Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

'Social Housing' .. and Rip Off Landlords

1679111221

Comments

  • I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating. 

    About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. 
    ( Maidstone area ).
    When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan.
    He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. 
    I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment. 

    Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. 
    All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers. 

    I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. 
    Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. 
    Absolutely agree.  It’s too late for many as swathes of new builds have been bought by foreign owners.  We need either an outright law banning it, or the gvt to tax the hell out of it so as to make an unviable investment.  
  • The big building companies are very effective ‘lobbyists’.
  • Leuth said:
    Yeah but I'm about to go to the supermarket and get myself lunch. Sadly by 2pm I won't be able to get on the property ladder as well. I'm 36, in a dual income household with no children, and owning anything in London that isn't a miserable box is a remote prospect. Something is fucked, and just like in football it's fucked in the favour of the existingly wealthy. And you people wonder why we're angry? 
    I can sympathize with this.  I’m only a few years older than you and last year bought my first house with my missus.  We were lucky in that we had the deposit and it was more than 10% of the price of the property, but so many just cannot get there now (and yes, many have worked hard in the past doing a 100 jobs a week, selling lemonade and not spaffed all their income on Starbucks), but the game has changed significantly since then and despite saving money and not getting a credit card etc are good principles in life, without some sort of inherited chunk of cash, or a very, very well paid job, a deposit is beyond most people.

    The challenges still remain for those of us who are new to house ownership as well, namely seeing your mortgage go up by £1200 a month, and that again, is a sign of a broken property market, exploited by the wealthy and powerful.  There will be many repossessions next year, believe me 
  • I don't get the analogy. There are landlords who own a property outright so only have to pay utility bills and upkeep, whereas farmers work on the farm and have to keep buying things like livestock to keep the farms running. Furthermore people aren't paying half of their wages or more at the supermarket each week.
    Farmers have to buy stuff, landlords only buy stuff.  

    Don't get me wrong, I can see your point - it's all about scale - but why is it "only" in one case and not the other? But expenditure is expenditure, no?

    I "only" have to buy a new roof if the old one wears out... But that's maybe 18 months income gone overnight. You can't insure for wear and tear.   
  • Best post of the day.
    Not really, I can’t see the point 
  • Yes supermarkets provide a service, they bring food from farmers to us extremely conveniently. Why should they not profit from this? A landlord hasn’t built the home (usually) themselves. It’s literally just an investment to make more money out of what they have.
    But they’ve bought something that others cant / don’t want to, that’s the service they provide. 

    Along with all the maintenance, servicing and risks involved. I didn’t buy property here for years and years as I always thought the bubble would burst, so was more than happy to pay various landlords rent. 
  • No, because people who invest in stocks etc understand the risks and it's on them if it goes tits up, stocks and shares aren't a fundamental for people to living a very basic existnce, either. For some reason landlords don't seem to have the same attitude, and it's an investment, not a service which ultimately *is* based off greed - ie i have some money, i want to have more money, so i invest in things that i think will go up in value. 
    "I have some money, i want to have more money, so i invest in things that i think will go up in value."  - isn't that just like investing in stocks and shares then? The value of property can go down - as I experienced in the 90s, and wrote about in my previous post. You wrote: "For some reason landlords don't seem to have the same attitude". I am wondering what you are basing that claim on? 

    It could be argued that I am providing the "service" of putting a roof over someone's head? 

    Anyway, in order not to be an ogre, and not be a pauper when I retire, what should I do to retrieve the situation and become a good guy again?       

  • Farmers have to buy stuff, landlords only buy stuff.  

    Don't get me wrong, I can see your point - it's all about scale - but why is it "only" in one case and not the other? But expenditure is expenditure, no?

    I "only" have to buy a new roof if the old one wears out... But that's maybe 18 months income gone overnight. You can't insure for wear and tear.   
    that's not unique to landlords though, it's for anyone that owns a property. 
  • "I have some money, i want to have more money, so i invest in things that i think will go up in value."  - isn't that just like investing in stocks and shares then? The value of property can go down - as I experienced in the 90s, and wrote about in my previous post. You wrote: "For some reason landlords don't seem to have the same attitude". I am wondering what you are basing that claim on? 

    It could be argued that I am providing the "service" of putting a roof over someone's head? 

    Anyway, in order not to be an ogre, and not be a pauper when I retire, what should I do to retrieve the situation and become a good guy again?       
    Providing a human right is not a service imo. I'm not saying people shouldn't pay rent, or that it's bad to be a landlord. But, as you say, it *is* an investment, not a service. 
  • Farmers have to buy stuff, landlords only buy stuff.  

    Don't get me wrong, I can see your point - it's all about scale - but why is it "only" in one case and not the other? But expenditure is expenditure, no?

    I "only" have to buy a new roof if the old one wears out... But that's maybe 18 months income gone overnight. You can't insure for wear and tear.   
    Farmers have to replace roofs as well. Costs will be far higher for farmers after the mortgage has been paid off.
  • Sponsored links:


  • One man's greed is another's return on investment - risk/reward. Nobody is seriously saying that there are many, if any, private BTL landlords who are doing it for some societal good. Like it or not we live in a supply/demand capitalist system which is predominately outside of state ownership. There will always be differing opinions based on personal circumstances - those priced out of the buy market, those who rent privately owned property, those who have a mortgage, those who have paid off their mortgage. For some BTL it is a pension, for others a (failed) get rich quick scheme.

    If anyone is to blame it is not private landlords (we've always had them and in reality less now than 50-60 years) it is successive governments for failing to invest in social housing, failing to call to task private builders sitting on land banks or in building affordable housing and a whole host of other factors that have lead to a dysfunctional housing infrastructure.

    Arguments about this will be circular in nature based on personal circumstances so best maybe to chill a little. Enjoy :)

    Mallard Locomotive  Photos by Ravi

        
  • that's not unique to landlords though, it's for anyone that owns a property. 
    I have been trying to format an answer to that, I mean, where do I start?

    That has literally nothing to do with the point I am making or the theme of the thread.     


  • I have been trying to format an answer to that, I mean, where do I start?

    That has literally nothing to do with the point I am making or the theme of the thread.     


    Not sure how it isn't. Far better for something like that to happen at a property you rent out than the one you live it.
  • Providing a human right is not a service imo. I'm not saying people shouldn't pay rent, or that it's bad to be a landlord. But, as you say, it *is* an investment, not a service. 
    I do get what you are saying KA, but playing devils advocate, food and water are human rights, so why should supermarkets and water companies make huge profits?  
  • Wouldn’t it be possible to introduce rent controls by law?
    For example within reasonable parameters base it on square feet, or facilities, or the average wage, or anything that can be related to realistic affordability.
    And by affordability I don’t mean two people having to each work a 70 hour week just to pay the rent.
    I would guess that somebody or a group of on the ball people could come up with a sensible algorithm that could establish fair rent controls.
  • I do get what you are saying KA, but playing devils advocate, food and water are human rights, so why should supermarkets and water companies make huge profits?  
    Water companies shouldn't, but they do. I can shop around for cheaper food but I can't do the same for water. 
  • Didn't we have rent controls then got rid of them in the 80s? 
  • I’m not sure about that one.
  • There's clearly a number on here who are anti Landlord, by some bizarre twist some of those use the services of a Landlord. Go figure.

    Didn't we have rent controls then got rid of them in the 80s? 
    Yes, although the responsibilities of the tenant and landlord were very different to now. We still have one last tenant on those old rates, generally the houses are in very poor condition as a lot is the tenants responsibility and they don't bother.
  • I don't get the analogy. There are landlords who own a property outright so only have to pay utility bills and upkeep, whereas farmers work on the farm and have to keep buying things like livestock to keep the farms running. Furthermore people aren't paying half of their wages or more at the supermarket each week.
    Because both are making a profit from providing an essential service, so surely both must be greedy? Why is ok for a supermarket to make a profit, but a landlord not?
  • Sponsored links:


  • shine166 said:
    Water companies shouldn't, but they do. I can shop around for cheaper food but I can't do the same for water. 
    Can you shop around for profit free food?    
  • Rob7Lee said:
    There's clearly a number on here who are anti Landlord, by some bizarre twist some of those use the services of a Landlord. Go figure.

    You mean to tell me some people on this thread aren't a home owner and ARENT homeless?! WHAT A SCOOP!
  • because they take on the risk, you know, the risk they don't want to have to actually deal with when it goes tits up. 
    Landlords do carry the risk though. The property and/or mortgage are in their name - the buck stops with them.

    To manage risk you either accept it, mitigate it or transfer it.

    Clearly at the moment that translates to increasing rent to cover increased mortgage costs for some landlords who can do that & still retain a tenant.

    Its not immoral unless they have found some way to demand & secure a rent way in excess of the market rate.

    If any investment rises in value someone is (relatively) 'losing'. 

    As others have said what will drive down rents being so expensive is more being provided by central/local government where market rates will not fully apply. The economic cycle is not in your and other 'renters' favour currently but will likely change in the future. How soon is a very different matter.


  • I have to say "you can't be renting if you want to have an opinion on what renting is like" is quite a position, but there we go. 
  • Because both are making a profit from providing an essential service, so surely both must be greedy? Why is ok for a supermarket to make a profit, but a landlord not?
    Profit margins at a supermarket are around 1-3%. If landlords were only making that the situation would be far different.
  • Can you shop around for profit free food?    
    Like food banks?
  • I have to say "you can't be renting if you want to have an opinion on what renting is like" is quite a position, but there we go. 
    I am making an assumption here, but I would imagine the majority of our fellow lifers have rented in the past? I certainly did from the age of 17 to 24.  
  • Like food banks?
    No.
  • Profit margins at a supermarket are around 1-3%. If landlords were only making that the situation would be far different.
    Drop that to zero and how many wouldn’t need those foodbanks? Either investing for profit is greed, or it’s not. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!