Bro, I'm literally an accountant. It's ******* profit if it's paying down your mortgage
Last edited:
So you understand the rent is not paying anything towards the 200k part of the mortgage and the landlord is not getting that 200k in there bank account at the end when they sell in the situation I was talking about so the 200k is not a 200k profit. So you must understand the high costs and figures the landlord pays for the service they provide. In which case you must understand how immoral the anti landlord posters are with there weird twisted viewpoints.
Last edited:
You're a mug then. Why are you bothering with this if its not earning you a profit?
Honest question.
Legitimate short-term rents are really an outside use case so I don't really think they need to be part of the conversion. Yes, there will be people who might require a short term let in their life but generally speaking the conversation is about the property market and it's impact on people's lives and long term futures. Not Joe Bloggs who needs a flat for 6 weeks because he's moving jobs. That might happen once in his life, whereas if someone is stuck renting long term, by definition that is a much bigger impact. Landlords are always good at using short term lets as an excuse though
He can do what he/she likes. If the mortgage is being paid off by the tenant then they are increasing the landlords capital for them and hence profit when they sell. Whether or not the landlord owns 50% of the property, or 100%
How can you argue taking out a £200k mortgage, doing nothing whilst your tenant pays money into your pocket, to pay your mortgage, then selling it for £200k (plus inflation) is not profit I do not know... 
Almost like it's a human right or something.
Last edited:
Expectation of future house value + investing the cash that could have gone on house purchase in a fund that earns a higher interest than the mortgage interest.
Not me, pure socialist
There you go again looking at the world from your perspective only.
I've one property next to a huge company who bring over contractors on 3-6 month terms.
Also, what excuse? You stated something incorrect, I pointed out why, now that's just an excuse? Hmm... I think the one trying to excuse things here is the one making outlandish and extreme statements.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I've been doing since buying my house. This is getting much worth less the risk/reward.
Id still got it a profit ending up with. Free house in twenty years. What with it being the UK flipping a house and taking the profit isn't that hard to do. Unless you bought or inherited a property in a real crap area.
Well I am not talking about myself, I am explaining the situation as I understand it and offering a reasonable counterpoint against the anti landlord posters.
As for why bother? Isn't that the point a large amount of landlords are not making a profit anymore and many have slipped into making a loss or a due to slip into loss over the next few years. They are trying to leave due to all the recent changes in being a landlord and the situation over the next few years is set to get worse with even more trying to leave before 2025 or 2028. People are asking why are landlords leaving and I am trying to explain why.
To be fair I didn't say no profit, I said the profit is no where near as much as it appears and sometimes slips into a loss. Take a typical 200k property the rent pays nothing towards the 200k in a commonly used interest only setup that is favoured by landlords. So after 25 years at 3k tax per year the Landlord will have had to pay out £75,000k tax on the rent. Plus lets say over that time £25,000 on refurbishments, £15,00k on repairs, £5k on checks, insurance and when it comes to sell the landlord will have to pay £200k to the bank for the property plus what ever other bills I forgot. So we are on £320k the landlord will have paid out after 25years on that 200k property. This is not even counting capital gains tax, and all the costs in selling the property."He can do what he/she likes. If the mortgage is being paid off by the tenant then they are increasing the landlords capital for them and hence profit when they sell. Whether or not the landlord owns 50% of the property, or 100%
The mistake some people appear to be making is they come across as thinking the rent pays off the 200k and when the landlord sells they get 200k profit from the sale into there bank which is wrong in this situation at least as the 200k doesn't go to the landlord in this typical setup.
The two main points are the rent is often not used by the landlord to pay the value of the property which is what the anti landlord posters are complaining about. The profits at the point of sale is not 200k into the landlords bank account. I am not saying no profit, I am saying at the point of sale its far less then you would expect in many cases.
My biggest problem was renters only ever wanted 6 month or year long agreements.
I would have preferred longer two or three year contracts and said the rent would be the same throughout. More security for them, for me and it wouldn't have meant I'd not have to pay the agents every time there was a renewal (they make easy money for no real work)
You can't make a sweeping comment like that, my experience was never like that.
There is no “fee” to renew a contract, just a load of ***** from agency’s to rinse tenenents further. Fairly certain it’s no longer allowed in Scotland. Plus so what if the contract moves over to a rolling contract. No-one needs to renew anything and the same protections are in place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 3,213
lmao are you joking? Did you type that out with a straight face, that sentence is something else
Need some help with your tax return?lmao are you joking? Did you type that out with a straight face, that sentence is something else
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
A "pure socialist" accountant that doesn't understand what profit means.
Fixed it for you.
Landlords get charged a fee for tenancy renewal, tenants aren't.
The people in my extended family that rent are the same. They don't want long term, they go for 6 months to a year at most. To them renting is a very useful service that they prefer.
100% this.
Tell me where I can sign up to have somebody even pay 50% of my mortgage for me?
Yet we're supposed to feel landlords being "squeezed" when they manage to get 120% of their mortgage payments covered by their tenant? On a property they don't even need?
Just lol, really. Detached from reality is absolutely right. Detached from the reality of low-paid renters, certainly.
As I explained before the typical setup that landlords favour do not have the renters pay 50% or 120% of the mortgage. Rent goes towards interest payments, services provided, bills, tax payments, refurbishments, repairs and everything else along with a reasonable level of profit for the work and risk involved. But not towards the actual cost of the property in many cases. Do you understand that when the landlord comes to sell that very often in this kind of setup the price of the property is not being paid for or covered by any of the rent. 0% rent goes towards the actual cost of the property. If the property is 200k then rent pays £0 towards that 200k ,rent might cover the interest on the 200k but not the actual 200k itself. I am not saying all setups are like this but its the favoured way to do things by a great many.
As for a property they don't even need, how would you even know that? Many of them do have a need for the property and there are a great many more renters then just the low paid. Even if they don't have a need, so what, that is there right. Denying them that right and attacking them just because you don't like it is immoral.
Last edited: