The joy of being a landlord

[dowie]

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

Yup, instead we've got some irrational nonsense about how it's OK to be a landlord if you just have the one rental and you're saving it for your kids but not OK otherwise and people shouldn't profit from human need except they can in other areas and people living in mansions is totally cool but not living in one/owning less sq ft of property/living space but renting some of it out is bad and somehow depriving others of something.

In reality, we've simply got a shortage of homes in general and people's resentment of having to pay rent or that we live in a capitalist country is irrelevant to that.

 

[FoxEye]

Yup, instead we've got some irrational nonsense about how it's OK to be a landlord if you just have the one rental and you're saving it for your kids but not OK otherwise and people shouldn't profit from human need except they can in other areas and people living in mansions is totally cool but not living in one/owning less sq ft of property/living space but renting some of it out is bad and somehow depriving others of something.

In reality, we've simply got a shortage of homes in general and people's resentment of having to pay rent or that we live in a capitalist country is irrelevant to that.

Without any kind of restriction, if you build more then as I'm sure you'll appreciate the number of people owning 3 or 4 properties will also proportionally increase.

Building more doesn't guarantee everybody gets something. Whatever you build *will* be unevenly distributed. You know this. I know this. You could literally build over the whole of Cornwall and still some locals would be priced out.

Talking of Cornwall... look at all the towns that are now (literally, no lie) 80% 2nd homes and holiday lets. Some even 85-90%. Places that are dead most of the year. Places where there is no housing anymore for locals, yet the 2nd home owners are puzzled why nobody is running the pub or the local shop, and why everything closed down... when they come.

 

[dowie]

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.

It was pointed out to him already and it's already happening but I don't think he really lives in the real world. Obviously if you reduce the amount of rental property available then that causes issues:

Renting: Shortfall of properties creates frenzied market, surveyors say

Agents say high numbers of tenants chasing a shortage of properties will continue to push up rents.

www.bbc.co.uk

Fierce competition among tenants chasing a limited number of homes to rent shows no sign of abating, surveyors say.

One agent said the rental market in his area was "frenzied" as tenants tried to secure the few available properties.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) said a similar picture was being seen across the UK.

It is likely to push up rents further, averaging at a 4% annual increase, adding to pressure from rising prices.

How about the risk of being evicted at any time for literally no reason at all?
[...]
The answer as a bunch of us have said already is to let councils resume their post-war role as social housing providers.

No, it isn't, the answer is to increase supply in general, social housing has it's place but it's not much use for people who want to rent in a new area for example or who don't particularly fancy living on a council estate in general anyway.

 

[dowie]

Without any kind of restriction, if you build more then as I'm sure you'll appreciate the number of people owning 3 or 4 properties will also proportionally increase.

So what? Why is that an issue?

I'm not sure that the number of people owning 3 or 4 properties will proportionally increase and you're not being clear re: what exactly you mean by that or what the basis for the claim is but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder re: landlords.

If we increase the supply of housing then that should mean increasing social housing, privately owned homes, homes available for rent and indeed holiday lets. All those things are needed.

 

[FoxEye]

So what? Why is that an issue?

Because you're saying social housing isn't the answer, just build more open market housing.

I'm saying people on low incomes won't benefit at all from your proposal.

You basically aren't interested in helping the low-paid, and you know (and at least admit) that merely building more houses won't lift them up.

So we're looking at the problem with very different end goals in mind.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you want more housing just so the middle classes can have 4 homes each. I find that perverse.

 

[Pottsey]

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.

The landlord has the same risk of the renters leaving at any time for literally no reason at all and the landlords can end up with sleepless nights wondering if there "asset" will perform or not that's why so many have been selling in the past year. As for the renter they can mediate that risk by negotiating the contract notice so they cannot be kicked out in 1 month without warning. As for struggling to sleep at night, wondering where they'll get the money to pay the rent and feed themselves that's hardly exclusive to renters. Full mortgages cost more then renting and many landlords are losing money per month and wondering how they are going to afford to eat. If you think landlords have to try hard not to make money then you are clueless to all the changes in the past years. The standards for housing keep changing which is a cost the landlords have to pick up, along with insurance, tax that keeps increasing for landlords, repairs, refurbishments, electrical checks, boiler checks and everything else. Why do you think so many landlords are selling up? If its so good why would the past year have seen landlords leave in massive numbers? More housing is the answer and not of a single type but mixed housing types.

 

[dowie]

Because you're saying social housing isn't the answer, just build more open market housing.

No, I didn't say that, go back and read again:

No, it isn't, the answer is to increase supply in general, social housing has it's place but it's not much use for people who want to rent in a new area for example or who don't particularly fancy living on a council estate in general anyway.

I'm saying people on low incomes won't benefit at all from your proposal.

Why wouldn't they?

You're completely wrong because of course they would... more social housing, more homes to rent, more homes to buy. How is that not going to help?

You basically aren't interested in helping the low-paid, and you know (and at least admit) that merely building more houses won't lift them up.

So we're looking at the problem with very different end goals in mind.

Nah you're just being naive tbh.. you've got tunnel vision re: just one segment of the population, some irrational beliefs re: landlords and you're disregarding that there is a supply issue in general thus your solution is to ignore a large chunk of the market and only focus on one segment... what happens to a low-income person who gets a job in a different borough or county? What happens to someone who takes a seasonal job? They need to rent somewhere.

 

[FoxEye]

The landlord has the same risk of the renters leaving at any time for literally no reason at all and the landlords can end up with sleepless nights wondering if there "asset" will perform or not that's why so many have been selling in the past year. As for the renter they can mediate that risk by negotiating the contract notice so they cannot be kicked out in 1 month without warning. As for struggling to sleep at night, wondering where they'll get the money to pay the rent and feed themselves that's hardly exclusive to renters. Full mortgages cost more then renting and many landlords are losing money per month and wondering how they are going to afford to eat. If you think landlords have to try hard not to make money then you are clueless to all the changes in the past years. The standards for housing keep changing which is a cost the landlords have to pick up, along with insurance, tax, repairs, refurbishments, electrical checks, boiler checks and everything else. Why do you think so many landlords are selling up? If its so good why would the past year have seen landlords leave in massive numbers?

The problem was that lanlords had it much too good for much too long. That's why some were/are over-leveraged. Running multiple properties in their "portfolios" mortgaged to the hilt, but safe in the knowledge that their tenants would pay off those mortgages and they'd be left with the "assets".

That's why almost everybody with a 6-figure salary was getting into the landlord game. It was well known to be a sure thing, and many middle class people were doing it, everywhere you looked.

This is nothing but a correction. The existing system was blatantly unfair and rigged for the benefit of the landlord class.

 

[radderfire]

In reality, we've simply got a shortage of homes in general and people's resentment of having to pay rent or that we live in a capitalist country is irrelevant to that.

The problem is that true capitalism and free markets are being stifled in the UK by an overbearing and now over-powerful financial sector, which is able to gradually take control of everything, including the property market, because it controls the money supply and is able to print money for itself.

Also, the property market is not really capitalist, and is not a "free" market, because in reality it is tightly controlled by the powers that be (existing landowners / banks) who will always run the market in their favour, with seemingly no real check on reality in terms of what is actually affordable for the average person. We are beginning to see this play out as the UK property market has had a dramatic slowdown and may stall.

 

[FoxEye]

It was pointed out to him already and it's already happening but I don't think he really lives in the real world. Obviously if you reduce the amount of rental property available then that causes issues:

Renting: Shortfall of properties creates frenzied market, surveyors say

Agents say high numbers of tenants chasing a shortage of properties will continue to push up rents.

www.bbc.co.uk

No, it isn't, the answer is to increase supply in general, social housing has it's place but it's not much use for people who want to rent in a new area for example or who don't particularly fancy living on a council estate in general anyway.

