Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[LondonMix]

If you are limiting this analysis of rent as exploitation to London then yes. Elsewhere though food can be more expensive than a small 2 or 3 bed apartment for a family of 4.

The point DaveR was making its odd that making a business of providing other life essentials raises no concern but renting is discussed as very different when its effectively the same.

[PokerTime]

I unterstand the analogy being made, but SJ is right (imo) in that it's perhaps a poor analogy. I could flip your point by saying that many farms are subsidised by EU grants and measures are taken to make sure food doesn't become totally unaffordable, whereas as no concern is acted upon to use measures to ensure the affordability of housing. They are both essentials, but we don't interfere with the Housing Market like we do with food production.

What would you have in place of Housing Benefit BS? The government has tried capping it below average market levels and it hasn't worked to bring rents down (no suprise there).

[LondonMix]

That is not what farm subsidies are for. What thus shows is really a lack of economic understanding.

Farm subsidies keep farms open that would close because they can't compete internationally. Must governments view maintaining domestic farming as a national security issue and support farms by

1. Paying farmers to leave parts of their land fallow to reduce supply and prop up prices

2. The US govt also buys their farmers extra supply artificially boosting demand also propping up prices. This food is not ever sold or used commercially

3. Some farmers get direct subsidies as the international competition is such that the above measures to prop up prices artificially to keep the farms viable wouldn't work. Controversially, these subsidies are set so high they force countries that naturally can produce food more cheaply than the EU to become dependant on imports as their farms close.

There is concern about food prices per SE. It's a national security issue. Also, I think saying that governments don't care if people can access / afford shelter is crazy. Housing Is heavily subsidised.

[DaveR]

I think the food/rent analogy is good enough for the limited purpose i.e. to expose the inability of anyone to articulate convincingly why an individual who owns residential property and rents it out for profit is acting in a way that is morally questionable. It always comes back to 'housing is an essential need' - well, so is food. It's a good way of showing that the reason people are angry about the housing market but not the market for food is because one market works much better than the other, not because there are lost of nasty people who own BTL properties.

It's obviously a less good analysis to diagnose the problems in the housing market and look for solutions, tho' at the level of basic economics the principles are the same. When prices rise it incentivises suppliers to increase production and prices stop rising because of competition - that happens in food markets pretty well, where farmers can switch crops or start production on marginal land or wholesalers can start sourcing from new markets. It's a bit more difficult for housing, but it's a good argument in favour of cutting down the scale of the green belt, or making planning rules less restrictive.

My real point though is that if people want to argue for rent controls or price caps or limits on foreign buyers or legal changes to security of tenure, whether I agree or disagree there is a valid argument going on. If people say buy-to-let is immoral I can only say I think that's a very stupid thing to say.

[Otta]

You can't tar everyone with the same brush, but to suggest there isn't plenty of pure greed out there is equally stupid surely.

[DaveR]

Otta, I agree, but you don't have to be greedy to buy a house and rent it out, so the act itself is morally neutral.

[Otta]

Agreed, if I had the money I'd do it.

[Sue]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unfortunately, a lot of comments on

> forums/chatrooms etc can get misinterpreted as we

> are unable to hear the tone of voice, see the body

> language etc.

xxxxxxxxx

Yes. That's why I put a smiley after the comment you objected to....

[LondonMix]

Ah, harmony and agreement on the EDF.

Agree with all of that obviously. Not much more to add. :)

[adonirum]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> adonirum Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Unfortunately, a lot of comments on

> > forums/chatrooms etc can get misinterpreted as

> we

> > are unable to hear the tone of voice, see the

> body

> > language etc.

>

> xxxxxxxxx

>

> Yes. That's why I put a smiley after the comment

> you objected to....

Looking back at it (the post) so you did and I am happy to admit I either missed it or more likely it didn't register.

Therefore, I hereby apologise to you for my misinterpretation of your post and for stating that it was "damned rude".

[StraferJack]

Feudalism ahoy

Land has accrued value beyond mere money in recent years. Deliberately ( rather than by circumstance) grabbing as much of that land because of good fortune is basic greed

I repeat, in and of itself being a landlord is not greedy.

But as of late we have a situation where a smaller group of people are able to buy proportionally more of the property stock than is normal. This is possible because of fortune not effort

Diminishing the supply of housing stock from potential buyers, just so they can pay off your pension, at their cost is, I believe greedy

Saying you haven't heard a sufficiently good argument borders on psychopathic. It should be self evident. Earn money, buy food and shelter. Sorted. Depending on your circumstance buy the best shelter and the best food if you can and good luck to you

But comparing food to land and all the time pretending that landlords = grocers is lame. Estate agents = grocers.

[Mick Mac]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry yeah I meant CGT and income tax. Seems like

> on hell of a profit regardless. Still... easy to

> make money in a rising market.

No you pay CGT or income/corporate tax but not both, plus stamp duty.

[Jeremy]

Thanks MM.

[Mick Mac]

I know, I'm so helpful.

[Mick Mac]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> But comparing food to land and all the time

> pretending that landlords = grocers is lame.

> Estate agents = grocers.

I have never known a grocer who sold goods he didn't own in return for a commission.

[StraferJack]

It's an imperfect analogy as I've already pointed out to be fair mick

But if people will persist with it it's the closest comparison

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But comparing food to land and all the time pretending that landlords = grocers is lame.

> Estate agents = grocers.

But quite a few people do say, "how can you be allowed to buy and sell a limited, necessary resource for profit. It's unethical". Which is where the grocer/landlord analogy is relevant.

