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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • PS Helper
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Peer Support Volunteers
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    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?

    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.
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    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.
    cost of repairs can significantly vary depending on the repair needed, and could be a real hassle to get done. paying bills is irrelevant as you would be paying bills whether you are a tenant or home owner.
    do you not need to pay large deposits when buying homes? wouldnt this add to your mortgage?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    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?
    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 water comparison isn't really the same thing at all, seeing as that isn't how the system works, and we have to pay for water anyway without owning any rivers etc. I don't own any expanse of water, therefore pay the company who deals with the water to receive it and yes, I am grateful. I'm not sure where you were going with that one, because what you suggested I wouldn't be happy with is basically what happens..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is when the landlords evil .... but apart from that don't know if it can be called immoral.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lyrical_lie)
    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.
    If he hadn't bought those properties, and other landlords hadn't either, then the house prices would be much lower. You can't claim he's doing them a favour when he's actually part of the cause of the problem.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    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 landlord pays X to own the home, of which Y has come from you. Why do you not own X/Y of the home? Or any of it? Is it because you were so desperate for a place to live that you'd settle for an obviously unfair agreement?

    The water comparison isn't really the same thing at all, seeing as that isn't how the system works, and we have to pay for water anyway without owning any rivers etc. I don't own any expanse of water, therefore pay the company who deals with the water to receive it and yes, I am grateful. I'm not sure where you were going with that one, because what you suggested I wouldn't be happy with is basically what happens..
    Water's cheap, and their are environmental concerns about it, so we accept paying for it. Imagine if you were spending 20+% of your income on water - it's just as, if not more, important than a roof over your head.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    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?
    generally speaking, shouldnt things that are immoral be frowned upon?

    im not sure if the analogy is right...
    personally, using the river topic, id say that its like a person paid for the means to make the water from a continually polluted river, safer to drink and is charging people who want to drink from it... without that person, you may not have the money to do the same yourself hence the river is useless to you (its polluted).

    with yours, you make it sound like everyone can drink from the river but a big mean person bought it and is charging everyone... remember you have to buy the river to drink from it
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FranticMind)

    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!
    This. I despise estate agents - One actually wanted £50 off me just to view a property. Then they would have wanted application fees and so on, presumably so they can advertise lower fees to landlords - the people with real money.

    Also, a close friend of mine was royally screwed by an estate agent, and she ended up suing them.

    I would have pos-repped, but I've used my allowance!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    arent things that are immoral usually frowned upon?
    Not if it's dressed up as something good. Some people here think outbidding a homeless person then renting the house to them is doing good! Of course, that's not what directly happens, but indirectly and overall it is.

    im not sure if the analogy is right...
    personally, using the river topic, id say that its like a person paid for the means to make the water from a continually polluted river, safer to drink and is charging people who want to drink from it... without that person, you may not have the money to do the same yourself hence the river is useless to you.
    How about charging you 20+% of your income for the water?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Not if it's dressed up as something good. Some people here think outbidding a homeless person then renting the house to them is doing good! Of course, that's not what directly happens, but indirectly and overall it is.
    houses would be cheaper if there was no renting allowed but a lot of factors drive up prices such as the increasing population, economy etc does it not? prices would still be high, could the homeless person still pay for it themselves? :holmes:


    How about charging you 20+% of your income for the water?
    charge me a fraction of my income (something i can pay immediately) to quench my thirst right now (where the person is responsible for it being safe to drink) or charge 200% of my income (which i cant pay as easily) for unlimited drinking and take the responsibility into my own hands?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    but could the homeless person pay for it themselves? :holmes:
    It'd be easier if there weren't landlords driving up the prices.


    charge me a fraction of my income (something i can pay immediately) to quench my thirst right now (where the person is responsible for it being safe to drink) or charge 200% of my income (which i cant pay as easily) for unlimited drinking and take the responsibility into my own hands?
    False dichotomy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    It'd be easier if there weren't landlords driving up the prices.
    thats a rehash of what i said without answering my question
    edit: my bad, you didnt see my edit. see previous post for question

    False dichotomy.
    elaborate?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    thats a rehash of what i said without answering my question
    edit: my bad, you didnt see my edit. see previous post for question
    Maybe they wouldn't but I think they could. Would the mortgage on a property not competed for by landlords be that much higher (if at all) than the rent on a property bought in an environment where landlords and prospective homeowners are competing? Higher mortgages are passed on to the tenants in the form of higher rent.


    elaborate?
    It needn't be one or the other. For example, tenants getting a stake in the property depending on how much rent they pay and how much mortgage the landlord is paying. In any other investment, those who stump up the cash take a percentage of the overall investment, just in this case the people stumping up cash are poorer and homeless so are desperate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Maybe they wouldn't but I think they could. Would the mortgage on a property not competed for by landlords be that much higher (if at all) than the rent on a property bought in an environment where landlords and prospective homeowners are competing? Higher mortgages are passed on to the tenants in the form of higher rent.
    does that not just highlight the need for people to lower their desire for convenient locations and be open to looking elsewhere for cheaper housing? which would be needed regardless of whether renting existed or not?

    It needn't be one or the other. For example, tenants getting a stake in the property depending on how much rent they pay and how much mortgage the landlord is paying. In any other investment, those who stump up the cash take a percentage of the overall investment, just in this case the people stumping up cash are poorer and homeless so are desperate.
    i made some reference to this in a previous post (not to you)
    to make an arrangement with the landlord to gain some ownership of the house for an agreed upon payment scheme. im not an expert but that sounds ideal regarding long term living.

    but that doesnt necessarily mean there is something immoral regarding the plain landlord/tenant arrangement. renting is intended for short term living is it not? which i find nothing wrong with. the greyer area is long term living (which renting isnt intentionally for)...

    for a long term living tenant, isnt this like continually buying expensive single sweets rather than buying the expensive but technically cheaper bulk form of the same sweets? theres nothing wrong with selling you the single sweets every time, but it would be in your best interest to buy the bulk form
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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

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