Me: "The answer as a bunch of us have said already is to let councils resume their post-war role as social housing providers."
You: "No it isn't, ..."

I read that as you being opposed to councils increasing their social housing stock. I'm still not entirely sure after your subsequent reply if you are against councils being allowed to increase their social housing provision, or not.

Councils must be allowed to become a major social housing provider once more. There's no alternative. The low-paid can't afford to rent from private landlords at market rates.

That's why we're paying £billions in housing support to private landlords... And that bill is only going to go up. They already can't afford it, and we're simply diverting public funds to private landlords to make up the shortfall.

 

[radderfire]

The problem was that lanlords had it much too good for much too long. That's why some were/are over-leveraged. Running multiple properties in their "portfolios" mortgaged to the hilt, but safe in the knowledge that their tenants would pay off those mortgages and they'd be left with the "assets".

That's why almost everybody with a 6-figure salary was getting into the landlord game. It was well known to be a sure thing, and many middle class people were doing it, everywhere you looked.

This is nothing but a correction. The existing system was blatantly unfair and rigged for the benefit of the landlord class.

Essentially I agree with you. The FIAT currency system is one that encourages people to take on debt (as landlords or homeowners), it wants people to take on debt. The Buy to Let Landlords are really just caretakers that manage the property on behalf of the banks. The fundamental problem is that there is no fundamental check on the issuance of debt, and the government will get captured by the banks, because really the politicians can benefit from it and get corrupted by it. The money involved does not have any connection to economic reality for most people. It all goes back to unchecked FIAT money printing, and this is why a fixed supply currency system such as Bitcoin would be more favourable for the majority of the population and fairer for everyone.

Debt issuance cannot go on forever, because prices become unaffordable, and that is what we are about to see as the UK property market grinds to a halt, to which I say "good".

 

[radderfire]

Councils must be allowed to become a major social housing provider once more. There's no alternative. The low-paid can't afford to rent from private landlords at market rates.

That's why we're paying £billions in housing support to private landlords... And that bill is only going to go up. They already can't afford it, and we're simply diverting public funds to private landlords to make up the shortfall.

Totally agree Councils should be major social housing providers. The system has evolved the way it has through greed, the reason it's the way it is is because it makes those in power richer. A functioning society should at least be able to provide decent social housing for those that cannot afford anything else, and the UK is now failing at this.

 

[dowie]

Me: "The answer as a bunch of us have said already is to let councils resume their post-war role as social housing providers."
You: "No it isn't, ..."

You could try reading a bit more than three words, in particular, re-read again including the bits I highlighted in bold for you:

I read that as you being opposed to councils increasing their social housing stock. I'm still not entirely sure after your subsequent reply if you are against councils being allowed to increase their social housing provision, or not.

So I post this:

more social housing, more homes to rent, more homes to buy. How is that not going to help?

And you're not sure if I want more social housing?

The low-paid can't afford to rent from private landlords at market rates.

Well that's clearly false but you do understand that increasing the supply of housing makes it more affordable. You don't seem to understand that just focusing on one particular type of housing isn't the answer and that housing supply in general needs to increase.

 

[Pottsey]

The problem was that lanlords had it much too good for much too long. That's why some were/are over-leveraged. Running multiple properties in their "portfolios" mortgaged to the hilt, but safe in the knowledge that their tenants would pay off those mortgages and they'd be left with the "assets".

That's why almost everybody with a 6-figure salary was getting into the landlord game. It was well known to be a sure thing, and many middle class people were doing it, everywhere you looked.

This is nothing but a correction. The existing system was blatantly unfair and rigged for the benefit of the landlord class.

Now its swung in the opposite direction and many landlords are worse off then the renters which is only making the situation even worse for the renters yet some people in this thread seem to want to insist on blaming landlords and want to live in a fantasy land where landlords have an easy life while making up rubbish about landlords being immoral. (not just the small % that are, but all of them). Landlords done correctly are an essential and useful service. Getting rid of them is not the answer and will only make things worse.

