I can see now why I last encountered you in the crypto subforum where you were confused about some pretty simple concepts re: trading/average position and capital gains tax yet now you're asserting some utter drivel with complete confidence.
I can see now why I last encountered you in the crypto subforum where you were confused about some pretty simple concepts re: trading/average position and capital gains tax yet now you're asserting some utter drivel with complete confidence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,857
I'm saying that the economics of the property market are very carefully controlled by those who have power over it, and this does not currently seem to take into account whether people can actually afford it or not (which an increasing number can't).
Ultimately the property market is about control of the land and control of people via the currency. You would expect those in control to control it for their own advantage and they do. We used to have a King and nobility as landlords, now that has been shared somewhat through the population, but it's still controllers vs controlled. My main issue is that the controllers have all the cards because they also control the currency, which is why I am in favour of Bitcoin as a fairer system. That's why you see me in the crypto subforum, I wouldn't say I was confused though, and the "utter drivel" I come up with usually just tends to be anything that isn't your opinion.
I'm glad you're in favour of more social housing though.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,857
What really needs to happen is for the population to call for tighter regulation of the currency (i.e. amount of currency issuance) and the banks (amount of credit issuance) as ultimately the fact that these aren't democratically regulated means that massive property price inflation can happen; this means that the price of property becomes detached from the amount of money that real economic activity can generate, i.e. how much money the average worker's job can generate. In summary, the financial classes have gamed the system to such a great extent that the working class (which they depend upon for existence) can no longer afford to exist.
Last edited:
Ah yes, the low-paid worker who isn't eligible for housing benefit because:
* he has 500k in the bank, as most low-paid workers do
* his partner is the heir to the Rockefeller fortune
* they own 500 houses anyhow
* he is on holiday from Ibiza doing low-paid work for the lulz
* he is a leprechaun and therefore not entitled to housing support, no matter how little he gets paid
Well, clearly I should have taken more care to qualify my statement, that the low-paid receive support with their rents from the taxpayer, shouldn't I? Should have known you'd be along to say that that is "clearly false" and leave me to find the extremely fringe cases you're building an argument around.
You're just throwing in vague nonsense about banks and FIAT currency... it's just drivel.
The reality is that if planning regs were loosened then we'd have more development and banks would be happy to help fund it, there is no grand conspiracy there. Other countries have banks and FIAT currency and have less of a supply issue than us.
OK and back in the real world not everyone is eligible just as not everyone lives with their parents!
What extreme fringe case? You're the only one presenting that here.
But the same argument applies, increasing the supply of housing available for rent obviously helps people in receipt of housing benefits too, greater choice/flexibility, lower rent costs = more homes within budget etc..
Is that not obvious to you?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,857
What I am saying is that the powers that be (banks/government/landowners) have profited immensely from bending the property market to their own ends, at the expense of working people. Seeing that they have a lot of influence over planning decisions, whether that be through planning laws or financing, then they have a lot of influence over supply. A basic tenet of economics is that price increases with demand, so it is in their interests to control supply and keep demand high, otherwise prices can fall. I wouldn't be too sure about them welcoming further development. You like telling other people what they say is drivel and making assertions, but your arguments lack any substance.
Perhaps save it for the crypto forum tbh..
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,857
No I don't think so, because one of the fundamental reasons for massively inflated property prices is that the private banking sector is able to issue currency (their own bank notes, essentially a paper IOU) at will, in a quantity that is not checked by the population. Therefore, it's a critical issue in a discussion related to property prices.
Also, asserting someone's opinions are drivel and a conspiracy theory is a very weak form of argument, with little merit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,857
I mean, essentially banking is a parasitic industry. They don't really do anything of particular value, they just have a monopoly on currency issuance and can use this to control people's time. They can also issue loans, which again is the creation of currency and a way to control people's time. The most critical loan is the mortgage, because people need somewhere to live, and it's easy to repossess a house. Ultimately the population is at the mercy of the banking sector until this control of currency issuance is taken away, and this is why Bitcoin would be a superior system and bring greater prosperity to the general population. So, for anyone who is dissatisfied with their housing situation, learn about Bitcoin and why it would be better for you.
Last edited:
Ok, I have a house we change from GBP to Bitcoin I still have a house I now get paid in Bitcoin. So the Bitcoin still flows to asset owners and people with high value skills. Bitcoin banks open up and lend Bitcoin. You can already loan Bitcoin now so what exactly would change except everyone has to wait 3 months for a transition on the Blockchain to clear because Bitcoin doesn't scale
This is false, you're just posting more crypto shill/conspiracy drivel based on some half-baked notions of how money supply works.
The fundamental reasons for high property prices are a lack of supply and historically low-interest rates, part of the friction we have re: supply is the restrictive planning laws in the UK, if we permit more development then funding that isn't a problem.
More importantly, you need to look at affordability, higher rates can lead to prices falling but that doesn't mean homes become any more affordable... it just means higher interest repayments/people are only able to afford to borrow a smaller amount... again the main issue here is simply the lack of supply.
Speculating on crypto is risky and while some have made money plenty of others have lost as is the nature of speculation, this doesn't really address the issue with the lack of supply of housing in the UK.
You might as well say learn about sports betting or learn about poker or learn about futures trading...
Last edited:
The mental gymnastics are amazing in here. Found a forum full of private land lords that are not in it to make money but to provide a service to those in need looool.
It’s quite simple, we need more houses being built. Many, many thousands more. We also need the majority of that to be social housing and not sold off like Thatcher allowed.
There will still be fringe cases of rental property required for a tiny sub set of people. I’m pretty confident that service won’t be completely erased and as for students. Student accommodation is being built all the time in most large city’s.
It’s quite simple, we need more houses being built. Many, many thousands more. We also need the majority of that to be social housing and not sold off like Thatcher allowed.
There will still be fringe cases of rental property required for a tiny sub set of people. I’m pretty confident that service won’t be completely erased and as for students. Student accommodation is being built all the time in most large city’s.
Once again you‘re ignoring my request for evidence that I’m wrong. It’s clear that you know you’re wrong and are hiding behind personal attacks.
Easily. It can take a long time to evict a non-paying tenant. Even a paying tenant can damage the property. And so on.
Many of them are assets that have no doubt depreciated in the current market. Its no longer extremely unlikely they will lose money. You are also not taking into account running costs and everything else Landlords have to deal with and pay out which is only increasing year on year. I know plenty of landlords who are losing money or barely breaking even after putting in countless long hours and weekends working.
If you like when I get back up from work tonight, I can give you a real-life example that only recently happened of a landlord I know losing money and being stuck as a landlord unable to get out. They have lost money on the property as its depreciated and they are making zero money on the rent due to costs. All the while having to put in long hours over the weekend. While the tenant is able to live cheaper saving more money per month.
Most of the small time landlords I know have made nothing to very little the past few years. Many are even losing money after all the recent changes to upkeep, tax and running costs are factored in and the property has depreciated. A lot of tenants don’t seem to realise where the money goes. Just because the landlord is making £200 or £100 per month that’s not free money in their pocket to splash on fun. The profit tends to go in a pot to pay for all the behind the scenes stuff the tenet is unaware off or doesn’t think about.
That’s not true many tenants do have the income stream and many have a higher income stream then the landlord. Rent is cheaper than a full mortgage plus the running costs of owning, allowing most tenants to have a lower outgoing per month then a landlord with a full mortgage. This in turn allows the tenants to in many cases have a higher level of disposable income per month allowing them to live life more in the moment.
The tenants are migrating the risks and placing it on the landlord who has to cover all high-level costs and manage the risks. This allows the tenants to live with less risk, less high-level expenses and a lower monthly outgoing. With the rent being cheaper than a full mortgage the tenants can pocket more per month giving them more spare money then having a full mortgage for the same property.
Yet more evidence you live in fantasy land and don’t realise what it is like being a landlord. Its not a golden goose and its not an easy ride with easy money for many from what I have seen. It’s not been like that for years. Sure 20 years ago it might have been a golden goose but that’s the past not the modern world.
Many landlords are struggling rather than having a good time of it hence why such a large amount have chosen to leave being landlords or are planning to leave as soon as they can. At least those that can and are not stuck losing money or struggling to break even. While the tenants have an easier ride in many cases with less stress and more options. You say many landlords haven’t left well you do realise many want to leave but are stuck and cannot because they cannot afford it without losing money as its not something that is easy to step away from 10 years ago it was easy to be a landlord and get out, now it can be a real challenge with high levels of cost to get out. As per the first part of my post I know a landlord that tried to leave lost a lot of money and had no choice but to go back to being a landlord making zero money for themselves but at least they are now barely breaking even over losing money per month. That happens a surprising amount but you want to pretend its all a golden goose and easy ride.
How ironic that you talk about mental gymnastics while making a post full of mental gymnastics.
Last edited:
Accept there is no sign that local Councils have any interest in more local housing. So what is happening is the renting market property is shrinking causing more problems for the renters. Its a lose/lose the local small time landlords are worse off and the tenants are worse off. Yet some posters in here have mental gymnastics and seem to think this is a good thing.
Well the thread has pretty much turned into what can we do to resolve the housing crisis. This obviously isn't what the initial statement was in the OP. I think we can all agree the current setup doesn't appear to be working for anyone really. You say there is no money in it for private LL and this certainly isn't working for those having to rent. So people are putting forward ideas on how the UK can get back on track benefit everyone. If we cannot agree on that, then fair play. I give up.
