of paying down debts by freeing up disposable income. It may have merit on its own and your arguments about the immorality of the buy to let industry are sound, however, such a policy would only increase repossessions, evictions and ultimately homelessness. None of which are going to help reduce the 1.5 trillion in personal debt. This policy would financially benefit few, as the majority are home owners and even significant portions of those who rent do so from the social landlord sector, where there is effective rental level control. The big issue is without a rebalancing of the debt payment levels/ income ratio in homes, the problem will continue to increase (OBR predicting 50% increase in personal debit in next few years). We can do this by increasing incomes, which is unlikely without economic growth cutting people's outgoing, again unlikely at the present. There is however, an alternative and that is to accept more defaults on personal debts and allow for more rescheduling of debts.If we don't then people will have to continue borrowing to maintain lifestyles, and debt repayments. Its like putting a fire out with petrol. I think the whole concept of using debt to hit aggregate demand (money supply) or inflation targets has taken over any logic or sense. The books already been written there is a lot of debt to be paid off and no way of doing it. This article was meant to suggest another way that outstanding debt could be paid off through