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.
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.
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:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,356
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.
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:
oh, no, making money requires work.... how evil poor landlords.
Soldato
The service being provided is a house for the tenant to live in/enjoy.
that's a very loose definition of a service, generally to make a profit you also have to add value where is that exactly ?
Soldato
The value is providing a house in a location the tenant wants to live that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to.
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.
"
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:
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:
Soldato
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.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,356
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.
Why oh why is this sooooo difficult for some people to understand?
Why?
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:
Soldato
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.
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.
The landlord built the house did they?
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.