Should mortgage lenders be allowed to provide buy-to-let mortgage loans?

Yes, if the mortgage owner own more that 2 properties under a buy to let loan

Yes, but for private landlords which own a few properties rather than large businesses (as well as close loop holes in taxes)

No, housing should be free.

Yes, but make buy to let unattractive through tax system.

You need landlords. Not everyone wants to buy the property they live in. Plans change and people move so some housing is purposefully temporary.

Buy to let mortgages should get incrementally less advantageous as you accrue more property portfolio. To prevent inflated house prices and promote healthy competition.

Yes, and lower taxes on landlords to reduce rent payments for tenants.

Yes, but more legislation required on number of houses a person can own. Extremely high tax rates and capital gains when owning 2+ rentals.

Yes but not on 2 bed houses that would be classed as a starter home that typicallly enables people to get on the property ladder

Yes, but we should reform all landlord obligations and the tax they pay, whether the home is occupied or not.

Yes, but I only on a capital repayment basis as interest-only buy-to-let mortgages give landlords significantly greater purchasing power than owner-occupiers.

No. I think whoever lives in a property should own it. (Exception should be made for council-managed housing for those with disabilities/retirees. And short-term holiday rentals which should be capped based on need and demand of the area.) All residents should undergo homeowner maintence training before owning a property, and given contact details for certified handymen.

I do not believe in private property.

yes but there should be a limit on how many depending on location and size

especially for properties being let out at a fair rent 9needs to be policed)...we are too short of housing at the right price.

No, there’s a massive housing crisis and private rent is already massively unaffordable for the normal working class family

Renting should not be an option as it leads to artificial demand in housing and hyper inflated housing prices

No, and impose a 10-year moritorium on buy-to-let mortgages to let housing prices reach equilibrium

No, unless it's for social housing

thats up to the morgage lender

Yes, but ban interest only mortgages and increase interest rates for additional homes

Yes- reduce tax evasion by landlords, cut the number of properties an individual can have and charge higher tax on income from said properties or impose higher fines for failure if proven otherwise

No it leads to inflated prices, and reduce tax evasion by landlords

yes but let those people know the risks and impacts of others who can’t afford to buy a house due to the inflation

No, landlords should not exist.

I haven opinion

Abolish private property and the market economy

No, and increase social housing stock to ease demand

I need to spend more time considering this question

Yes but someone’s portfolio should have a limit of properties.

Only at 40% LTV

no but the government must build new housing stock to meet demand

Yes but regulate them closely to ensure strict safety standards and housing conditions are met and that rent money is used to maintain property living conditions for tenant

Yes but only until the landlord has received a return on their investment. Then if the homeowner wishes to remain, they may pay an amount set between the homeowner and landlord to be paid and then the house may become the property of the homeowner

get rid of landlords

Yes, but only up to a limit of 3

Yes, but limited the number of buy to let mortgages a person can have.

Or just overthow the Landlords.

Yes, but tax the loans at a reasonable rate

Yes, for commercial property, student accommodation units, and domestic properties valued no less than 85% of the median house price in the region to protect first-time buyers.

Yes but limit to 2 houses per landlord

Yes, but increase tax on landlords

In accordance with housing availability, to be reviewed periodically. I don't believe people should be permitted to acquire multiple properties to let when there are far fewer available homes for people to buy thus driving up housing prices. One property to let should be sufficient unless the data shows that the housing crisis is significantly improved.

Yes, but reduce the ease of entry into the industry and reduce tax evasion by landlords in order to reduce house price inflation.

No, and abolish private landlords

I don't have a particular stance on this issue.

Yes, but with increased regulation to reduce housing costs and the difficulty of getting on the housing ladder.

I don’t know

No. Government should provide social housing.

Yes but landlords should be subject to a land value tax

Max 2 properties per person

Yes but remove all mortgage interest tax deductions by individuals and companies

Yes but limit rent charges.

No, and the government should provide more social housing for lower to mid income people

no mortgages

They already provide at s higher interest rate and a bigger LVR. Tax evasion is for the government to address if landlords are evading taxes.

Yes but there should only ever be a set number of buy to let mortgages active across the marketplace to maintain a private landlord sector but without removing entirely the responsibility of the state to provide affordable housing.

I do not understand.

Housing should be free.

No - buy to let should be abolished until the housing market stabilises to enable first time buyers to enter the market easier

Things would currently stay as they are, unless a petition was successful in getting a vote via Liquid Democracy.