Hell yeah brother.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,870
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Mortgages are a way for the financially powerful to extract wealth from the financially weak. There is no nice "service" being "kindly provided", it is just profiteering from other people's existence. You have to put it in the perspective of history, where the land was fought over, enabling the powerful to reign over the weak and charge them for existing. Essentially that's what we still have today, although it is "financial".
The property market is pumped up by unchecked (not gold backed) money printing by the Central Bank, which is privately owned by the "financial elite". Buy To Let landlords are merely the maintenance men of the bankers, that are allowed to play landlord because without them the bank would have no one to oversee the property and wouldn't be able to extract wealth in this way.
There is no "service value", it is all just wealth extraction one way or another. The tenant has to pay more than the mortgage to make it "financially viable". House prices have been pumped to such ridiculous levels by money printing that a correction has to come, because none of the plebs can actually afford the artificially pumped prices. Fortunately that means a reasonable property market correction, probably 10% or more, which will happen when the cheap two year fixed mortage terms expire. A lot of Buy To Let landlords will become unprofitable, but I won't be shedding any tears for them.
Last edited:
Basic market economics. Lack of supply but lots of demand mean rents go up. Like it or lump it that’s the way it works
That's why coalitions under PR are far more stable and forward thinking than flip-flopping between two opposed ideologies under FPTP.
We flip-flop because people are always voting for the least worst of the big two, instead of voting for a party that the actually believe in. People's political leaning doesn't suddenly change between elections, we just tend to punish the party in office for being too stale or having fudged up one too many times.
PR and coalitions could fix this country, but as much as I'd like it, I can't see us every ditching FPTP. It's just something we seem determined to doggedly stick with, much to our detriment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,870
You can't call it "basic market economics" because the supply side is heavily controlled so it's not a free market. People have to reside somewhere. The fact is that the financial overlords have been printing themselves money for free, and using it to inflate property prices, so the ordinary person needing somewhere to live is being taken advantage of by the financial elites, as they have to pay more than they should reasonably expect to, because of the money printing. You can see this reflected in property values to average salary ratios.
********. The reason house prices have increased is due to the lack of supply and lots of demand. Same principle as rents and lack of rental properties. Concentrate your argument on why there’s a lack of housing in general and you might get somewhere - that’s where the scandal is not in “financial overlords” or selfish landlords.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 4,870
I would say it is years and years of artificially low interest rates since the 2008 financial crisis that has been the main driver of house price increases. The main factor in property prices is mortgage (credit) availability. This is why even though the supply vs demand ratio will stay similar over the next few years house prices are likely to drop, because of the banks reducing mortgage availability, as interest rates continue to rise.
Then basic market economics means all the poor hobbiest landlords will lose a lot of money and richer professional landlords will buy up the properties at a steal and better serve the market, what's the problem.
100% lol. If not just to remove the discussion my friends have with me about their 'property'. Hate that word
Did you mean, their "portfolio"?
Yeah also bad.
Soldato
Look, if you're going to get uppity about "supply and demand", at least go beyond the rudimentary.
Here's a lazy paste of what I've responded to poor use of the theory with before on this forum. Consider yourself enlightened.
Oh good, we can talk supply and demand, and the impact of landlording.
Demand for rentals is increased by fewer properties available to buy (because BTL has caused supply to fall in the owner-occupier market)
Meanwhile supply for rentals is also increased, because more BTLs are in the market.
So far, so neutral.
BUT, in supply and demand, your demand curve shifts when the supply or price of a substitute changes.
Higher property prices cause the rent demand curve to shift upwards.
Hence. Higher rent prices AND higher purchase prices. Thanks landlords, you immoral *****.
Supply for rentals is not increased due to BTLs coming to market. People also buy ex BTLs to live in and not to rent. Higher rent and higher purchase prices occur when there’s a lack of housing something which has been repeatedly explained to you but which you refuse to acknowledge because it doesn’t fulfil your conspiracy theory fantasy that Landlords Are Bad.
Soldato
How'd you reason that one out, sunshine?
For some context here, to consider with your answer, know that private rental properties increased by 1.75m between 2007 and 2017, which is more than the total number of new builds for that period.
The stats show home ownership decreasing and rentals increasing. That's been true for many years, now.
When increase in supply doesn't even meet increase in demand, then for every house bought to rent, 1 homeowner is necessarily removed and replaced by 1 renter.
Potential homeowners can't buy houses that aren't for sale. They can't decide to go homeless, either.
This seems hard to argue against? The stats seem to paint a very clear picture.
When increase in supply doesn't even meet increase in demand, then for every house bought to rent, 1 homeowner is necessarily removed and replaced by 1 renter.
Potential homeowners can't buy houses that aren't for sale. They can't decide to go homeless, either.
This seems hard to argue against? The stats seem to paint a very clear picture.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,356
house prices are dropping right now, landlords are selling at an unprecedented rate causing shortage in rentals, rental prices go up
so basically nothing you just posted makes any sense when looking at what is actually going on in the market right now - we aren't talking about 2017, we're talking about 2023
No, the GPU scalpers of the housing market are selling now, why would a professional who most likely isn't leveraged to hell and isn't depending on one or two renters to survive sell up when the rental market is hotter than it's ever been and the sellers market is flat ?
Soldato
Exactly it’s a heavily manipulated Market, and in depending where you artificially inflated.
Lmao.
Increasing people’s rent by 70% or more because your mortgage went up is insanity.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,356
Because the new laws coming in are egregious on landlords who already comply with current legislation. The real problem with rogue landlords is one of lack of enforcement.
Both myself and another LL I know have zero borrowings, I sold one of my properties and he is considering selling all 3 of his as the extra hassle still isn't worth it - and then there's rumours of "right to buy" being extended to private renters.
The government and potentially Labour have decided to exact war on private landlords and it's getting untenable for a lot of good LL's even without mortgage costs.
It's government policy driving up rental prices.
Last edited:
oh how cute, his "business" has a whole 3 properties.
If you are so good then any legislation shouldn't be a problem, you would already comply, as for "rumours" of private landlords being forced into some right to buy scheme to screw them over that's just peak tin foil woe is me isn't life hard rubbish, there's no war on landlords it just isn't a gravy train any more.
That's what happens when you exploit a market, you tend to ruin it for everyone.