Just to voice an opinion opposite what seems to be the prevailing one in this thread.
So what.
They bought a spare house and wanted to farm people for what they felt was a safe 8% while doing minimal work themselves. The situation changed. Life sucks doesn't it.
We don't bail market investors out in a market crash and at least they're (outside of REITs, and you can guess my views on those) not speculating on the essentials of literally living.
Why should we offer landlords a bung off the back of hard-working taxpayers who are, a large minority, already handing over vast amounts of their take-home to landlords anyway.
Worst comes to the worst they foreclose on their spare home and the bank who took a stupid risk lending eat the loss from the tenant.
Every annual company statement contains a risks section which usually includes the unforeseens such as changes to legislation. That's what's happened here, why should rent seekers get kid gloves?
So what.
They bought a spare house and wanted to farm people for what they felt was a safe 8% while doing minimal work themselves. The situation changed. Life sucks doesn't it.
We don't bail market investors out in a market crash and at least they're (outside of REITs, and you can guess my views on those) not speculating on the essentials of literally living.
Why should we offer landlords a bung off the back of hard-working taxpayers who are, a large minority, already handing over vast amounts of their take-home to landlords anyway.
Worst comes to the worst they foreclose on their spare home and the bank who took a stupid risk lending eat the loss from the tenant.
Every annual company statement contains a risks section which usually includes the unforeseens such as changes to legislation. That's what's happened here, why should rent seekers get kid gloves?