Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Monthly housing costs
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property

How much a month is your rent/mortgage
Less than �100
21%
 21%  [ 13 ]
Less than �200
8%
 8%  [ 5 ]
Less than �400
18%
 18%  [ 11 ]
Less than �600
21%
 21%  [ 13 ]
Less than �800
11%
 11%  [ 7 ]
Less than �1000
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
Yikes
13%
 13%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 60

Author 
 Message
marigold



Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 12458
Location: West Sussex
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

DawnMK wrote:
we have two propertys that are BTL, the council rent them from us long term and take 10% for collecting rents, we made the initial investment in the properties and spent money renovating them and bringing them up to standard, they are basicaly our pension fund for the future and the return we get on them at the moment covers the mortgage and we have to pay tax on them as it is classed as part of our income, we are considering getting a third property and doing the same, on BTL if you let out yourself and take tennents on housing benifit you are taking a considerable finacial risk and not all landlords will do that, we have been at times out of pocket that is why we now place them with the council to house tennents, it ties the propertys up long term our mortgage is intrest only so at the end of term we still have to find money for the final payment, and if we sell we will have to pay capital gains, as well as paying tax all these years, so you dont go into to ake a quick buck, we have no plans to off load the properties and plan that when we retire and they reach the end of there term the rent will greatly subsidse our pension, if you take on tennents on benifits your rentable income is capped so no matter how you look at it landlords are not making millions on the back of poverty there is finacial risk and you could lose it all, or get only small returns on it, you can make money but only in the long term then not vast sums.


You many not be making millions personally Dawn, but you ARE having your ongoing investment paid for by HB (assuming your tenants receive it). Collectively it's landlords who benefit most financially from the billions spent on HB. Your tenants' HB is buying you a long term investment not a secure home for them.

marigold



Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 12458
Location: West Sussex
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Katieowl wrote:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pms-plan-axe-housing-benefit-young-051600694.html



Just wait for the shanty towns for the young and homeless to start springing up...

Kate


What bemuses me is why we are still paying people to have kids. We already have a huge surplus of young people who are themselves a burden on state funds, so the argument that we need more kids to wipe our ancient bums and pay our pensions doesn't really hold much water any more. Withdrawing support from those already here is mean, but paying to add to the surplus is stupid. IMO, of course.

jema
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 28233
Location: escaped from Swindon
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Treacodactyl wrote:


Does the average BTL landlord make huge profits then? Those I know seem to just about cover their costs and hope house prices rise.


We looked at Brighton recently, with the idea not so much of BTL, but on the grounds Son is paying �950 rent, and if it made sense it would have been an idea to buy and let him rent.

The money side all seemed very circular, prices that fit almost exactly with doing a bit more than break even, when rented out.

So I would guess as a rule at the moment, BTL is very far from a get rich quick scheme for newcomers, but it along with everything in the "housing as an investment" market has helped make housing unaffordable for most people and a cash cow for those already owning property. Plus of course it does make the cost of housing benefit something like 20 billion

woodsprite



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 2943
Location: North Herefordshire
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

renting, both self employed, hubby approaching 60 with absolutely no prospect of either of us ever being able to retire.
Two independant sons who, at the moment, have little hope of buying becaue the money they earn barely covers their rent, neither have flash cars.
The future is worrying.

Katieowl



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 4317
Location: West Wales
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

marigold wrote:
Katieowl wrote:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pms-plan-axe-housing-benefit-young-051600694.html



Just wait for the shanty towns for the young and homeless to start springing up...

Kate


What bemuses me is why we are still paying people to have kids. We already have a huge surplus of young people who are themselves a burden on state funds, so the argument that we need more kids to wipe our ancient bums and pay our pensions doesn't really hold much water any more. Withdrawing support from those already here is mean, but paying to add to the surplus is stupid. IMO, of course.


There will be no pensions Marigold...if you can't wipe your own bum, or don't have someone who feels responsible enough for you to do it, you will walk around with Sh1t dribbling down your legs.

The future is looking grim. Unfortunately the urge to breed is hard wired into most species...come on now be honest, do you REALLY want David Cameron and his ilks children to be the only ones in the country?

Kate

chez



Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 35935
Location: The Hive of the Uberbee, Quantock Hills, Somerset
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

jema wrote:
the "housing as an investment" market


I think we need a culture change where housing per se is not seen as 'an investment'.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that people *shouldn't* have investment properties or be landlords. But I do think that whopping big mortgages shouldn't be allowed to facilitate it, because then the whole thing gets tied in to interest rates, rather than what people can afford to pay as rent.