 

[FoxEye]

Well that's clearly false but you do understand that increasing the supply of housing makes it more affordable. You don't seem to understand that just focusing on one particular type of housing isn't the answer and that housing supply in general needs to increase.

Sorry but how is it false? The low-paid receive £billions in housing benefit, precisely because they can't afford to pay market rates to private landlords...

I mean, that's a pretty irrefutable fact, right there.

Do explain how the low-paid *can* actually afford to pay market rents? And why we're paying housing support that we clearly don't need to? I'm all ears.

 

[dowie]

The problem is that true capitalism and free markets are being stifled in the UK by an overbearing and now over-powerful financial sector, which is able to gradually take control of everything, including the property market, because it controls the money supply and is able to print money for itself.

Also, the property market is not really capitalist, and is not a "free" market, because in reality it is tightly controlled by the powers that be (existing landowners / banks) who will always run the market in their favour, with seemingly no real check on reality in terms of what is actually affordable for the average person. We are beginning to see this play out as the UK property market has had a dramatic slowdown and may stall.

That's a lot of confused drivel/borderline conspiracy theory nonsense about banks printing money... aside from some Scottish banks who have the right to do so (if they hold the equivalent in BoE bank notes) that's not the case at all (aside from the BoE). Also while commercial banks do impact money supply the BoE has rather a large role to play there too.

But that's kinda off-topic, banks would love for more people to be able to build so that's not really the issue here either, it's some imagined/fantasy issue you've come up with when the opposite is true, if more development were permitted or encouraged then that would be great for banks.

 

[FoxEye]

Now its swung in the opposite direction and many landlords are worse off then the renters which is only making the situation even worse for the renters yet some people in this thread seem to want to insist on blaming landlords and want to live in a fantasy land where landlords have an easy life while making up rubbish about landlords being immoral. (not just the small % that are, but all of them). Landlords done correctly are an essential and useful service. Getting rid of them is not the answer and will only make things worse.

The landlords aren't worse off than the tenants. They have a valuable asset that they can sell, which has no doubt appreciated in value since they first bought it. It's extremely unlikely they'll lose money if they sell it.

In addition they pocket whatever they made in rent over the period they owned it.

The tenant has neither the asset nor the income stream.

I completely fail to see how the landlord is in the worse position, no matter how you look at it.

And for all the landlords who are apparently selling up, many aren't. So we clearly haven't killed the golden goose quite yet.

 

[dowie]

Sorry but how is it false? The low-paid receive £billions in housing benefit, precisely because they can't afford to pay market rates to private landlords...

I mean, that's a pretty irrefutable fact, right there.

Not really, not everyone is eligible for housing benefits for a start.

Do explain how the low-paid *can* actually afford to pay market rents? And why we're paying housing support that we clearly don't need to? I'm all ears.

No one claimed we're paying housing support we don't need to, again try to read what was posted.

People are currently renting in the private sector and will in the future, increasing the supply of housing, in general, would help to make that more affordable. It's not that hard to follow.

 

[radderfire]

But that's kinda off-topic, banks would love for more people to be able to build so that's not really the issue here either, it's some imagined/fantasy issue you've come up with when the opposite is true, if more development were permitted or encouraged then that would be great for banks.

I don't think I'm imagining anything at all. Ultimately every square inch of the UK has been fought over, establishing a power structure, and those in control (banks/government/landowners) will just run the system to their benefit. More development does not happen, because if it did, there would be much more supply and the artificially high property prices demanded by a FIAT currency system could not be maintained, causing the system to crash. The problem is that you can't have forever increasing property prices, because at some point it just becomes ludicrously unaffordable for many, and I think we have very nearly reached that point, with the UK property market about to stall.

 

[radderfire]

The landlords aren't worse off than the tenants. They have a valuable asset that they can sell, which has no doubt appreciated in value since they first bought it. It's extremely unlikely they'll lose money if they sell it.

Exactly. How can a landlord be worse off than a tenant, when they have the luxury of having a property that they can rent out?