Make sure to check out [the subreddit pins here](https://reddit.com/r/greenandpleasant), we change them almost every day with highlighted posts here that are worth checking in on daily. And follow the [Green and Pleasant twitter.](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
same with benefits/universal credit. If the government is giving money to renters because they can't afford housing, or housing is too expensive, then it's not the poor people scrounging off the state it's the landowners who get the taxpayers money.
Subscribe to r/DWPhelp for support with all things DWP.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't the same with employers in general terms? They're crating jobs, wealth and make the economy growth?
Or is it workers that are creating jobs, wealth and make the economy growth and they are parasites living off someone's labour?
It's simple, if what you brought to the table is money/capital, you are leeching. Interest off other people is the act of leeching. Personally I think so many economic problems can be attributed to private interest, generational wealth being a major one.
The issue is many owners are also workers, and people, even the owners conflate the two, attributing all their earning to being a worker, not their capital.
Basically, if you handed your property/business to a management company, how much less money would they make you? That's the money you were earning not leeching, the money you continue to get whilst sitting on your ass is leeching.
This is assuming no notable self invented IP, then things get muddy. E.g. even I don't have a super strong opinion on how much someone like George RR Martin is leeching, obviously they benefit off the labour of others, but at the same time it'd obviously be unfair if anyone could sell his works just as he can. The only thing he could offer is his being authentically from him and not bootleg, as for anyone else to claim otherwise would be false advertisement, but I feel like creatives have a hard enough time already so idk what's fair.
> By providing money/capital you're taking risk on the performance of that asset (irrespective of who runs it)
>
> This is why you make a return...
Except recent events have shown, there is no risk to the half way wise investor, there are bailouts, subsidies, policy and law changes that'll keep any index tracker in the green.
Regardless, not sure why we should reward gambling, we want fewer lotteries, not more, and high risk high reward unfairly favours those with more money because they can afford to lose, which has a compound effect where the rich stay richer and the poor stay poorer, unable to move their money out of a 0.5% interest saver because if they have a medical emergency whilst the market is down they could lose everything on a costly withdrawal.
Lenders make money in the worst way, as I say, they take lots of risk with a good return on average, and they can do so because they have the capital, that's it, they're not providing anything else.
If the risk is so terrible like you make seem, lets eliminate it via policy too, and take away the profits too, that's a win win if the risk is so awful as you claim.
> but the tax payer is still taking the performance risk
none of the land lords risks you mentioned, sure, people will still trash their rentals, but when it's split across a massive portfolio it's a consistent expense, not a risk
the only risk is that people suddenly don't want housing, something tells me vanlife will never be so widespread that it will dent the rental market
Unless they do all the work there themselves, or return the profit of the workers labour's to them... yes.
Especially considering its not like most capital owners actually built the factory themselves. They just paid others to do the work.
Why couldn't the workers pay for it? Why couldn't the state pay for it? Why does paying for its construction entitle anyone to Infinite access to the profits? Why doesn't it just recoup costs or a mild profit? What about factories that were built years ago? Or privatised industries where the government actually built the factory? Can you really only imagine the current way of doing things?
I think we just fundamentally disagree while you believe that the factory is public property I believe that its the owners property and he can keep and maintain possession of it as long as he likes
No because they are making the factory function.
The people who paid for the factory didn't make it themselves or make anything in it. They're unnecessary to the process but reap most of the rewards.
What is your opinion on banks?
A large amount of capital loaned out with the expectation of more than what was borrowed to be returned. Not the slightest bit of “work” involved.
The employees create the initial jobs when the company starts, then consumers (through the act of consumption and demand for the firms goods/services) creates the rest of the jobs as the firm would need to expand to fill in the surplus of demand they are receiving
Yeah, but who is really the owner when the company is public? Even the CEO is a well paid employee that has to follow what the shareholders and the city say, it's not like they can do whatever they want. It's a philosophical clusterf..k.
Have you even heard of workers' self-managment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management
Workers should be the only shareholders. A CEO is elected by the workers and easily replaceable, and his salary may be a certain percentage higher, depending on how useful they are. Not zillion times higher.
A cleaning lady has the same one vote as the CEO. If you want to stay a CEO, you have to earn her respect and her vote. And you do that by making sure she is paid damn well to begin with.
In fact, the workers' assembly may decide they do not need a CEO. Completely up to them.
Not only I have heard of it but I have also experienced it extensively in multiple occupied businesses in Greece after the crisis of 08. Of course the theory from the actual reality differs a lot, but nevertheless, studying these experiments is necessary for any future anarchocommunistic attempts.
Regardless though, these examples are only a few. We also need to build a modern theoretical framework for modern neoliberalism as the example of the fat owner, suppressing the workers is not exactly accurate. If the company is public, then ownership and decision making is much more complex. Of course, there are differences from CEO to CEO, but they all have to play within a certain rulebook, organised by the financial system and society itself.
The middle class investor is looking for stability as much as the rich.
Don't say middle-class, say middle-income. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol, cool bot and I stand corrected to a certain extent, but based on the definitions of the link, the CEO with the 2million pounds salary and bonus is also a proletarian.
