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 Cyrille - Apr 12 24 comments
by DoDo - Apr 6 39 comments
by Cyrille - Apr 8 6 comments
by ARGeezer - Mar 31 10 comments
by Zwackus - Mar 29 8 comments
by aquilon - Apr 3 156 comments
by Xavier in Paris - Mar 27 5 comments
by ManfromMiddletown - Mar 20 66 comments
by Oui - Apr 16
by Cyrille - Apr 1224 comments
by Cyrille - Apr 86 comments
by DoDo - Apr 639 comments
by aquilon - Apr 3156 comments
by ARGeezer - Mar 3110 comments
by Zwackus - Mar 298 comments
by DoDo - Mar 279 comments
by Xavier in Paris - Mar 275 comments
by ManfromMiddletown - Mar 2066 comments
by DoDo - Mar 1818 comments
by ARGeezer - Mar 1737 comments