The joy of being a landlord

Devilman said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, in an ideal world people should be able to own their own home from a living wage but you cant underestimate the the draw of making profits if its available.
 
FoxEye said:
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).
Click to expand...


Once again I don’t think this explanation adequately accounts for the external factors that have caused the current situation we are facing.

Rent is high vs wage due to lack of supply. You’re correct that increasing wages alone won’t solve the issue, since the competition remains and some fraction of those people will be forced into paying the higher price.

So why isn’t the supply increasing? Maybe because - as someone correctly point - our joke of an economy is propped up by keeping house prices high.

As for landlords in a league of their own, I’m afraid I disagree. If we’re going into the morality of capitalism the waters get murky very quickly, some things are just more apparent than others.
 
It's not about the morality of capitalism, it's about the morality of exploiting a need instead of a want. By its nature, no need is subject to real free market capitalism, so in that sense yes it's the government's fault, but that doesn't excuse those that benefit from it.
 
A need is a safe home regardless of your economic situation.

A want is the big house/apartment, near your kids school/the train station with a nice view or whatever.

The former should be ringfenced from the system and available to those who need it without putting them at further disadvantage. The latter is fair game in the context of what is currently considered the free market.
 
Nope, A need is a product or service that society deems as vital, the quality doesn't come in to it. You don't get to absolve yourself by saying, well I only rent to nice middle class workers not scummy benefit people, so I'm not the problem the government should do something for them, it's all part of the same ecosystem so linked. Who gets to decide where the threshold is ? Who is too poor to deserve nothing more than a mouldy bedsit ?
 
Please do not imply I think people on benefits are scummy. I think nothing of the sort.

Also my inclusion of the word “safe” does imply a certain level of quality. I do not for one minute think it’s ok for people to profit off of letting out mouldy (I.e unsafe) bedsits, nor should that be the level of social housing provided by the state.

As for the threshold between private and social housing, it’s an interesting question. I’d have to think some more before giving an opinion. But I’d say the fact they are part of the same ecosystem is the issue. They should be separate.

(Also, I’m not trying to absolve myself…if you all think I’m evil then fine, my point was a simple one: the story is more complex than some folks are making it out to be).
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
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).
Click to expand...
Why?

I live in a city that is celebrated for its housing schemes, and corporate owned property makes up a good percentage of the housing stock (both private rental, and majority ownership of Genossenschaftswohnung, which is a corporate/renter co-op scheme)

Flat types - privately owned flats, subsidised and city-owned flats

There are various rented flat types in Vienna ranging from privately owned to subsidised and city-owned flats. For the latter two you have to meet certain criteria to be able to rent them.
www.wien.gv.at www.wien.gv.at

EDIT

I live in a 2 bedroom apartment that costs €1080 per month to rent. It's privately owned.
An equivalent Genossenschaftswohnung would be around €650 per month to rent, but demand is extremely high and I think as a couple we earn above the income threshold to qualify for one actually.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...
The ideal scenario is probably a bit of both.

FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure its actually being obsessed with individual wealth but people will strive to make their life better for themselves and their family, nobody else is going to do it for them. Its human nature and society has probably always been that way.
 
Lopéz said:
Why?

I live in a city that is celebrated for its housing schemes, and corporate owned property makes up a good percentage of the housing stock (both private rental, and majority ownership of Genossenschaftswohnung, which is a corporate/renter co-op scheme)

Flat types - privately owned flats, subsidised and city-owned flats

There are various rented flat types in Vienna ranging from privately owned to subsidised and city-owned flats. For the latter two you have to meet certain criteria to be able to rent them.
www.wien.gv.at www.wien.gv.at

EDIT

I live in a 2 bedroom apartment that costs €1080 per month to rent. It's privately owned.
An equivalent Genossenschaftswohnung would be around €650 per month to rent, but demand is extremely high and I think as a couple we earn above the income threshold to qualify for one actually.
Click to expand...
Look to the USA to see what else can happen when you allow corporates to take over entire neighbourhoods. In places they bought up everything in sight and then increased the rents to eye-watering levels, because they saw how controlling the entire market in an area could be extremely profitable.

I guess you could say they can only charge what the market will bear, but again, it only serves move money from the working classes to the rich and/or shareholders. And again, people are being priced out of areas or finding that they'll be paying a massive chunk of their wages to their landlord. Also in that case the properties are no longer available to own, only to rent.

A lot depends on the regulations and the rights that renters have. Scotland and England differ in that regard. If rent was no more than 20% of your income, and you had long-term residency rights, perhaps a lot more would choose to rent, and not worry so much about owning a home.

Much of this debate depends on your overall attitude towards capitalism in the modern era (so-called "late-stage capitalism"). Where, in this country at least, we appear to be ramping up the "greed is good" rhetoric beyond all reason, and decrying any kind of restraint as socialism and state interference. Honestly, with the increase in relative poverty (inc. in-work poverty), homelessness, general discontent amongst young people with no hope and no stake in the future of this country, it's hard to see how we're not going to end up with mass civil unrest.

We're having a small taste with the ongoing strikes due to the temporary spike in inflation and energy prices. But that's also very much the long-term trend. At some point, people will stop accepting the continual squeeze, when they can clearly see we're not "all in it together", and the squeeze is simply the people above them taking more and more and more.

Maybe it'll take a few more years to come to the boil, but the current trends are not sustainable. For starters, almost everyone agrees that the housing market is not fit for purpose.
 
FoxEye said:
(Emotional drivel)
Click to expand...
NVP said:
I rent properties to foreign workers who need temporary housing, to fresh immigrants who need to rent whilst saving to buy, to a young family who move to the city for the guys new job, and currently one is rented to a family of Turkish asylum seekers (a judge and a dr) being paid for by their family friend because they don't have their own place either.

If there were no landlords where do you think people like this will stay?
Click to expand...
 
FoxEye said:
Is the first thing (of many) I object to. You worked hard all your life, made a lot of money, and therefore deserve to be able to spend your money on a mansion if you like. 7 bedrooms, gold plated urinal, 3 butlers in every room. Knock yourself out, you earned it. You could have the house you deserve, and fill it with the luxury you deserve. And nobody would complain.

But that's not what this is about, is it? You take that hard-earned money, and you use it to basically enslave other hard-working people, except they work hard in low-paid professions. Like carers, who often earn min wage. Like delivery drivers, who work brutal shifts for abusive companies. Like anyone working in retail, stacking shelves. Or working in a factory, or cleaning your office.
Click to expand...
Hang on though, isn't that what pretty much all commercial, capitalist companies basically do?

Provide a service or product to a consumer, and "enslave" other hard-working people to facilitate that business in order to generate more income.
I don't understand why you think it's alright to work for a business and earn money from that process, but it's not then alright to then effectively become a business yourself?

FoxEye said:
So many jobs that are actually "hard" and pay peanuts, and yet society needs that work to be done. You, as the hard-working business owner (or their accountant/architect/personal trainer), benefit directly or indirectly from their labour. But they didn't get a degree, or start a business, so they can't possibly be working as hard as you, now, can they. Of course now you say, "It's not about working hard, it's about working smart," and so on and so forth. The goalposts are changeable, but you always earned what you have by being superior to them. Or making better life choices (like having better parents). We get it.
Click to expand...
You sound like you are quite bitter towards people who have been able to earn more money than you, or have a better quality of life than you. I'm not suggesting it's jealousy, but what's so bad about doing well as an individual?
FoxEye said:
So you take your hard-earned money, and you don't buy that mansion and hire 7 butlers. You could do, but you don't. Instead, you buy another family home, or a flat. And you become a landlord. And you get another "revenue stream" to top up your already above-average income. And, it turns out, unless something terrible happens, your tenants end up buying that 2nd house outright for you. So you add a third... because you deserve it. But it's not for you to live in, or your butler, it's for another hard-working factory employee to live in, and for them to pay off another mortgage for you. Heck, you don't even need to wait for the previous mortgages to be paid off by your tenants, you can keep adding more properties way before that point, with the banks help. Just don't get too greedy (lol).
Click to expand...
Yes, you absolutely deserve it because you've made the intial effort and investment, and taken on the associated risk.

This is why the CEO of a widget company takes home hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in salary, whereas his employees take home a relatively low wage - it was the CEO that likely had the idea, made the plans, built the factory, invested in the machines, hired a team, marketed the product, gambled on it working out, took on the risk of it going wrong and so on.

FoxEye said:
You know what this sounds like, to me?

"I worked hard all my life and earned a lot of money. I deserve to have slaves. The law says this form of slavery is completely legal. And I'm going to keep adding more slaves to my portfolio because I deserve a comfortable life having worked so hard to this point. I deserve my slaves and their revenue streams. I worked hard to become a slave owner."

Just for one second, imagine you're the factory worker paying 70% (and more!) of their take-home on renting this property. You can't save for a deposit, and you begrudge paying rent that's way higher than mortgage repayment would be (if you could get one). You can't have any pets. You can't change the wallpaper. You can't plant anything in the garden (the landlord has it just they way he likes it, when he comes to visit once a year).

You especially can't mention anything that needs fixing or you dramatically increase the chances of being evicted. (Yes, this happens often. No, it's not just "a few bad landlords".)

And your landlord expects you to show some gratitude, because of the valuable service he is providing you. Remember, he worked hard to become your master.
Click to expand...
The reason landlords often do not allow pets/wallpaper/changing the garden and so on is that it usually devalues the property, making it less attractive to anyone else wanting to buy or use it in the future. The same as a lease company won't allow you to screw bits to your VW Golf and paint it a lurid shade of purple.
 
Lopéz said:
  • Food
  • Heating
  • Water
  • Electricity
  • Clothing

All of those things are "need", and all "exploited" to some degree. Why should housing fall under a protective bubble but nothing else?
Click to expand...
Food, heavily subsidised since forever. See the EU butter mountains and wasn't 1/3 of it's budget at one point for agriculture. The War in Ukraine, got to sort out the grain deal above all else. So no not a free market.

Heating, Regulated we've just had the best example of it this winter. the price cap was price capped and subsidised by the government. Not a free market.

Water, Again regulated, price capped, subsidised if needed. Laws against turning peoples supply off if they don't pay, hose pipe bans every summer. Not a free market.

Electricity, See heating.

Clothing, Ok one out of five but there have been points in time when cotton and wool have had government intervention.
 
Lopéz said:
  • Food
  • Heating
  • Water
  • Electricity
  • Clothing

All of those things are "need", and all "exploited" to some degree. Why should housing fall under a protective bubble but nothing else?
Click to expand...


Good question, I agree we should expand the bubble to covers all these things to a much greater extent than they already are ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom