELESSNESS IS NOT THE PROBLEM ITS THE RESULT OF A PROBLEM.

Geez why does nobody get that...



Lack of jobs, mental instability, drug addictions, crime.

I think it's an unethical system that allows it to happen.

Although not all landlords are immoral in their intentions.

As a rent payer, I think it's a disgrace that my money is essentially going into a bottomless pit.

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?

The same applies to any service-providing business. The person who has a lot of capital to start off with sets up a business (e.g. Virgin Media), and provides a service to someone who pays a regular amount for use of that service (e.g. £50 per month for internet, phone and TV). Eventually, when the customer stops paying, the service will end, and they won't have anything physical in their hand to show for it. By that point, the business owner will have collected money to cover some of his start-up costs.

Buying a house to rent is no different to investing your money into setting up a service-providing business, in principle. The only difference is that in this case, the service is putting a roof over someone's head, rather than providing them with internet, phone and TV.


If you don't want your money "going into a bottomless pit", then the solution to that is to only ever buy physical objects, and never pay for ongoing services. Of course, that's not really feasible.