Jeremy Corbyn to effectively Confiscate Landlords Properties

My daughter (who incidentally CHOOSES to rent) said to me just the other day almost exactly the same thing! The point seems to have escaped those who think that forcing landlords to sell up will magically increase the housing supply that their BTL properties are being lived in - they are not lined up standing empty alongside alongside the evil Buy To Let Landlord's own property in which he himself lives.

I have even had people tell me that in their opinion no-one should be allowed to own more than one property as they are needed for people to live in! Well duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh dummy - people ARE living in every one of our properties!

Reply to the comment left by "D D" at "22/02/2016 - 16:57":

Much of the tenant market, certainly in urban areas, IS 'sharers'.

Sharers requirements for their 'share' of total space within the demise of the property that are renting... is considerably lower than owner occupiers total space within the demise of their first home as OOs. Would be interesting (and I would have thought essential for George and his buddies) to formulate a simple ahem.. formula to calculate how much extra space is required in the UK when sharers upgrade from a room to their first home, as part of the detailed analysis he did before announcing C24?

4 of my former sharer tenants (2 young couples) have done such an upgrade in the last month, so I have an idea of the space increase was in that case. I wonder if George has given any thought to this point?

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "22/02/2016 - 20:10":

Ps Before the HPC nutjobs do what they 'do' and try take advantage of a quote and manipulate elsewhere on the web: just to clarify when I wrote 'first home', I meant previous sharers first home as OOs, as around 100% of sharers will NOT be buying a room in a mandatory' HMO or indeed an 'additional' HMO, as per licensing regs.

I had the good fortune to miss Paul's post before the s21 was issued and eviction took place, but these goons seem to think the prices will drop 10 to 50% without BTL. Never a shred of evidence for this weird assumption. As eloquently stated above, same number of people wanting accomodation from same amount of accomodation, so a fantasy.

In fact prices could go up, as less residents in OO premises.

And less refurbished properties (excluding London of course) without BTL.

As mortgages are now less than rents (discarding the manure nance and insurance 'benefit'), why doesn't every one buy? labour mobility, choice, risk, employment / security, etc. etc.

Forcing LL to sell is of course an option, but as this is not Russia or China, property can not be confiscated without paying market value. So how does this solve the housing crisis? Again - Musical Chairs. One out, one in.

Chris, I'm assuming "manure nance" is what your predictive text produced and you intended to type "maintenance".

Paul N. unfortunately had deeply entrenched doctrinaire views and paid no attention to any of the evidence offered by several posters on these threads which thoroughly refuted his fervently held beliefs, so I can understand why he was eventually banned.

I think those who assert property prices will drop up to 50% when mortgaged buy-to-letters are forced out of the market base this on their belief that b-t-l buyers are outbidding prospective owner occupiers, mainly due to their ability to obtain-interest only mortgages which are no longer available to owner occupiers. Apart from the fact that this is mathematically impossible, they completely miss the point that they are not comparing like with like. Owner occupiers are buying their homes, whereas interest-only landlords are effectively just renting a business asset from the mortgage provider to enable them to conduct their rental business (which is why the interest is rightly tax deductible for the moment). Osborne could have resolved this perceived inequity without bankrupting any landlords, either by outlawing interest-only mortgages altogether henceforth, or making them available again to owner occupiers who are prepared to risk losing their home if interest rates or house prices move against them. Comparison of property price rises before interest-only was banned for owner occupier buyers with the last few years when interest-only has been confined to buyers to let does not support the argument that this so-called advantage has led to landlords outbidding first time buyers.