Rushen Spy Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, yootalkin2me said: That'll do me, I'll.be retired by then and sell my rather expensive property to downsize, plus my over generous pension along with sell8ng our business my wife and I will be minted, my kids will all make plenty enough money to suit their lives...happy days indeed....unless 8 get some kind of ass cancer or similar but I'm too lucky for that kind of shit to come my way. Won't do me. I'll be over 100 by then and still alive and healthy thanks to a no-meat diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 As someone who owns a property (not here but in the UK), which was bought with the sole intention of renting it out in order to give extra income, I am a bit confused about Rushen Spy's interest and opinion on this matter. I rent the property to a young couple at the market rate; I maintain it for my tenants and respond immediately to organise replacement or repairs when the tenants bring these matters to my attention; I have not sought to increase the rent during the period of their tenancy (3 years) and I allow the tenants to enjoy their home (which I happen to own) without hindrance. If I were prevented from buying a property on a buy-to-let basis, where would my tenants have rented a home of their choice on a private estate from? A local authority with whom they would not have qualified for a public sector tenancy? From a Housing Association in an area remote from their places of work and child's school? From another private landlord from a smaller pot of private landlords who happen to have been able to build or inherited their second home? Under such circumstances the number of rental properties would be smaller and the rents would be higher, as a result. Rushen Spy is living in a typical socialist utopia where the practical impacts of his policy suggestions never have any social consequences. It is not the means of ownership that it is the issue; it is the terms of the rental. The answer is not to place irrelevant controls on the ownership of rental property but to ensure that tenants have adequate and balanced rights and that sufficient quantities of rental properties are available from a variety sources to make rents competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 But he's not a socialist, he flits around schools of right wing liberal thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 21 hours ago, Donald Trumps said: But he's not a socialist, he flits around schools of right wing liberal thought Indeed, the Manxman's home is his castle is an entirely Thaturite construct. In countries like Holland and Belgium there is no stigma attached to rental at all. It far outstrips homeownership. And state provision of rental accommodation ensures quality and now thermal / green build is commonplace. Buy to let or even build to let like a family member did for a number of hotels absolutely has a place n the market, else they wouldn't be filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.