The joy of being a landlord

[EdGey]

Again, I'm not sure how you're comparing the two. They're both human needs, both have people profiting from them.

The difference is that anyone can pick up a loaf of bread, not everyone can afford a home.

Which part of this are you struggling to understand? I'm sure I've got some crayons here somewhere if you'd like me to draw you a picture?

I'd actually love to see that if you have the time, genuinely.

I shop at Aldi and whetherspoons because I can't afford waitrose and fancy restaurants. People rent or buy outside of London because they can't afford otherwise and yet both needs are met. Isn't it just supply and demand as with everything else?

Do we really need to be "letting landlords burn" because they own a house?

 

[Diddums]

I'd actually love to see that if you have the time, genuinely.

I shop at Aldi and whetherspoons because I can't afford waitrose and fancy restaurants. People rent or buy outside of London because they can't afford otherwise and yet both needs are met. Isn't it just supply and demand as with everything else?

See? Now you're getting it. Now replace all the Aldis with Waitrose and see how that works out.

I'm rather surprised that you're struggling with such a basic concept tbh, did you do economics at school?

 

[platinum87]

Well that was disappointing, I was expecting to see a well reasoned and thought out argument about how supply and demand doesn't apply to housing, but this is all I get?

You give up far too easily.

There is an error somewhere as he says supply and demand effects housing, and you have posted expecting for him to argue that it does not apply to housing.

 

[Bluecube]

Well that was disappointing, I was expecting to see a well reasoned and thought out argument about how supply and demand doesn't apply to housing, but this is all I get?

You give up far too easily.

Not at all. I’m not going to waste my time feeding a troll. If you don’t understand supply/ demand then I suggest you try Google or ChatAI instead of trying to derail a thread down a simpler line that you understand.

 

[dowie]

Nice one dowie. Move the goal posts by posting about a minor issue that some private land lords would accommodate when there is a massive majority being paid the national average wage but stand no chance of owning their own property without the help of mum/dad or inheritance.

Move the goalposts? The thread is literally about someone being a landlord, not UK wages...

Also, I've addressed that if you'd bothered to read/weren't economically illiterate.

 

[Diddums]

Not at all. I’m not going to waste my time feeding a troll. If you don’t understand supply/ demand then I suggest you try Google or ChatAI instead of trying to derail a thread down a simpler line that you understand.

So you've been challenged to prove your nonsense and are now hiding behind the "EhRmAhGeHrD Ur A TrOlL LoL" nonsense.

Nice try. You failed, man up and own it.

 

[dowie]

Again, I'm not sure how you're comparing the two. They're both human needs, both have people profiting from them.

The difference is that anyone can pick up a loaf of bread, not everyone can afford a home.

Which part of this are you struggling to understand? I'm sure I've got some crayons here somewhere if you'd like me to draw you a picture?

You seemed to be having an issue with people profiting from a human need or something but apparently, you don't... it's not clear but now you've thrown in something about crayons.

 

[radderfire]

First let me say that there are landlords out there that do a good job and do add value to society by restoring properties and providing good rentable homes.

However ... the main issue behind the problem with the property market, is, in my opinion, the problem with Sterling being a FIAT currency that can be issued at will by the private banking sector ... which means they are able to pump asset prices for as long as they want (the most important asset being houses, because that is the best collateral for them, as it's easiest to repossess). Personally I find it hard to believe anyone would argue against the property market being exploitative at whatever salary multiple the average house price is now. The issue is that FIAT currency gives the bankers a supreme advantage as they can print it at will, which means they can override what would be true market forces. The people in charge of the system all benefit in their own way from this, so it continues.

You don't have true democracy unless the currency itself is democratic, and this is not the case. Only a small sector of society is able to print currency for its own purposes, and that is the root cause of the problems. Whilst difficult to, this unfair advantage may be challenged by technology creating a more equitable currency, the chief candidate of which is Bitcoin, which is proposed to be fixed maximum supply. Of course the powers that be will fight this tooth and nail, because they do not want to give up the golden goose of being able to print themselves unlimited money. Other things that stop their money printing is strikes and revolution, but in the UK the masses don't take enough interest in finance to realise how they are being played.

Under the current system, when the system starts to fail, the goalposts are always moved. It may be that the system gets managed so badly that it will end in severe failure, at which point Bitcoin may be the only viable alternative, and this will make life fairer for all.

 

[FoxEye]

What service are you providing?

Landlords provide a service in the same way that protection rackets provide a service.

That service being the ability to pay more in rent than mortgage repayments would cost (much more) and therefore being even less able to afford a deposit in future. Surely that's something all tenants want! None of them would want anything other than to pay the majority of their income to landlords. They love it.

I really don't understand how people can think landlords help the situation, when it's well known that by paying high rents to landlords you are being locked out of anything other than paying high rents to landlords for ever and ever, amen.

The country needs council run social housing, where rents are kept low and are used to reinvest in more social housing (obviously not for profit...)

The country doesn't need, as the current trends sadly support, more properties in the hands of landlords, and more money extracted from the low-paid in rent. It also doesn't need the taxpayer to subsidise those landlords with £billions spent in housing benefit.

People shouldn't cry for the landlords exiting the market. It means that we might finally be forced to fix the issues, a lot of them ideological barriers erected by the Tories and their hatred of social safety nets.

Landlords aren't the saviour they all want to pretend they are. They're a symptom of a broken housing market. The whole system needs fixing, and if that has to start with landlords being forced to sell up, so be it. Got to start somewhere.

 

[Bluecube]

So you've been challenged to prove your nonsense and are now hiding behind the "EhRmAhGeHrD Ur A TrOlL LoL" nonsense.

Nice try. You failed, man up and own it.

Not at all. You’re the one with the issue that’s failed to back up a statement with any evidence. I’m right. You’re wrong and talking nonsense as usual while attempting to derail a thread

 

[Diddums]

Not at all. You’re the one with the issue that’s failed to back up a statement with any evidence. I’m right. You’re wrong and talking nonsense as usual while attempting to derail a thread

So along with no inderstanding of basic economics, you also don't understand burden of proof. Or onus.

Well done, keep these own-goals coming, I don't even care about the topic anymore, I'm just enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself.

Repeatedly.

 

[builder22]

I'm sure there was a thread about rent/landlords etc few years ago that also ended up in this madness where it's not even clear what people are arguing for/against

 

[mattx4]

I'm sure there was a thread about rent/landlords etc few years ago that also ended up in this madness where it's not even clear what people are arguing for/against

What everyone should be arguing for is more houses to be built in the UK.

 

[Diddums]

I'm sure there was a thread about rent/landlords etc few years ago that also ended up in this madness where it's not even clear what people are arguing for/against

I'm just here for the show at this point. My opinion on landlords (the big ones, not the mom'n'pop folks) is still that they should be outlawed. I'm enjoying the denial and mental gymnastics on display from some to justify the greed, it's quite entertaining. Add in a few smartiepants and a bit of boredom and we end up talking in circles.

My opinion might change when I own a few properties though and rent them out for £lol though.

 

[FoxEye]

Like the sixties towewr blocks that worked so well? I also think Greta Green might have something to say about the waste of resources needlessly knocking communities down just because they are "period" to erect some communist fantasy.

Why do people dislike tower blocks? They don't have to be brutalist Soviet-style cubes or as you say a throwback to the 60s.

In other countries they are building modern, efficient, desirable blocks with green space (parks and gardens) at ground level. Some of the designs even let you reconfigure the internal layout of your flat...

Individual houses and bungalows are a really inefficient way to use the land and result in more concreting over, not less. And more greenfield sites lost.

Down here we're concreting over fields at a rate that's greater than I've ever seen in my entire life. We're doubling the size (area) of some of our towns, quite literally. Not that we'll ever meet demand no matter how much we build. Demand in Cornwall is essentially insatiable, until we utterly ruin the place and people no longer want to live here, because it's just a poorer version of London's urban sprawl.

It seems I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to advocating for blocks of flats, but I don't really understand why people hate them so much. They don't have to be slums. Or depressing concrete monoliths. Why do people think Soviet style, or 60s style, and not look to much more recent examples?

 

[EdGey]

I'm rather surprised that you're struggling with such a basic concept tbh, did you do economics at school?

This, from someone who is apparently shocked that people endevour to make money from one of life's most desired assets.

Do you own a house?

 

[Pottsey]

Landlords provide a service in the same way that protection rackets provide a service.

