Home Politics and Debate

The landlords debate

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    deceelpool wrote: »
    Fuck me. I leave this argument come back two days later and there is an influx of even more idiots.

    Welcome, wonderful debating method you have there. Don't argue the point, just abuse everyone who disagrees with you.
    Loving the stupid comments.

    I guessed that, hence why you added more :p
    They next explosion expected in the next 10 years is going to be commercial buy2lets, will we then be discussing ..."nobody can afford to buy a shop these day" ? Bollocks.

    Erm... you need a trip to my home town mate, it's already happened. It's partly why we only have brand names in our high streets these days...
    People loose money in property as well, look at the early 1990s. Swings and roundabouts.

    Yeah. Laughed my ass off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    deceelpool wrote: »
    People loose money in property as well, look at the early 1990s.

    It was hilarious.

    Fingers crossed it happens again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It was hilarious.

    Fingers crossed it happens again.

    Where homeowners are in negative equity? I think that would be scary tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Deceelpool certainly hit a few emotional buttons but, emotions aside, where are the errors in this descriptive paragraph ?
    deceelpool wrote: »
    People generally always will find ways of making money, whether it be residential buy2lets, cars, cucumber or cocaine...... There is little or fuck all you can do about it. Im astonished how many bitter people there are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    Deceelpool certainly hit a few emotional buttons but, emotions aside, where are the errors in this descriptive paragraph ?
    People generally always will find ways of making money, whether it be residential buy2lets, cars, cucumber or cocaine...... There is little or fuck all you can do about it. Im astonished how many bitter people there are

    The first sentence: How can something "generally always" be true? Doesn't make sense. The second sentence: obviously untrue, on this issue and the others. For instance something can be done about people producing and selling cocaine, through criminalization etc. In this specific case Kermit has already offered several things we can do about it, which to me would seem pretty effective.

    The last sentence is laughable considering the two that proceeded it!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    The first sentence: How can something "generally always" be true? Doesn't make sense.

    I guess it doesn`t.

    But then I didn`t interpret it that way.

    Despite the "bad" grammar, I read it as "people generally".
    carlito wrote: »
    The second sentence: obviously untrue, on this issue and the others. For instance something can be done about people producing and selling cocaine, through criminalization etc.

    In the case of cocaine (or perhaps anything) those actions just make it easier for SOME to make MOST of the money.(e.g. the people doing business as the CIA appear to find the criminalization of cocaine VERY profitable).
    carlito wrote: »
    The last sentence is laughable considering the two that proceeded it!

    It made me smile too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Where homeowners are in negative equity? I think that would be scary tbh.

    Personally I'd be more worried if a recession accompanied any housing market crash.

    Whereas I'd not want to see friends and family in the shit, by the same token, I have no desire to be stuck renting and worrying about where I'm living every 6 months/year (even more so with a family).

    Stagnation would be OK, as it gives people time to save for a deposit and doesn't drop people in it.
    When prices are growing at 10% each year, I've got no chance of saving enough up, when even the shitholes are going for a hundred grand.

    I think tenancies should be regulated as they are in Europe (or certain countries) that still have assured tenancies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hate siding with landlords, but there is another side to this debate. Whilst they are robbing cunts and, as a bit of a socialist I don't like the notion of property ownership anyway, landlords' costs have gone through the roof recently. There is a huge national shortage of building trade craftsmen - to the point where City bankers have left 6-figure salaried jobs to set up plumbing firms and the like. The cost of repairs is through the roof - any return to the old style registered tenancies (not assured btw - assured tenancies came in under Thatch to give landlords a bit more freedom to charge more) would make it uneconomic for landlords to rent properties out. As 1 in 4 of us don't qualify for a mortgage and many more simply aren't settled enough to want to be tied to one, this would have disastrous consequences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jezzer wrote: »
    As 1 in 4 of us don't qualify for a mortgage

    Why do you think that is? They could afford mortgages ten years ago, before BTL "investment" sent property prices going through the roof.

