Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

[cheesyboy]

But your proposals will do that to satisfy your irrational hatred.

I've explained in great rational detail throughout the thread why landlording is bad. And haven't resorted to childish jibes.

 

[Dolph]

See above post re the levers of power

Which is delusional conspiratorial nonsense?

 

[Dolph]

I've explained in great rational detail throughout the thread why landlording is bad. And haven't resorted to childish jibes.

You may think you have, but in reality you have basically been ranting. You ascribe every problem to landlords and ignore every other cause or claim that anyone highlighting anything is just on their side.

The reason I've compared your position to other populist ones is that you are presenting it in exactly the same way as every other populist, same arguments, same behaviour, you've just substituted the usual immigrant or similar for landlord.

It's essentially 'they took our jobs' but for houses...

Note that this doesn't mean that there aren't issues or changes that could be made, just that your obsession isn't letting you see the sort of things that would actually help.

 

[cheesyboy]

You may think you have, but in reality you have basically been ranting. You ascribe every problem to landlords and ignore every other cause or claim that anyone highlighting anything is just on their side.

The reason I've compared your position to other populist ones is that you are presenting it in exactly the same way as every other populist, same arguments, same behaviour, you've just substituted the usual immigrant or similar for landlord.

It's essentially 'they took our jobs' but for houses...

Note that this doesn't mean that there aren't issues or changes that could be made, just that your obsession isn't letting you see the sort of things that would actually help.

Landlords took 1.7million homes out of owner-occupation between 2007 and 2017. Something like 7% of the total housing stock.

You're welcome to not view that as a problem, but I really think it is.

 

[FoxEye]

@FoxEye , we'll never see eye to eye on this as i am a landlord of a few properties, this is my simplistic exit from work plan because i am too stupid and risk averse to have much in the stock markets. I am just a normal (i would like to think nice!) person with a normal corporate job, very far from some rich spiv landlord. I just tend to buy another property every few years whenever i see a good deal around on a dilapidated freehold which i think i can do up myself, I've put a lot of work into each one. I don't use mortgages so I'm certainly not one of these landlords who buys leveraging rents against their borrowing.

You are using an already advantaged position (of being a homeowner with a well-paying job) to increase your share of a finite housing market. Every new property you add to your portfolio (you and the other landlords) directly disadvantages somebody by pushing house prices up and taking away the prospect of home ownership.

Of course you're not doing it by yourself, but as part of the growing number of middle-class and above people doing the same.

Every one of them I expect considers themselves to be a "nice" person, who only wants to set themselves up for a comfortable retirement. And in that retirement they will be much, much better off than most working class people doing a 9-5 job. Worth noting that the housing market as is ensures each successive generation is worse off than the last, because wage inflation is nowhere near house price (and rent) inflation.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with doing places up and then selling them on. It's when landlords buy more property with a view to creating an ever-increasing "revenue stream" from rent, that's when "nice" becomes "greedy".

I can see where you're coming from - you want a nice retirement. But ultimately a lot of the time this is via keeping the peasants in serfdom, paying ridiculous rents and having no opportunity to get out of the rent trap. And a trap it is.

With no social housing to speak of anymore, people on low incomes are forced to rent and will never be in the advantaged position you started from when you bought your first, second, third.... property. They will never become like you, because they can't get started. Which of course is not to say everyone should aspire to be a landlord, but many do aspire to be a home owner.

 

[Dolph]

Does anybody want to acknowledge the trends, here?

The trend of rents as a share of income going through the roof. >70% if income now spent on rent in some areas.

The % of home ownership dropping steadily year on year.

The amount of tax revenue going to private landlords increasing year on year?

Lots of people saying there's nothing wrong with the status quo, but the trends are that the status quo is changing fairly rapidly.

Don't confuse rejecting irrational prejudice against landlords with claiming that everything is currently fine and dandy.

We should be building more homes, addressing flaws in the social housing market with a clearer purpose, and working to improve the attractiveness of currently unattractive areas where there is plenty of supply but no demand. Those are practical things that would actually work.