I do think that 'second homes' should be taxed to the nipples, though.

sean
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42219
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Housing being seen as an investment is relatively recent though. Up to (approximately) the 60s/70s a house was something that you bought to use, people didn't expect values to go up much if at all.

chez



Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 35935
Location: The Hive of the Uberbee, Quantock Hills, Somerset
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I think we need to get back to that. But I don't know how.

Penny Outskirts



Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 23385
Location: Planet, not on the....
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Chez wrote:
I think we need to get back to that. But I don't know how.


Is very difficult. In order to get back to that, house prices need to fall back to within a reasonable multiple of income. But if they do, the mortgage lending institutions will have to declare huge losses, as the value of their assets will fall (as well as plumet)

jamanda
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 35057
Location: Devon
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Chez wrote:
I think we need to get back to that. But I don't know how.


They need to get back to being worth the same in relationship to salaries as well. Having one person out a couple needing to bring in a salary would reduce the pressure on jobs. But like you, I don't know how.

DawnMK



Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 895
Location: Buckinghamshire
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

As there will be no state pension for me and my husband or our children why shouldnt we have the right to secure our finacial future by investing in property now, instead of waiting to be a burden on the state when we are retired we are planning to support ourselfs finacialy, perhaps they ought to start means testing those pensioners out there now who recive state pension own several propertys flash cars have long holidays in the sun and come with that old chestnut they worked hard for it all there working lives total clap trap, they made there money and now are preaped to see fututure generations work longer and do without to keep them in comfy lifestyles and make us all feel bad because they are poor pensioners, retire the lot of them at 65 give the jobs to youngsters who want to work, there are lots that could be done,
yes perhaps all us landlords should let people stay in our propertys for free while we are at it, we work hard for what we have got and done without for many year, we dont take fancy holidays, live a fancy lifestyle, we work 60-70 hours a week never claimed benifits have been very careful with our money and invested it for the future and we are seen as cash cows for it, well so be it, when we sell the property we are in we will buy another and invest in another rental.

Oh and to top it all perhaps we should only rent to those who are in long term benifit and refuse tennents who are on housing benifits like many other landlords there punishinging those who have not got anything even further.

We dont know the finacial circumstances of our tennents that is the job of the council none of our businesss.

Do I feel guilty for working hard and making money not one bit.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

sean wrote:
Housing being seen as an investment is relatively recent though. Up to (approximately) the 60s/70s a house was something that you bought to use, people didn't expect values to go up much if at all.


A lot of things have changed since then, not many people would have owned shares then for example, the population has risen dramatically, lifestyles have changed etc,etc.

I doubt it would be possible to reduce house prices without reversing many other changes.

jamanda
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 35057
Location: Devon
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Not many people own shares now. I don't know anyone who does.

DawnMK



Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 895
Location: Buckinghamshire
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

marigold wrote:
DawnMK wrote:
we have two propertys that are BTL, the council rent them from us long term and take 10% for collecting rents, we made the initial investment in the properties and spent money renovating them and bringing them up to standard, they are basicaly our pension fund for the future and the return we get on them at the moment covers the mortgage and we have to pay tax on them as it is classed as part of our income, we are considering getting a third property and doing the same, on BTL if you let out yourself and take tennents on housing benifit you are taking a considerable finacial risk and not all landlords will do that, we have been at times out of pocket that is why we now place them with the council to house tennents, it ties the propertys up long term our mortgage is intrest only so at the end of term we still have to find money for the final payment, and if we sell we will have to pay capital gains, as well as paying tax all these years, so you dont go into to ake a quick buck, we have no plans to off load the properties and plan that when we retire and they reach the end of there term the rent will greatly subsidse our pension, if you take on tennents on benifits your rentable income is capped so no matter how you look at it landlords are not making millions on the back of poverty there is finacial risk and you could lose it all, or get only small returns on it, you can make money but only in the long term then not vast sums.


You many not be making millions personally Dawn, but you ARE having your ongoing investment paid for by HB (assuming your tenants receive it). Collectively it's landlords who benefit most financially from the billions spent on HB. Your tenants' HB is buying you a long term investment not a secure home for them.


so what would you like me to do work hard and give them a house I dont think so if they want to work badly enough they will find work some work or anything its not my fault they are on benifits I havent taken anything away from them, but we do give them a decent roof over there heads at an afford rental price below what the current rentable value is making it feasable for HB tennents to live there.

Break down the finaces yourself three bed house in this area rents out about �800 a month we rent it out at �650 and its in a respectable area in fantastic condition large garden semi detatched decent schools none housing estate who is gaining here the greedy landlord ripping off people or the tennent have the opportunity to rent something decent

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 12 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Jamanda wrote:
Not many people own shares now. I don't know anyone who does.


Yes you do, but my point is many things have changed. Take a look at population vs houses for another example and the rise of single parent families.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright � 2004 marsjupiter.com