Old Conservatives don't understand

motorbiking said:
I invite you to do the sums with a BtL mortgage of 6%.

A 245k flat renting for £1,000 per month with an additional £200-250 month maintenance, ground rent, building Insurance etc etc.

Having the same tenant for 10 years paying market rate is very rare.
Click to expand...

mortgages arent likely to be 6% over a 25 year term, its just the current period

if the landlord makes no net monthly income, they will still end up with an asset worth £245k at todays prices, the person renting ends up with nothing

and the greatest problem is that the rental cost is more than likely going to be higher than the mortgage repayment.........but millions of people are unable to access that benefit.
 
Motorbiking thinks it is OK for assets in public ownership to be given away at half price to benefit a lucky minority. Even if the owners don't want to, he thinks they should be forced.

He doesn't think the same should apply to assets in private ownership, even if the circumstances are otherwise the same.

Too close to home, perhaps.

Perhaps he doesn't see himself as a taxpayer, or part of the community.
 
Notch7 said:
if the landlord makes no net monthly income, they will still end up with an asset worth £245k at todays prices, the person renting ends up with nothing
Click to expand...

Something is very wrong with our country when people can't buy themselves a home

But they can buy one for somebody else.
 
Notch7 said:
if the landlord makes no net monthly income, they will still end up with an asset worth £245k at todays prices,
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the landlord probably only had an interest only mortgage buy to let and at the end of the 25 year term they still owe the bank the 175k it cost to buy to pay off the loan. So the house may well be worth £245k now but that is not cash in the landlords pocket is it . Yes if they sell then the £70k is cash in the pocket but then they will still have to pay ££ capital gains tax on that which leaves them with £55,850. --Mean while the renter has not had to pay for new boilers, insulation, tests, regs, fences, which probably would mount up to £55k over 25 years---- You are better off renting.
 
Last edited:
JohnD said:
So you ARE in favour of owners being forced to sell their property at half price.
Click to expand...
Are you in favour of landowners being forced to sell their land or face paying extra tax because they own it and want to keep it?

What about people earning money by doing nothing other than buying shares in companies? Do you think that’s fair?
 
aveatry said:
--Mean while the renter has not had to pay for new boilers, insulation, tests, regs, fences, which probably would mount up to £55k over 25 years----
Click to expand...
Where do you think the money comes from to pay for those things?
 
That would depend on where they want to live.
Notch7 said:
mortgages arent likely to be 6% over a 25 year term, its just the current period

if the landlord makes no net monthly income, they will still end up with an asset worth £245k at todays prices, the person renting ends up with nothing

and the greatest problem is that the rental cost is more than likely going to be higher than the mortgage repayment.........but millions of people are unable to access that benefit.
Click to expand...
I think history says the low mortgage interest rate was the blip, not the other way around. When I had mortgages the norm was about 7%.
The buy to let boom was fuelled by low interest rates, but many who built businesses borrowing money to become landlords can't make the maths work anymore without a sizeable capital investment.
 
JohnD said:
Motorbiking thinks it is OK for assets in public ownership to be given away at half price to benefit a lucky minority. Even if the owners don't want to, he thinks they should be forced.

He doesn't think the same should apply to assets in private ownership, even if the circumstances are otherwise the same.

Too close to home, perhaps.

Perhaps he doesn't see himself as a taxpayer, or part of the community.
Click to expand...
show me where I have said that? Or are you telling lies again.
 
Mottie said:
Are you in favour of landowners being forced to sell their land or face paying extra tax because they own it and want to keep it?

What about people earning money by doing nothing other than buying shares in companies? Do you think that’s fair?
Click to expand...
Looks like JohnD has got a few of us on his special ignore list. The one where he never sees any questions that he is asked.
 
Notch7 said:
mortgages arent likely to be 6% over a 25 year term, its just the current period

if the landlord makes no net monthly income, they will still end up with an asset worth £245k at todays prices, the person renting ends up with nothing

and the greatest problem is that the rental cost is more than likely going to be higher than the mortgage repayment.........but millions of people are unable to access that benefit.
Click to expand...
I knew an old bloke who rented a house of a private landlord.
When the old bloke died suddenly, the landlord wanted rent paid up until the notice to quit period in the tenancy agreement expired.
The family of the deceased told the landlord to go and do one.
 
motorbiking said:
Say what you mean brig
Still pretending to be hard of thinking. Or perhaps it’s genuine.

How on earth can right to buy a council house translate in to compulsory purchase of privately owned property.
Click to expand...
Exactly! He’s a bit slow on this one.
 
motorbiking said:
I invite you to do the sums with a BtL mortgage of 6%.

A 245k flat renting for £1,000 per month with an additional £200-250 month maintenance, ground rent, building Insurance etc etc.

Having the same tenant for 10 years paying market rate is very rare.
Click to expand...
Let me do the sums.

Done them. The landlord wins.

If he didn't why would he rent out property ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top