The Tories have 'killed buy-to-let for the middle-classes'

[OwlHoot]

"With our fiscal prudence... An end to boom and bust"

What price did we get when he sold all our gold?

The guy was an idiot!

In fairness, Gordon Brown had to sell all that gold, due to a secret EU agreement that required "rebalancing" gold reserves betweenn various EU central banks.

So if the stupidity of doing so gets right up your nose, as it does most people, then it is really the EU that is annoying you/them/us

[d000hg]

I thought capitalism was based on the principles of making money for hard work, enterprise and entrepreneurship. That was surely the American Dream at least - you could become affluent if you 'deserved' it.

[PurpleGorilla]

The Tories have 'killed buy-to-let for the middle-classes'

In fairness, Gordon Brown had to sell all that gold, due to a secret EU agreement that required "rebalancing" gold reserves betweenn various EU central banks.

So if the stupidity of doing so gets right up your nose, as it does most people, then it is really the EU that is annoying you/them/us

I didn't know that.

Yeah I'm am ready to vote to leave the EU.

I love Europe, but it is a corrupt and highly un-democratic institution; with so much intertia, it is impotent to swift change.

[Zero Liability]

It's well established that governments have to interfere in capitalism when it starts to be a negative thing; monopolies and mergers etc. And record house prices and shortages are doing real harm to many and widening the gap between the rich and poor, which everybody agrees is a negative thing. Forcing BTL'ers to compete on at least even terms with buy-to-live'ers is something that should have happened donkeys years ago, and a small tax increase is pretty light compared to the sort of draconian measures they could have brought in.

Who are the 'experts' who advised them to interfere in the housing and credit markets to begin with? It's not a 'well established' fact at all, it's simply what governments do regardless.

[smalldog]

I thought capitalism was based on the principles of making money for hard work, enterprise and entrepreneurship. That was surely the American Dream at least - you could become affluent if you 'deserved' it.

Wrong, and nowhere does it say you should not be able to borrow to achieve it:

capitalism


/ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/


noun

noun: capitalism

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Maybe your version should say:

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit as long as you didnt borrow any of the initial monies from which to make the profit, rather than by the state.

Hence my parallel, its fundamental.

[d000hg]

And nowhere does it say you MUST be able to borrow to achieve it, which is what you seem to be asserting.

Nobody is obligated to lend you money in a capitalist society... and they are entitled to charge you whatever they wish for the privilege. For instance, lenders can decide to charge you a 3% fee on sale price on BTL mortgages if they wish. They already charge a premium.

[smalldog]

And nowhere does it say you MUST be able to borrow to achieve it, which is what you seem to be asserting.

Nobody is obligated to lend you money in a capitalist society... and they are entitled to charge you whatever they wish for the privilege. For instance, lenders can decide to charge you a 3% fee on sale price on BTL mortgages if they wish. They already charge a premium.

not saying that at all, Im saying if companies in a capitalist society want to lend you money to make more then by all means borrow with all its associated risks and charges.

Until such time as the law is changed or government policy shifts to legislate again it then its your right. If you dont need to borrow to make it then good for you.

[DimPrawn]

Borrow to Let must die, NOW

Buy (outright, no debt, no leverage) to Let, does no harm.

[d000hg]

Borrow to Let must die, NOW

Buy (outright, no debt, no leverage) to Let, does no harm.

I think this is a fair argument. Apart from highly debatable moral angles to this, which we'll never all agree on, it IS the case that it puts lots and lots of people at very high risk, if the whole thing comes tumbling down and their retirement ends up leaving them not just with nothing, but in debt. People view BTL as free, safe money.

[BrilloPad]

Borrow to Let must die, NOW

Buy (outright, no debt, no leverage) to Let, does no harm.

Rubbish. There are still too many young people who cannot afford homes.

Though, IMO, stopping borrow-to-let and stopping foreigners and companies buying private property is a good first step.