Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    troll post, try telling this to landlords who have made millions from renting houses, no cares what u think.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    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.
    I thought she built a lot during her government and not many were built afterwards?
    And labour haven't really built any in their term. This government is increasing house building, but not nearly enough, and also share a lot of the blame.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    So true..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    So where would you live?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    If i bought a house, i should be able to do whatever i want with it. including charge for temporary residence no matter how long that 'temporary' is.... this may advantage the landlord but not everything is an advantage if you know what a landlord is obliged to do...

    i dont see any immorality in it unless you charge a high price in a poor area or something for a not so good house (i.e. not proportionally appropriate )

    i live in student accommodation for £64 a week for a year, i dont want a percentage of the house. rent is the ideal choice for short term living and saving up money for a house (alongside staying with parents or whatever).... youre essentially just criticizing a temporary option for being temporary...

    if you want your rent to contribute to your ownership of the house then buy it... though youll have a mortgage not rent
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannydoy)
    So where would you live?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    If i bought a house, i should be able to do whatever i want for it. including charge for temporary residence. this may advantage the landlord but not everything is an advantage if you know what a landlord is obliged to do...

    i dont see any immorality in it unless you charge a high price in a poor area or something

    i live in student accommodation for £64 a week for a year, i dont want a percentage of the house. rent is the ideal choice for short term living and saving up money for a house (alongside staying with parents or whatever).... youre essentially just criticizing a temporary option for being temporary...
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    No it's not
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    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.
    temporary does not necessarily have to reference time, it can reference the fact the commuter is not the one in charge (mainly because he does not own anything). to be able to live there for a long time is just being fortunate, it doesnt count as an obligation for anything. if you wanted the house make a deal with the landlord to own the house with whatever special payments... it was a temporary house when you first moved in and it is still a temporary house now, youre using convenience as justification.

    it could be that you/others are in such a position and i am lacking in the skills to put myself in your shoes, in which case, can you show me how you should be able own part/most of the house? you could talk about bonding/ having experiences (e.g. kids first steps, etc etc) but then that is usually the case for people who own/are owning a house is it not? :holmes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    temporary does not necessarily have to reference time, it can reference the fact the commuter is not the one in charge. to be able to live there for a long time is just being fortunate, it doesnt count as an obligation for anything. if you wanted the house make a deal with the landlord to own the house with whatever special payments... it was a temporary house when you first moved in and it is still a temporary house now, youre using convenience as justification.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    yeah its ripping people off, but thats capitalism for you, everyone tries to rip off other people
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    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.
    is that not just imposing the issues of the commuter onto the landlord? what makes you think the commuters priorities are more significant than the landlords regarding house ownership (or from a moral standpoint) other than your views being important to you (obviously) and the landlords to theirs?

    would it not be better to try and find other (cheaper) alternatives that include changing both living location, commuting, or perhaps even job (meaning being open to the idea of changing job/getting a raise to suit the needs of buying a house for example). it would be best to keep looking for the best alternative solution (in this case in order to save significant amounts quicker) rather than hoping to use one particular solution for two decades, wouldnt it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    is that not just imposing the issues of the commuter onto the landlord? what makes you think the commuters priorities are more significant than the landlords regarding house ownership (or from a moral standpoint) other than your views being important to you (obviously) and the landlords to theirs?

    location is an important factor, would it not be better to try and find other (cheaper) arrangements that include both living location, commuting, and perhaps even job (meaning being open to the idea of changing job to suit the needs of buying a house for example). it would be best to keep looking for the best alternative solution rather than hoping to use one particular solution for two decades
    What's wrong with being a rich person looking to get richer at the necessary expense of a considerably less wealthy person? Nothing much..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    What's wrong with being a rich person looking to get richer at the necessary expense of a considerably less wealthy person? Nothing much..
    while i cant disagree with your monopoly point (fair enough), renting a house isnt exactly the same as owning a house but just paying a landlord. doesnt the fact that the landlord have obligations e.g. repairs, compensate?

    if a future tenant did not have enough money to buy a house, would it not make things worse if the landlord never bought the house (hence not rent it out) in the first place?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    while i cant disagree with your monopoly point (fair enough), renting a house isnt exactly the same as owning a house but just paying a landlord. doesnt the fact that the landlord have obligations e.g. repairs, compensate?

    if a future tenant did not have enough money to buy a house, would it not make things worse if the landlord never bought the house (hence not rent it out) in the first place?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    How much money do you spend a week?The ultimate guide to tax!Guide to student bank accounts

    Sponsored features:

    Web Legend

    Win a Macbook Air!

    Blog about setting up a website for a chance to win in our Web Legend competition.

    Quick link:

    Unanswered money and finance threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.