    The fact that most people don't earn enough to be able to afford mortgages is exactly my point- BTL thieves have sent property prices so high that everyone has to rent on insecure short-term tenancies (where the landlord can boot you out to make more money, and often will).

    My wife and I have a combined income which is a fair way above the average household income, yet all we can afford to buy is a two-bed terrace eight miles out of the city centre. Even if I pay off all my debt, accrued because of the changes to university tuition fees, the top lender will barely lend me enough to buy a family house. Which is great when our incomes halves because my wife's on maternity leave.

    I blame BTL landlords for the fact that house prices in the student areas of this city have gone up sevenfold in a little over five years. There isn't anyone else to blame.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Which is great when our incomes halves because my wife's on maternity leave.

    There's a baby on the way? :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Why do you think that is? They could afford mortgages ten years ago, before BTL "investment" sent property prices going through the roof.

    Was referring to Equifax etc with that comment - 1 in 4 people (apparently) wouldn't be allowed one due to past credit history.

    BTL landlords are certainly a factor in house price rises, but there are many other factors as well that have driven prices up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    There's a baby on the way? :)

    No. We can't fucking afford one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jezzer wrote: »
    but there are many other factors as well that have driven prices up.

    Such as?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Such as?

    People earning more, a reduction in the amount of new developments, etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    People earning more, a reduction in the amount of new developments, etc.

    People aren't earning that much more, the cost of housing has gone up way beyond wage inflation.

    There are more new developments, not less. The developments tend to be creating poncy apartments for the BTL market, though, which is the problem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit, it depends where you take a look at the rises in income. As a whole, people aren't earning that much more, but in the south east people are earning much more than they were, and they tend to be the ones with a home in London and a home in their hometown.

    But I agree wholeheartedly that buy to let is a major issue.

    As for new developments, there are a lot of new laws that make it much harder to develop. For example, you used to be able to take an old property, knock it over, flatten the ground and start again. Now you need to knock it over, excavate all the rubbish and lay new foundations. Greenfield land is practically undevelopable now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The developments tend to be creating poncy apartments for the BTL market, though, which is the problem.

    Or those shityspace ones that are the size of a cupboard that noone wants to rent or buy and are a waste of space that could be used for building something decent. I dunno if you're classing them as poncy, because they really are just shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Kermit, it depends where you take a look at the rises in income. As a whole, people aren't earning that much more, but in the south east people are earning much more than they were, and they tend to be the ones with a home in London and a home in their hometown.


    These people are in a minority.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Kermit, it depends where you take a look at the rises in income. As a whole, people aren't earning that much more, but in the south east people are earning much more than they were, and they tend to be the ones with a home in London and a home in their hometown.

    Most people aren't earning more, even in London.

    You have a small minority of city people who are earning big bonuses, but they always have done. They aren't the problem as a general rule, although they do cause problems in the Chilterns and the Cotswolds.

    Green field land is protected, which is how it should be. There's more than enough brownfield land to be getting on with.

    Development laws have only changed in that developments must be structually sound now. People who propose changing planning law basically want builders to be allowed to throw up any old shite without any social responsibility or sensitivity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    People who propose changing planning law basically want builders to be allowed to throw up any old shite without any social responsibility or sensitivity.

    Another absolutely absurd generalization.

    (In fact, its not even a generalization, because its not even generally true)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not that absurd, though.

    A relaxation of planning laws will result in more insensitive greenbelt development, and more development which infringes on the rights of current property owners.

    A quick look at any council building built in the last 50 years shows what lax planning laws provide you with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Kermit, it depends where you take a look at the rises in income. As a whole, people aren't earning that much more, but in the south east people are earning much more than they were, and they tend to be the ones with a home in London and a home in their hometown.

    You have a completely screwed up vision of the south east dude. Within a 30 miles radious of my house we have three of the most deprived areas in the country.
    Greenfield land is practically undevelopable now.

    As it should be with so much brownfield laying fallow.
Sign In or Register to comment.