 

[GreatAuk]

Yes. Which is another reason landlording is a social bad: their influence on policy (essentially, rising prices is a vote winner)...

They're still far from a majority though, and the fact that they have a democratic say is only a bad thing if you already hold the position that anything which enables renting is bad.

If I was thinking along that vein I would be much more worried about the effect of homeowners voting for policies that benefit them (which would tend to be increases in house prices, minimising the possibility of any leveling off or drop in house prices, all things that make it harder for people to buy their first house) given their vastly greater numbers.

 

[FoxEye]

You may think you have, but in reality you have basically been ranting. You ascribe every problem to landlords and ignore every other cause or claim that anyone highlighting anything is just on their side.

The reason I've compared your position to other populist ones is that you are presenting it in exactly the same way as every other populist, same arguments, same behaviour, you've just substituted the usual immigrant or similar for landlord.

It's essentially 'they took our jobs' but for houses...

Note that this doesn't mean that there aren't issues or changes that could be made, just that your obsession isn't letting you see the sort of things that would actually help.

Do you want to argue that wages have kept pace with increases in house prices and rents?

Do you really?

If not, maybe think again about your snarky "they took our houses" quip. Things are getting worse all the time.

 

[Dolph]

Landlords took 1.7million homes out of owner-occupation between 2007 and 2017. Something like 7% of the total housing stock.

You're welcome to not view that as a problem, but I really think it is.

They are still in occupation though. They aren't gone, they are (mostly) still accessible. If you want to go after second home owners and empty property speculators, I'd be far more in agreement that it's a problem.

I'm not against reform of the rental market (apart from counterproductive ideas like rent caps), there are parts of it that don't work well, and that comes from both sides.

I just reject the idea that removing landlords and rentals is in any way beneficial.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Occasionally I see a really moral landlord, one guy I met gives his tenancy agreement to match the renegotiation period on his mortgage, the most recent one been 6 years to his tenant, also fixed to inflation rate increases, tenant has wayleave authority, and he said on multiple occasions he waived rent when he couldnt do repairs quickly. The guy said he keeps the property in same condition as his own home. He said its about break even, which he is happy with as the mortgage gets paid.

So the only good landlords are those that don't make any money. Got it

 

[Dolph]

Do you want to argue that wages have kept pace with increases in house prices and rents?

Do you really?

If not, maybe think again about your snarky "they took our houses" quip. Things are getting worse all the time.

Of course they haven't, and I'm not arguing that they have.

You're making a massive a priori assumption that they should have stayed in line, with no consideration for why they haven't. There's a general lack of supply of accomodation in desirable areas, whether for rental or ownership, and that's what is driving both sets of prices up.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Do you want to argue that wages have kept pace with increases in house prices and rents?

Do you really?

If not, maybe think again about your snarky "they took our houses" quip. Things are getting worse all the time.

It's the same in every country. Go look at house prices in. New York, LA, Vancouver. Every desirable location has expensive housing. I wonder why? There is only so much land and if people keep breeding it's inevitable.

What you are saying is remove landlords. Let their be an easier way to buy in desirable areas for this generation. But then what about the next? Who do we go after then?

You cannot go after landlords they are gone. So tell me who do you go after then? Second home owners? Okay then people still keep breeding? Cornwall is still the same size. What then? Who do you go after? Make breeding illegal or restrict that too I suppose?

Build a wall around Cornwall? Send everyone who isn't native back?

 

[chrcoluk]

So the only good landlords are those that don't make any money. Got it

Well I already made my opinion known, dont think in times of housing stock shortages housing should be commercialised.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of the comment though, there was more to it than whether he is making money.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Well I already made my opinion known, dont think in times of housing stock shortages housing should be commercialised.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of the comment though, there was more to it than whether he is making money.

Landlords have to be officially registered in Scotland and therefore legally held responsible if the property isn't up to scratch. Private landlords therefore tend to have properties in much much better standard compared to what housing association / councils own.

I can have the police turn up to my door if something isn't fixed within 30 days. Just as an example.

Again assumptions are made that all landlords are bad and there's only 1 or 2 good ones. That's simply far from the case. It's a long term business and therefore it pays to look after your good customers.

 

[Geodude97AD]

In Cornwall, there's a situation. All the Londoners have gone and bought second homes in Cornwall, or they have taken homes to use to rent out as Airbnb.

So this is the dilemma.
(1) Rich people surely deserve an output for their money as they've worked hard for it. So buying a second home or a holiday home is not that significant a crime.
(2) Local people want the ability to buy in the local area. But should local people have first preference, or should they have to move where the market dictates?

I would liken it to the Irish/Scottish highland/lowland clearances, legal in all sense, but highly destructive to the very fabric of society and ultimately to the long term detriment to the nation. If you look at the clearances, the social and in turn political fall out of them lasted long after all involved had past away.

 

[Jez]

<snip>.

Thanks for replying, it’s interesting to see peoples’ views.
What are your views on the 2nd part of my post regarding the creation of a dwelling through E-C change of use, and then subsequent private rental, thus becoming a private landlord that way? (And any situation similar to this, whereby someone creates a rental rather than buying one which was available to the open market).

 

[FoxEye]

Thanks for replying, it’s interesting to see peoples’ views.
What are your views on the 2nd part of my post regarding the creation of a dwelling through E-C change of use, and then subsequent private rental, thus becoming a private landlord that way? (And any situation similar to this, whereby someone creates a rental rather than buying one which was available to the open market).

To be honest if my UK there would be no private rentals except for the top end of the market (renting luxury mansions, etc).

At the level of basic and standard housing (for rent) that would all be provided by the council or a non-profit (audited, regulated) org.

I simply would not have private landlords for basic and standard rental accommodation. Housing would be a basic human right - there would be modest housing for modest incomes, and help with rent in the form of taxpayer subsidy would never find its way into the hand of private landlords.

If that all sounds a bit socialist, well it probably is

 

[Dolph]

To be honest if my UK there would be no private rentals except for the top end of the market (renting luxury mansions, etc).

At the level of basic and standard housing (for rent) that would all be provided by the council or a non-profit (audited, regulated) org.

I simply would not have private landlords for basic and standard rental accommodation. Housing would be a basic human right - there would be modest housing for modest incomes, and help with rent in the form of taxpayer subsidy would never find its way into the hand of private landlords.

If that all sounds a bit socialist, well it probably is

Because that worked so well before?

The socialist (as in actually socialist, common means of ownership of means of production) countries of eastern Europe were renowned for the quality of their state mandated accomodation, as well as their human rights...

 

[Hades]

To be honest if my UK there would be no private rentals except for the top end of the market (renting luxury mansions, etc).

At the level of basic and standard housing (for rent) that would all be provided by the council or a non-profit (audited, regulated) org.

I simply would not have private landlords for basic and standard rental accommodation. Housing would be a basic human right - there would be modest housing for modest incomes, and help with rent in the form of taxpayer subsidy would never find its way into the hand of private landlords.

If that all sounds a bit socialist, well it probably is

Special facilities for the rich and powerful, while everyone else is only allowed what the state agrees to.

Good afternoon komrade.

 

[chrcoluk]

Landlords have to be officially registered in Scotland and therefore legally held responsible if the property isn't up to scratch. Private landlords therefore tend to have properties in much much better standard compared to what housing association / councils own.

I can have the police turn up to my door if something isn't fixed within 30 days. Just as an example.

Again assumptions are made that all landlords are bad and there's only 1 or 2 good ones. That's simply far from the case. It's a long term business and therefore it pays to look after your good customers.

I dont think anyone has said every single landlord is bad.

If the police turn up at your door can they protect the tenant from revenge eviction as well? Its not really good enough if you can force repair work to be done, and then your tenancy doesnt get renewed as a consequence.

I forced my LL to repair my kitchen floor via the council, and since then they have been very how do I describe, it, evasive in any correspondence, I expect I will be forced to move next year, but will see.

How long are the tenancies you give out?

At least Scotland appears to be a bit better than England for renting.