[StraferJack]

If you generalise and reduce, yeah you can make any argument the same

Doesn't make it so. If you want to say it's the same then feel free, but taking at a remove and call it a "resource" is ... Again with the word. But lame

Buy a house. Biggest you can afford. Treat yourself. But don't buy someone else's house JUST to make a profit. You don't buy food to let it out to other people. Don't do it to homes.

[DaveR]

So there you are; simple. Don't buy "someone else's house".

If I own two pairs of shoes, have I bought 'somebody else's shoes'? Oh no, I forgot, houses are different because......no, I still can't get it. Is it because there aren't enough? Surely not, because then it would just be a supply issue, and nothing to do with morality.

Obviously, if you want to rent a house you'll have to find someone immoral to rent you one. Or maybe an investment savvy dog, or something.

Ps does anybody know what feudalism has to do with this?

[PokerTime]

The issue though SJ is that those who BTL do so because it's an investment, with a return (usually) - and there are agencies that promote BTL as an investment opportunity and take care of everything. They are removed from any kind of ethics, or indeed the difficulties of many, as they are already on the ladder. I'm with you in your criticism of BTL, but mainly because I see BTL as another market deregulation, introduced at the time as yet another scheme to keep the market bouyant. If you chart the timeline of the various deregulations and the products mortgage lenders were then able to introduce as a result, you see a direct correlation between the dipping of first time buyers and new products. The latest is 'Help to Buy'. The Housing Market is basically one big pyramid scheme that has been happily kept going by sucessive governments.

In reply to a couple of earlier posts;

LM, Housing is subsidised by Housing Benefit and not much else. In fact there has been a deliberate attempt to make it difficult for councils for example, to build affordable housing, with any help in the form of capital grants (or their equivalents) being given to private companies or to a lesser degree HAs. That's how you end up with a private company redeveloping the Heygate and set to make ?194 million whilst only providng 79 affordable homes for rent, instead of the 1200 council homes that were cleared to sell the land at a price that lost the council money. There are similar schemes in other boroughs, all of which will achieve nothing more than a depletion of affordable housing whilst moving the poorest out of zone 2.

DaveR, I think if there weren't fundamental problems with access to housing, no-one would care about BTL. People are trying to make sense of things like why it now take multiples up to 9x of salary to buy a first home, compared to the 3.5x of 30 years ago, that their parents were faced with. Deregulation in various ways has led to artificial inflation. Many industries would love to have had the level of tinkering the Housing Market has had. It's very complex though in reality, and any solutions (and they do exist) are equally complex and in some ways controversial. It used to be that if you worked hard, even though your job was ordinary, you could in time buy a modest house. It used to be that if you earned an above average wage, had worked hard to acquire a profession, you could buy a nicer house. Now the ordinary worker has no hope of ever owning anything, and the professional will have to sacrifice a huge chunk of salary for a basic property. That's what we need to look at imo.

[StraferJack]

"If I own two pairs of shoes, have I bought 'somebody else's shoes'? Oh no, I forgot, houses are different because......no, I still can't get it. Is it because there aren't enough? Surely not, because then it would just be a supply issue, and nothing to do with morality. "

I really can't help you - you are trapped in your own conundrum. fingers in your ears, la la la la - no problem here - everything is tickety boo. Shoes = houses. Food = houses yadda yadda

People buying shoes or food to invest in them? And complaining about their yield? Nah - don't see much of that going on. People do or don't buy whatever shoes they want and noone else cares or suffers

You want 50 pairs of shoes - go ahead. It doesn't affect anyone else

You want to buy more homes than you need to live in? yeah that affects other people. But keep ignoring the part where I say being a landlord ins't inherently evil. All manner of roads lead to owning more than one property and that's fine

but deliberately buying up stock? yeah. bad

[StraferJack]

feudalism = people who have land, control those who don't

The inflated worth of property is seeing us nudge back that way

But y'know...shoes

[DaveR]

"feudalism = people who have land, control those who don't" = someone needs to get a sense of proportion. And read some history. And economics 101 wouldn't go amiss.

Edited to add:

I find your world-weary, 'I just can't help you any more' tone hilarious. Away from your delusions of omnipotence there has actually been some sensible debate on this thread.

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Buy a house. Biggest you can afford. Treat yourself. But don't buy someone else's house JUST

> to make a profit. You don't buy food to let it out to other people. Don't do it to homes.

First you say the grocer analogy isn't appropriate, then you use it? Though you did use 'let' rather than 'sell' to try and avoid being picked up on it. Change that and you see how the argument quickly falls apart.

But don't buy someone else's house JUST to make a profit. You don't buy food to sell it to other people. Don't do it to homes.

Houses are resources. Dress it up in as much hand-wringing language as you like, but it doesn't change that basic fact.

[Penguin68]

Just out of interest, feudalism is, technically, the holding of land (a feudum or feof, also spelled fief) in return for military service, a system introduced by the Normans, although somewhat similar to Saxon thegn-age. William determined that all the land that he had conquered was 'owned' by him and held from him by his tenants-in-chief, in return for military service, they in turn might 'sub-let' holdings to their tenants for military service. Those working on the land came with it. The military service owed might be commuted to money (scutage - from the money necessary to buy a scutum or shield) - but the service was always determined in the 'currency' of armed support. The system was alsways flawed and subverted, ut the theory, that men swore fealty to their lord, getting revenues (land and revenues were seen as identical) in return for sworn (armed) service. Even bishops and abbots held land in this way.