That service being the ability to pay more in rent than mortgage repayments would cost (much more) and therefore being even less able to afford a deposit in future. Surely that's something all tenants want! None of them would want anything other than to pay the majority of their income to landlords. They love it.

I really don't understand how people can think landlords help the situation, when it's well known that by paying high rents to landlords you are being locked out of anything other than paying high rents to landlords for ever and ever, amen.

The country needs council run social housing, where rents are kept low and are used to reinvest in more social housing (obviously not for profit...)

The country doesn't need, as the current trends sadly support, more properties in the hands of landlords, and more money extracted from the low-paid in rent. It also doesn't need the taxpayer to subsidise those landlords with £billions spent in housing benefit.

People shouldn't cry for the landlords exiting the market. It means that we might finally be forced to fix the issues, a lot of them ideological barriers erected by the Tories and their hatred of social safety nets.

Landlords aren't the saviour they all want to pretend they are. They're a symptom of a broken housing market. The whole system needs fixing, and if that has to start with landlords being forced to sell up, so be it. Got to start somewhere.

That's a load of rubbish being a landlord isn't like a protection racket. Landlords provide an essential and useful service with the landlord taking on risks so the renter doesn't have to. Rent isn't more then a mortgage as was shown before in this thread I believe, or a similar thread either way the average rent for a property is cheaper then a full mortgage for the same property and renting didn't have to pay all the extras like building insurance e.c.t. If you think landlords selling up is a good thing then you clearly don't understand the market or renters. Landlords selling up is bad all around it doesn't help anyone. That will just make the situation worse for renters. As for the people saying landlords should put rent at cost that is just crazy and delusional thinking that could never work. It doesn't even make sense if you think about it.

 

[gingergundog]

Why do people dislike tower blocks? They don't have to be brutalist Soviet-style cubes or as you say a throwback to the 60s.

In other countries they are building modern, efficient, desirable blocks with green space (parks and gardens) at ground level. Some of the designs even let you reconfigure the internal layout of your flat...

Individual houses and bungalows are a really inefficient way to use the land and result in more concreting over, not less. And more greenfield sites lost.

Down here we're concreting over fields at a rate that's greater than I've ever seen in my entire life. We're doubling the size (area) of some of our towns, quite literally. Not that we'll ever meet demand no matter how much we build. Demand in Cornwall is essentially insatiable, until we utterly ruin the place and people no longer want to live here, because it's just a poorer version of London's urban sprawl.

It seems I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to advocating for blocks of flats, but I don't really understand why people hate them so much. They don't have to be slums. Or depressing concrete monoliths. Why do people think Soviet style, or 60s style, and not look to much more recent examples?

I think most tower blocks are ugly, unless you can show me any that aren't.

Tbh they will keep concreting over fields as there are too many people.

 

[FoxEye]

That's a load of rubbish being a landlord isn't like a protection racket. Landlords provide an essential and useful service with the landlord taking on risks so the renter doesn't have to. Rent isn't more then a mortgage as was shown before in this thread I believe, or a similar thread either way the average rent for a property is cheaper then a full mortgage for the same property and renting didn't have to pay all the extras like building insurance e.c.t. If you think landlords selling up is a good thing then you clearly don't understand the market or renters. Landlords selling up is bad all around it doesn't help anyone. That will just make the situation worse for renters. As for the people saying landlords should put rent at cost that is just crazy and delusional thinking that could never work. It doesn't even make sense if you think about it.

How about the risk of being evicted at any time for literally no reason at all?

The vast majority of tenants being normal people and not troublemakers, landlords aren't exactly losing sleep at night wondering if their "asset" will perform or not. It's been a "sure thing" for a long, long time, and you'd have to really try hard not to make money from on (excepting Aberdeen, apparently).

Meanwhile, tenants are struggling to sleep at night, wondering where they'll get the money to pay the rent and feed themselves.

The answer as a bunch of us have said already is to let councils resume their post-war role as social housing providers.

It worked very very well for decades until the Tories decided to utterly ruin everything, with Right to Buy and a ban on increasing social housing provision.

 

[FoxEye]

I think most tower blocks are ugly, unless you can show me any that aren't.

Tbh they will keep concreting over fields as there are too many people.

Singapore is basically the poster child of what's possible. Denmark has some nice examples, too.

If we're building ugly concreate cubes it's not because it's the only game in town, it's because we aren't trying, or we're building to maximise developer profits.