The joy of being a landlord

If we call it evil then by the same idea of taking more money from society than you need then isn’t most of capitalism?

Why is investing in stocks ok when the money skimmed by companies for increased profits could be out to better use? Why is it ok for the government to print money at a whim, devaluing the saved assets of citizens so that we effectively pay for disasterous policies through a hidden tax? I mentioned a few other examples a couple of posts up. It’s all messed up, but there are more layers to it so it’s more difficult to apportion blame to a specific group.

Re: a one house policy, sure, that may work. But people do need to be able to rent at some point in their life. So then is it just companies who can own multiple properties and rent them out? such companies are a significantly worse experience based on what I’ve gone through. I’m currently renting and I seek out private landlords as a result.

My personal stance is that the government should just pull the plug and build to increase supply. Of course then you’ll have a significant proportion of people unhappy that their house prices have been tanked by said increase.
 
Last edited:
deusexlumina said:
If we call it evil then by the same idea of taking more money from society than you need then isn’t most of capitalism?

Why is investing in stocks ok when the money skimmed by companies for increased profits could be out to better use? Why is it ok for the government to print money at a whim, devaluing the saved assets of citizens so that we effectively pay for disasterous policies through a hidden tax? I mentioned a few other examples a couple of posts up. It’s all messed up, but there are more layers to it so it’s more difficult to apportion blame to a specific group.

Re: a one house policy, sure, that may work. But people do need to be able to rent at some point in their life. So then is it just companies who can own multiple properties and rent them out? such companies are a significantly worse experience based on what I’ve gone through. I’m currently renting and I seek out private landlords as a result.

My personal stance is that the government should just pull the plug and build to increase supply. Of course then you’ll have a significant proportion of people unhappy that their house prices have been tanked by said increase.
Click to expand...

I agree... It's about time they realized that attempting to privatize the rental markets is a failed venture that leads to nothing but the wealthy profiteering off those less fortunate.

I also agree, people do need to rent at some point in their lives... That is what the state should be for.. Council houses as they used to be called, before the term got hijacked to mean "benefit claimant"

I see no justifiable reason why private individuals need to own more than 1 residential property, or rent them out to make profit.

While I recognize that those in power (and I mean metaphorically, not specifically "The Tories") are barely competent to actually spend the proceeds accordingly, in an "ideal world" rentals would be from local councils, with all revenue going back to local council. Instead of Housing benefit being paid into the pockets of private landlords because they sold off most of the capacity with Right To Buy and cannot build enough to replace them.

This is the problem with the current system.. people are profiteering from benefits for those least able / physically and/or mentally disabled, or simply trying to support a family on minimum wage. - Then often those very same people are complaining about "those spongers on benefits" :cry:
 
Last edited:
Devilman said:
I agree... It's about time they realized that attempting to privatize the rental markets is a failed venture that leads to nothing but the wealthy profiteering off those less fortunate.

I also agree, people do need to rent at some point in their lives... That is what the state should be for.. Council houses as they used to be called, before the term got hijacked to mean "benefit claimant"

I see no justifiable reason why private individuals need to own more than 1 residential property, or rent them out to make profit.

While I recognize that those in power (and I mean metaphorically, not specifically "The Tories") are barely competent to actually spend the proceeds accordingly, in an "ideal world" rentals would be from local councils, with all revenue going back to local council. Instead of Housing benefit being paid into the pockets of private landlords because they sold off most of the capacity with Right To Buy and cannot build enough to replace them.

This is the problem with the current system.. people are profiteering from benefits for those least able / physically and/or mentally disabled, or simply trying to support a family on minimum wage. - Then often those very same people are complaining about "those spongers on benefits" :cry:
Click to expand...

I think that's a good idea and one that I would support if on the ballot (whether you folks believe me is another story ;) ). But I'd like to delineate the rental market that applies to those who are considered vulnerable and those who are private renters with some degree of choice.

I'm not sitting here stating that taking advantage of the former group is OK "cos capitalism". Those situations are grossly unfair. However, it is it the role of the state to provide a solution for those considered vulnerable using the funds we pay through taxes.

My comments/posts are focused on the latter group of renters. That private rental market will always needs to exist, be it due to the quality of housing desired, location, amenities etc. I don't think we can sit here and say that landlords are essentially evil for competing on the open market. I don't see that as any different to other means of making money. That being said, I agree there should be a limit on total home ownership and appropriate taxation could help fix that so long as similar constraints are placed on corporations that let properties.

Unfortunately, failures of government policy have meant that the former group of renters is now mixed with the latter. We can argue that it is due to lack of supply due to landlords owning multiple properties etc, I think there's some truth to that. But really, I think there are just too few houses period. Building has been consistently below the required levels for some time.

I'd argue that's the dominant factor that's lead to this situation and so anger should be directed towards the government, and people should vote accordingly.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a landlord, I rented when I moved out of the family home in 2008 until I bought my first property ten years later.

The above is a prelude that I don't have any skin in the game in regards to what's currently happening in the rental market. I hope what has been happening in the rental market recently, more specifically the lack of supply, is a wake up call to those who have been frothing at the mouth about how private rentals and landlords are the devil incarnate.

Turns out it's a little more complicated than people who invest BTL = bad.
 
I do find it interesting that people are calling for landlords to effectively be banned. Even back in the 'good old days' there was a mix between private and public rentals. The private sector always offered something different to your standard council house and likewise your council house kept private rents down for more 'normal' housing because they had to compete.

If being a landlord is made so unattractive that they exit the market and sell up, there will be a huge gap for those who need to rent and its not like there will be any new council housing built in the mean time so where are those people going to live?

Ultimately it comes down to a lack of supply of council housing and houses in general.

Likewise, ever stayed in a holiday cottage, airbnb? They all come from the same stock at the end of the day. I'd argue the rise of this market is having a bigger impact on the housing market than long term landlords. It's pushing up rent at the same time as putting independent hotels out of business.
 
Seems like tenants in the private rental sector are ******** it now due to lack of housing supply and inflated prices, people should be careful what they wish for.

Good private landlords like myself have / are leaving in droves, going to be interesting to see how people get on letting a house through a faceless company with 100's of houses on the books, i'm sure that will work out better ;)
 
Last edited:
Firestar_3x said:
Seems like tenants in the private rental sector are ******** it now due to lack of housing supply and inflated prices, people should be careful what they wish for.

Good private landlords like myself have / are leaving in droves, going to be interesting to see how people get on letting a house through a faceless company with 100's of houses on the books, i'm sure that will work out better ;)
Click to expand...
It was going to happen anyway, better it happen quicker and people simply being unable to afford it whilst costing the country productivity will mean a genuine resolution is a real possibility instead of perennially out of reach for the sake of politics.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Seems like tenants in the private rental sector are ******** it now due to lack of housing supply and inflated prices, people should be careful what they wish for.

Good private landlords like myself have / are leaving in droves, going to be interesting to see how people get on letting a house through a faceless company with 100's of houses on the books, i'm sure that will work out better ;)
Click to expand...

This you? :cry:

emZjWDM.png

In all serious you're doing the typical thing of trying to be smarmy that the housing situation is getting worse. Simply, corporate AND private landlords have ****** the housing market for the last 35 years alongside successive governments failing to build new housing and social housing. Now the landlords, corporate and private, have helped to **** the market they are cashing out for retirement/ after they have made their bag.

Nice to see you are gloating at people not affording homes, either rented or bought :rolleyes:
 
Zenduri said:
Nice to see you are gloating at people not affording homes, either rented or bought :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We facilitated multiple families living in good quality rented properties without rental increases for 5+ years, good tenants got rewarded for respecting the places and paying rent on time.

The above houses would still be available at the same rental rates if the incentives for me to own them hadn't been eroded.
 
Last edited:
Firestar_3x said:
We facilitated multiple families living in good quality rented properties without rental increases for 5+ years, good tenants got rewarded for respecting the places and paying rent on time.

The above houses would still be available at the same rental rates if the incentives for me to own them hadn't been eroded.
Click to expand...
If you are a good landlord and arent robbing people blind then good for you i guess? Not disputing you personally or what you said but i find it highly suspect the number of landlords in this thread commenting on how they havent increased rents for 5+ years. It's like all good landlords have congregated on a computer forum :confused:

However your previous comment was effectively saying "well all these renting moaners have got what they wanted as landlords are selling up so lets see how they get on without us now the housing market is screwed." So you might excuse me for raising an eyebrow or two to the virtuous landlord comments and whats implied, intentionally or not, in your previous statement.

My personal opinion is yes we do need rentals but these should be gov owned rental properties not privately owned. I dont think rental properties should be a private asset. Sadly the markets ruined, the gov is ****, landlords both corporate and private have flooded the markets. Nothing will ever change as a huge housing price correction is needed and if that happens then basically the entire country goes bankrupt overnight as our countries wealth is propped up on a ****** housing market.
 
Last edited:
deusexlumina said:
If we call it evil then by the same idea of taking more money from society than you need then isn’t most of capitalism?

Why is investing in stocks ok when the money skimmed by companies for increased profits could be out to better use? Why is it ok for the government to print money at a whim, devaluing the saved assets of citizens so that we effectively pay for disasterous policies through a hidden tax? I mentioned a few other examples a couple of posts up. It’s all messed up, but there are more layers to it so it’s more difficult to apportion blame to a specific group.

Re: a one house policy, sure, that may work. But people do need to be able to rent at some point in their life. So then is it just companies who can own multiple properties and rent them out? such companies are a significantly worse experience based on what I’ve gone through. I’m currently renting and I seek out private landlords as a result.

My personal stance is that the government should just pull the plug and build to increase supply. Of course then you’ll have a significant proportion of people unhappy that their house prices have been tanked by said increase.
Click to expand...
Private rentals are in a league of their own, frankly.

Firstly, what other expenditure is a) absolutely mandatory and b) can cost 70% + of your pay?

Objectively, measured by the impact it has on people lives, rental costs are probably #1 on the list. The only thing that might trump the misery caused by being locked out of the housing market is if you have cancer or some other life-changing problem. Other than that, rental expenditure absolutely has the power to shape people's existence and quality of life, in a way few other things can.

Second, let's assume we removed some of the other unfairness you mention. E.g., let's assume everybody was paid a living wage. Well, overnight, landlords would put up the rent to absorb all the extra income these people had. Because they can, and because the people who are renting often have no alternative.

To answer someone else's question, corporates should be banned from owning residential property, 99% of the time. There is no distinction between private landlords and corporate landlords. (We are talking everyday family housing - it's possible exceptions could be made for the extreme luxury end of the market, and other types/uses of properties - i.e. not your average family housing).
 
Zenduri said:
My personal opinion is yes we do need rentals but these should be gov owned rental properties not privately owned.
Click to expand...
What about the people that want to rent something a bit more upmarket. Not all renters are on the poverty line. I'm pretty sure my tenants are probably more wealthy than me
 
mattx4 said:
What about the people that want to rent something a bit more upmarket. Not all renters are on the poverty line. I'm pretty sure my tenants are probably more wealthy than me
Click to expand...
Did i say gov rentals need to be poverty blocks/projects? You can have rental properties that are nice homes and gov owned if the gov decided to build these homes. Which they wont
 
mattx4 said:
What about the people that want to rent something a bit more upmarket. Not all renters are on the poverty line. I'm pretty sure my tenants are probably more wealthy than me
Click to expand...
Not so long ago, a full 1/3 of private rental accommodation was found to be not fit for human habitation. It was widely reported and mentioned in parliament.

I think upmarket properties are a small fraction of the total market. And there's no reason that genuinely luxury property shouldn't be exempt from legislation aimed at helping the low-paid. It might not be trivial to word such exemptions, but I'm sure it's possible.
 
FoxEye said:
Not so long ago, a full 1/3 of private rental accommodation was found to be not fit for human habitation. It was widely reported and mentioned in parliament.

I think upmarket properties are a small fraction of the total market. And there's no reason that genuinely luxury property shouldn't be exempt from legislation aimed at helping the low-paid. It might not be trivial to word such exemptions, but I'm sure it's possible.
Click to expand...
First to welcome back
 
gingergundog said:
I have no dog in this race but I do wonder how many people who complain about landlords wouldn't do the same in their position? Most, if not all will take an opportunity to make more profit if its presented to them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you over-estimate the number of people willing to become parasites on others, or under-estimate the number of people who just want a chance to own their own home from a living wage.
 
gingergundog said:
I have no dog in this race but I do wonder how many people who complain about landlords wouldn't do the same in their position? Most, if not all will take an opportunity to make more profit if its presented to them.
Click to expand...
To solve some of the biggest and most pressing issues of our time, we will need to move from promoting individualism to (voluntarily) embracing collectivism.

I strongly believe that if we fail to do this, we are essentially doomed as a species. And we'll take everything else down with us.

I think we've built a society which is essentially terminally obsessed with individual wealth, along with promotion of the idea that we have no responsibility to anyone but ourself.

Unfortunately I don't think we have it in us to make this radical shift in mindset, and I still think we're going to wipe ourselves out in the fairly near term (likely through inaction and apathy as opposed to conscious destruction). It's just our nature.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom