The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The BTL will be paying out of their income plus the income of the expected tenant."
He will also have greater expenses as he ALSO needs to pay for his place to live.
"This means BTL drives BTO out of the purchase market."
Which needs not be a bad thing where there are too many owner-occupied houses and not enough ones for rent.
"So eventually the BTL's business plan will fail, with losses for both the BTL and the bank. "
Yes, so what? They made some during the good times, why should they not be allowed to take losses at other times? Plus, well, shouldn't the bank then stop giving more money to the BTL as the business model may not hold?
"The whole thing is a bubble and has to stop."
Then address the bubble, but not the idea of buying to let. Banning buy-to-let, in the long run, means that there will be no rental market at all.
Now, I know why right wing politicians would see that as a good thing: it has been demonstrated that owning a house makes you much more likely to vote righ-wing. But in general, I don't see how having lots of owner-occupied houses is a nice goal per se.
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
by gmoke - Oct 28 7 comments
by ManfromMiddletown - Oct 20 61 comments
by gmoke - Oct 7 3 comments
by gmoke - Oct 287 comments
by ManfromMiddletown - Oct 2061 comments
by gmoke - Oct 73 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 760 comments
by DoDo - Oct 310 comments
by Cyrille - Sep 24136 comments