The joy of being a landlord

radderfire said:
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.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with you, i was just trying to word it more pragmatically than this. Yes realistically this is what is going on however landlords are or should be providing a service to tenants and for it to be a service then some value to the tenant has to be shown overwise it is just profiteering/wealth extraction of those unable to buy a property of their own, that was my point here.
 
andybird123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It must be so hard to be financially stable enough that you can afford 4 properties to generate profit off families who cant even afford 1. Sounds like a massive hassle.
 
Last edited:
Angst said:
It must be so hard to be financially stable enough that you can afford 4 properties to generate profit off families who cant even afford 1.
Click to expand...
There wouldn't even be a private rented market if the councils maintained a suitable stock of houses to rent to people. But yeah let's keep being in a mood with people who need somewhere to keep money that doesn't just depreciate thanks to inflation, let's make additional people homeless because that always helps.
 
Angst said:
It must be so hard to be financially stable enough that you can afford 4 properties to generate profit off families who cant even afford 1. Sounds like a massive hassle.
Click to expand...
Well that is kind of the point. It really has got hard often with no profit or a loss which is why they are selling. Which in turn has a knock on effect of making it even harder for the renters who cannot afford 1. The paper work, tax, legal work really is a massive hassle. Its not like most peoples main job where tax is worked out you. The tax alone is a massive hassle involving a years worth of receipts, maths, spreadsheets and paperwork.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
Well that is kind of the point. It really has got hard often with no profit or a loss which is why they are selling. Which in turn has a knock on effect of making it even harder for the renters who cannot afford 1. The paper work, tax, legal work really is a massive hassle. Its not like most peoples main job where tax is worked out you. The tax alone is a massive hassle involving a years worth of receipts, maths, spreadsheets and paperwork.
Click to expand...
oh, no, making money requires work.... how evil poor landlords.
 
Angst said:
I dont disagree with you, i was just trying to word it more pragmatically than this. Yes realistically this is what is going on however landlords are or should be providing a service to tenants and for it to be a service then some value to the tenant has to be shown overwise it is just profiteering/wealth extraction of those unable to buy a property of their own, that was my point here.
Click to expand...
The service being provided is a house for the tenant to live in/enjoy.
 
Sythe79 said:
oh, no, making money requires work.... how evil poor landlords.
Click to expand...
Sure it requires work but a bunch of people in here seem to think there is no work involved and its easy free money which is detached from reality. Furthermore many landlords are losing money despite requiring lots of work. But some people just want to sit here calling them evil and complain about a free mortgage while being completely oblivious to all the work and costs involved.
 
mrochester said:
The service being provided is a house for the tenant to live in/enjoy.
Click to expand...


The value is providing a house in a location the tenant wants to live that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to.
Click to expand...
"
As with any investment thats a risk you have to take i guess. However even though you sold it for less than you bought it for the tenants still paid off the capital on the mortgage for you? This is kind of where i get stuck on this whole thing, the tenants pay the landlords mortgage in full and then also seem to have pay more ontop for the upkeep of the property. If the tenant is essentially paying someone elses mortgage for them why should they then also be expected to pay eztra on their monthly payments to cover maintenance like a new boiler etc.
At that point what service value is actually been provided? Its just the tenant paying to buy and maintain someone more fortunates house. Whereas if it was regulated to the point the tenant is paying your full mortgage for you but the service you are adding is maintenance of the property then thats a fair exchange."


The supposed "value" in this sevice only exists because the property market is so ****** as it currently works.
 
Last edited:
Sythe79 said:
that's a very loose definition of a service, generally to make a profit you also have to add value where is that exactly ?
Click to expand...
Value is less stress due to less responsibility, more flexibility as you are not fixed and can move around more freely as required. Free upgrades, free maintenance, free repairs, free yearly checks like boilers and electrics, less paperwork and less time spent chasing up company's, no risk of losing money from the house value going down. The big one rent is often much cheaper then a mortgage so your saving more per month. EDIT: I forgot about not needing building insurance and dealing with that every year.
 
Last edited:
Angst said:
"
As with any investment thats a risk you have to take i guess. However even though you sold it for less than you bought it for the tenants still paid off the capital on the mortgage for you? This is kind of where i get stuck on this whole thing, the tenants pay the landlords mortgage in full and then also seem to have pay more ontop for the upkeep of the property. If the tenant is essentially paying someone elses mortgage for them why should they then also be expected to pay eztra on their monthly payments to cover maintenance like a new boiler etc.
At that point what service value is actually been provided? It’s just the tenant paying to buy and maintain someone more fortunates house. Whereas if it was regulated to the point the tenant is paying your full mortgage for you but the service you are adding is maintenance of the property then thats a fair exchange."
Click to expand...
The landlord has to make the money to be able to afford to maintain the property on behalf of the tenant. It is therefore necessary for the tenant to pay enough to cover the landlords costs, which include things like mortgage, maintenance, professional fees.
 
mrochester said:
The landlord has to make the money to be able to afford to maintain the property on behalf of the tenant. It is therefore necessary for the tenant to pay enough to cover the landlords costs, which include things like mortgage, maintenance, professional fees.
Click to expand...
Why oh why is this sooooo difficult for some people to understand?
Why?
 
andybird123 said:
There are clearly people with a lot of misplaced anger. I would seek help from somewhere other than a tech forum, but to each their own I guess.
Click to expand...

I mean this realistically is a thread for people to be all woe is me, it is so hard for me to make money from my multiple property investments how ever will i retire early now. Of course there will be people on the other end of the spectrum that feel taken advantage of by this system and also people who generally just dont agree with the system that have a differing view point.
 
Last edited:
JonRGV250 said:
Why oh why is this sooooo difficult for some people to understand?
Why?
Click to expand...
The opinion of some is that the landlord should operate the property at a loss whilst it is occupied by a tenant on the basis that the landlord receives a windfall in the future when the property is sold.

The trouble is that doesn’t jive with economic reality as landlords can’t operate at a loss.
 
Pottsey said:
Sure it requires work but a bunch of people in here seem to think there is no work involved and its easy free money which is detached from reality. Furthermore many landlords are losing money despite requiring lots of work. But some people just want to sit here calling them evil and complain about a free mortgage while being completely oblivious to all the work and costs involved.
Click to expand...
so landlords are special and have a Devine right for their "business" to be profitable ?, again you all rode the gravy train, you are all collectively responsible along with the government for the problems in the housing market and now the train is stopping the little guys are going to feel the pain the worst... too bad I'll save my sympathy for the renters you all ran over.
 
If some of the people constantly whining in this thread put a similar effort into bettering themselves and their careers then maybe their situation would be different.
 
mrochester said:
The opinion of some is that the landlord should operate the property at a loss whilst it is occupied by a tenant on the basis that the landlord receives a windfall in the future when the property is sold.

The trouble is that doesn’t jive with economic reality as landlords can’t operate at a loss.
Click to expand...
and economic reality is renters can't just keep paying more and more to cover the landlords gamble, the fact it's got this bad is because it isn't a free market and people are forced to have somewhere to live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom