Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

The landlords debate

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Kermit wrote: »
Landlord = cunt.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that you don't like landlords much? :yeees:
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Every single landlord I have ever had has been a robbing piece of filth *shrug*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kangoo wrote: »
    I'm beginning to get the feeling that you don't like landlords much? :yeees:

    What's to like about them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's to like about them?

    Errr the fact they have given you somewhere to live perhaps.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    deceelpool wrote: »
    Errr the fact they have given you somewhere to live perhaps.

    Given?

    Yes, in the same way that Sainsbury's gives me food, I suppose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    deceelpool wrote: »
    Errr the fact they have given you somewhere to live perhaps.

    Given? Is that the same way the Triads give protection to those who seek it?

    They're all robbing cunts, and if I had my way I'd charge them 900% capital gains tax on whatever money they make from rent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Way to go stereotyping and tarring all of them with the same brush :rolleyes:

    Nice how you can do that about somethings but if you said the same thing about another group you'd have everyone jumping on you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Given? Is that the same way the Triads give protection to those who seek it?

    They're all robbing cunts, and if I had my way I'd charge them 900% capital gains tax on whatever money they make from rent.

    I've had a few landlords over the years - 1 complete tosser, 2 who were very average, 1 who was rather good and 3 who were exceptionally good. They aren't all bad, and it is wrong to assume as such.

    Companies, on the other hand... ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Given? Is that the same way the Triads give protection to those who seek it?

    They're all robbing cunts, and if I had my way I'd charge them 900% capital gains tax on whatever money they make from rent.

    What an idiot.
    Landlords don't make people rent. If you don't like it buy your own place, find a park bench, buy a sleeping bag or a tent or sleep in your car.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Landlords are robbing cunts though. All of them. Even the nicest, most moral person going is a robbing cunt. The reason why nobody poorer than Bill Gates can afford a flat in London is because all these arsewipes are buying everything up, pricing people out of the market, and then charging extortionate rents for the privilege. It isn't rocket science.

    Don't even get me started on the landlords of student properties or holiday properties, except to say that I hope every single house in the Lakes that isn't occupied all year round burns down, and that the insurance won't pay out.

    I would honestly charge 900% tax on every penny of rent that landlords charge, I would price the twats out of the market, and maybe then housing might actually be affordable once more.

    Landlords do make people rent, and anyone who can't see that is a moron.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I won't respond to your collection of ignorant points other than to say ..... guess what, Capital Gains wont ever be 900%, it will remain profitable, and you will never be able to stop investors landlords buying as much mor as many properties as we like.

    I imagine pointing those facts out will annoy you more than anything else.
    Just do us a favour, make sure you get your rent in on time this month, ya mug.

    Bitter Bitter Ignorance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fuck that for a laugh, I own my own house, cheers muchly (well, Coventry Building Society own most of it, but shush).

    And no, landlords won't be banned, too many rabid cunts make too much money for that to ever happen. But all credit to all the lakeland people who put restrictive covenants in the conveyances saying that the properties cannot be sub-let without covenant consent...its the sort of thing I applaud.

    Why's it "ignorance"? Landlords buying all the properties ("investment" my arse) drive prices up, meaning that people cannot afford to buy. People who cannot afford to buy have to rent. It's not a free choice to rent, is it?

    I would remove all tax benefits to buy-to-let. I would make the SDLT threshold £0, I would make the rate start at 5%, I would make all rent liable for income tax, not just the surplus after mortgage payments, and I would make the property liable for Capital Gains for the whole sale price, not just the profit. I would also make the property liable for inheritance tax, again with a £0 threshold. I'd also slap a 5% premium on mortgages, payable straight to Gordon.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the other hand landlords do not control how much people earn / how much they can afford to pay for accomodation.

    Peoples earning capacity, if their own responsibility.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you klintock in disguise? You spout enough shit to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Landlords are robbing cunts though. All of them. Even the nicest, most moral person going is a robbing cunt. The reason why nobody poorer than Bill Gates can afford a flat in London is because all these arsewipes are buying everything up, pricing people out of the market, and then charging extortionate rents for the privilege. It isn't rocket science.

    Unfortunately, this is the world in which we now live. Just because your ideals are somewhat different to reality, it doesn't mean each and every single landlord is a robbing cunt.

    I don't understand you, you know. Sometimes I read things you type and think you're an incredibly gifted person, with somewhat-odd but very realistic views of the world. And another day, I read what you type and find it laughable :). I'm not trying to have a dig, just commenting on how variable you can come across sometimes.

    Landlords are only a very small part of the problems on our planet. You seem to have a disproportionate amount of hatred for them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unfortunately, this is the world in which we now live. Just because your ideals are somewhat different to reality, it doesn't mean each and every single landlord is a robbing cunt.

    This is the world in which we now live, where people with money price those without out of the market, and then charge them a fortune instead. And yeah, very little will change- whilst Cumbrian Holidays and City stockbrokers have more purchase power than a Lakeland farmer, every single house in the Lake District will be a holiday cottage lived in for five weeks of the year, whilst the people born and bred there are driven away. It doesn't mean that it's right. It doesn't mean that we should be happy that we can't afford to buy a house within 50 miles of where my wife was born and raised- and we have a combined income which is above average.

    The very definiton of being a landlord is being a thief- they are pricing people out of the property market and then charging a vast amount of money for nothing. It is money completely down the drain. I don't even necessarily blame private landlords for doing it, but it is morally abhorrent. That's even before we get to the dubioous moral of most private landlords- either most of them are lying twats, or my family, friends and I have been very unlucky. I suspect it might be the former.

    Of course the Government won't do anything about it- there's too much money to be made- but I do reckon that the Welsh had the right idea about it all. Burn the holiday cottages down.

    Is it unrealistic to expect restrictions to be placed on buy-to-let? probably. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen though. I honestly hope that every single buy-to-let landlord loses everything they own.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit's right about the impact y'know.

    Anyone who lives in a university town will be able to show you that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Having to wait 4932765 years for a bunch of old busy bodies to approve planning permission should be to blame, not poeple exploiting the situtation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with you Kermit, btw. Everyone with a bit of cash now is entering the buy-to-let market, and they make money for doing absolutely nothing. Rent is too high but because you've got no alternative - and as the person above said because you can technically afford it (albeit giving up money you could be putting towards a deposit) then landlords have no trouble sleeping at night.

    I mean, my mum was looking at doing it for me and some other students, and it's so easy to win it's stupid. Buy a house, let it out, the house will go up in value so as long as you're not paynig too much in (and tbf the rent takes care of most of the expenses) then you make a profit on selling it, which another buy-to-letter will buy and charge even higher rent. Thus inflation.

    The gap between the rich and the poor is greater now than for the last 30 years I think.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=332
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What on earth are you on about, minimi?

    There are more than enough houses to go around, the problem is that you have these buy-to-let "investors" who own ten of them. The property boom in the south-east- the one that means anyone earning less than £60k a year can't afford to buy- is entirely down to "investors" snapping everything up for buy-to-let purposes.

    I honestly believe that the tax schedule should reflect the sociological damage that shorthold tenancies create in areas. Most university towns have student ghettos which are empty for six months of the year, it destroys the area whilst making it impossible for people to actually buy there and live there.

    Rural areas are even worse, especially the South Lakes, the Cornish coast and the Cotswolds- they're full of properties owned as holiday cottages that lie empty for nine months of the year whilst the people who live and work in the area are driven out. My wife is from the South Lakes yet we'd have to quadruple our reasonably good salaries just to be able to afford a box there. We can't afford to live within 50 miles of where she was born, and within 20 miles of where her parents live now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    What on earth are you on about, minimi?

    There are more than enough houses to go around, the problem is that you have these buy-to-let "investors" who own ten of them. The property boom in the south-east- the one that means anyone earning less than £60k a year can't afford to buy- is entirely down to "investors" snapping everything up for buy-to-let purposes.

    yes, the sole reason is that investors have been snapping up all the houses :lol:

    there is a house shortage in the south east, has been for years. just because there are houses in some other part of the country doesn't mean people will move there. demand for new houses has been outstripping supply for years now.


    Barker review overview

    Barker review
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a shortage of housing, but it is overstated by those who have a financial interest in building new housing. Planning controls aren't the real problem (fast-tracking would just lead to more inappropriate developments), the real problem is that the demand is coming from "investors" rather than occupiers.

    House prices for certain types of home(family 3-bed semis especially) are high because there is less supply than demand, but that is largely because developers are spending all their time building flats and apartments because they are more profitable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you can't deny that 'people exploiting the situation' as you put it eloquently, are making it worse though. It's like on the boom and bust cycle, all the investors trying to get rich quick (and being told to do so by daytime tv lol) are spending over the odds because they can afford it, which means your average joe bloggs can't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see how anyone can say that people AREN'T priced out of the market by buy-to-let "investors". Kermit is spot on about this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are a side effect not the cause. Whenever something is in short supply investors invest, it happens with anything. The articles quite clearly show that a lack of housing is the problem and it is caused by rigid planning laws. An adequate supply of housing wouldn't allow investors to earn such high returns.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    There is a shortage of housing, but it is overstated by those who have a financial interest in building new housing. Planning controls aren't the real problem (fast-tracking would just lead to more inappropriate developments), the real problem is that the demand is coming from "investors" rather than occupiers.

    If there was no demand from occupiers there would be no point in investing. Point is, they recognise the high demand, have more money than average so invest and reap the higher than average returns. All due to the chronic undersupply of housing. An adequate supply of houses wouldn't create such high returns.

    House prices for certain types of home(family 3-bed semis especially) are high because there is less supply than demand, but that is largely because developers are spending all their time building flats and apartments because they are more profitable.

    Because they get more houses per square mile. Planning laws etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    If there was no demand from occupiers there would be no point in investing.

    Erm... the reason I rent is because I cannot afford to buy for myself. So I am with a housing association. I earn over £40k.

    As an aside, how does your view stack up with the issue of low cost housing for "essential" workers like nurses and firemen?
    An adequate supply of houses wouldn't create such high returns.

    There are enough houses. How many are second homes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    If there was no demand from occupiers there would be no point in investing.

    There are enough houses for everyone to have one each.

    What happens is that "investors" (I have to say I prefer the term "robbing cunt") buy ten, driving prices up, meaning that only the very wealthy can afford to buy. Everyone else has to rent, driving up rental prices.

    My solution is to make it financially unviable to be the owner of a second property. A flat rate 10% SDLT with a £0 threshold, 200% council tax on second homes, and removal of all inheritance and Capital Gains perks would do for starters.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since we've moved away from the original bin issue, figured I'd make this a new thread, and leave the original for any updates or advice on the OPs situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    There are enough houses for everyone to have one each.

    x houses for x families isnt an adequate supply. Homes need to be where people want them. 3 cans of baked beans and a packet of sausages in brum are pretty useless to me, luckily, theres a tesco down the road. A 3 bedroom semi in wherever-prescott-was-talking-about-demolishing-them for example is useless to most people who need to live near where they work.
    What happens is that "investors" (I have to say I prefer the term "robbing cunt") buy ten, driving prices up, meaning that only the very wealthy can afford to buy. Everyone else has to rent, driving up rental prices.

    I know, that is not incompatable with what i have said above. Inadequate supply drives up prices/rent and attracts investors who see profit in renting and further increasing prices above inflation. More houses would diminish the incentivs to do so making it no longer worth while to speculate. Hence the conclusion of the report linked above.

    My solution is to make it financially unviable to be the owner of a second property. A flat rate 10% SDLT with a £0 threshold, 200% council tax on second homes, and removal of all inheritance and Capital Gains perks would do for starters.

    Tackling the problem's cause would be far more effective in making it financially unviable.

    Erm... the reason I rent is because I cannot afford to buy for myself. So I am with a housing association. I earn over £40k.

    Because of the undersupply and high prices and investment that comes with it...
    As an aside, how does your view stack up with the issue of low cost housing for "essential" workers like nurses and firemen?

    its the same problem
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, seriously, I'm going to have to go to the doctor's after work. I've found myself agreeing with both Blasta and Kermit, in one day!

    Hidden in-and-amongst Kermit's diatribe about landlords, are the truth and the facts. The fact that I'm living in a university town in the South-East means there is no way I can afford to buy, not now, and not for the foreseeable future. This is due largely to the vast amount of rental accommodation in Brighton. I'm currently sharing with two other people - in a flat - and my rent is £370 a month before bills. To even think about getting a one/two bedroom flat I'd have to be in possession of the best part of £200k. It is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
Sign In or Register to comment.