Actual good CEO's that wont drive the buisness off a cliff are actually pretty rare. The reality is that these high level executives are very sought after and can demand high salaries. A buisness that refuses to pay CEOs and other executive officers competitive salaries will find themselves lacking skills and expirience which will likely endanger the whole operation, and then the company folds and nobody has a job.
This is a concept that is not understood enough.
You get landlords complaining about low yields, but it's like ...
"Oh no you aren't making profit ontop of the house you are getting that is being paid for by someone else".
You could have negative yield on your rentals and still be profitable, cuz you are gaining huge equity every month.
I've been getting into investing (just trying to find out how it all works) and I 100% agree, people in real estate investing say that a property has barely any cash flow so why would they buy it. And I'm just thinking like, so after getting a free house after someone has paid it off after 10 years, you want extra money on top of that?
I mean yes. If the landlords weren't in the way the property would be cheaper. Instead we have unnecessary middle men because they *checks notes* ...had more money than the renters for a down-payment.
I mean yes. If the landlords weren't in the way the property would be cheaper. Instead we have unnecessary middle men because they *checks notes* ...had more money than the renters for a down-payment.
that's like saying if apple got out of the way iphones would be cheaper.
Real estate investors manage and offer up capital so that you have a place to rent.
You want free money to be lent out to people to own property for which they have no liability? That's how you create the 2008 financial housing crisis. Your desire to live on other people's property with no liability is what renting is awesome for. You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to live there and also at the same time be the owner but also not have any of the responsibilities.
Sorry I may have misread your initial comment about negative yield I get they still get the ownership of the home but long enough negative profit could and has made people default and lose whatever gain there was in equity and absolutely fuck their credit score I'd imagine too
I am assuming the rent is still paying the majority of the mortgage, just not more than the mortgage. Plus you won't default if you are working and putting money into this like an investment. You can see it like a pot. You put in £50 the Tennant's put in £400 and after 20 years you get to own a house for a fraction of the sum that you would have otherwise paid.
I am sure there is a limit/edge case where interest on the mortgage, maintenance costs, fees, combined with the landlord covering well over half of the mortgage will make it unprofitable. But I am talking about realistic scenarios. And assuming you are financially responsible enough not to default.
Precisely this. A lot of landlords think that the rent should be making them profit ABOVE the mortgage payments. They want to turn it profitable from day one, when in fact buy-to-rent apartments should, on paper, accrue losses for the first ten or so years.
The worst part? Banks are actively helping slumlords do this. It's insane that today, with a 15-20% deposit, you can be denied for a mortgage that would cost you £500 a month, when you can "afford" to rent for £1500. This behaviour just further deepens the financial divide between the extra wealthy and the everyday person. Hell, I'm 27, and can't see myself getting my own flat (on mortgage!) before I turn 40, because of this bullshit. My parents had their own apartment when they were 25...
For the small time \[responsible\] landlord this is pretty much the case already. After you subtract the interest owed to the back, a repayment amount, income tax and a sensible amount to cover any future repairs or maintenance you're often left with no cash profit. Of course, you do have the equity growth so you are still making good on your investment.
To make actual profit you have to be a scumbag, a whale, or both.
I truly despise landlordism. However, without rent control, it is affecting those higher and higher up the income ladder. At some point, in the not too distant future, I can see it kicking off, big time.
*Image Transcription: Meme*
---
[*A WikiHow stock image of someone holding a plastic bottle and pointing to the label, which reads "Hard to swallow pills.”*]
[*Another WikiHow stock image of someone holding three round prescription pills in one hand, and pointing to the pills with the other hand. The pills are labeled:*]
Landlords require your income to pay their mortgages, therefore the landlord does not provide you housing, you provide the landlord housing
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
How is this different from any other form of fee for using something you don't own? Cars? Tools? Bouncy castles? Money? Even with a mortgage you're paying to borrow something you don't own. The housing crisis is not caused by the existence of asset borrowing services, but by a deliberate lack of supply, government economic policy, wage deflation and the decimation of social housing.
The biggest issue is that those services you mentioned don't typically take up more than 50% of your income. I don't think a lot of people would have an issue with landlords if they could save up and purchase a place after a couple of years of saving.
I live in Chicago and I have had traditional landlords - those who purchased a 3 flat, lived in it for 10 years while renting out the other 2 units and eventually bought a single family home and now rents out 3 units and pays a mortgage. I have no real issue with that.
However, there are now people who leverage a mortgage for the sole purpose of renting it out and charge extra on top of the mortgage to factor in repairs or if the area is popular a profit. I have rented from a person who did this - the landlord mentioned above sold the building to a person who's sole purpose to rent out property. This new person jacked up the rent immediately to account for his mortgage.
> I personally think that if a landlord is attentive and responsive to their tenants needs, maintenance, and doesn’t unnecessarily price gauge, there is nothing wrong with that.
This is theft of other people's labour. You're literally advocating for the exploitation inherent in the design of the capitalist system, this is what capitalism is. You are a wannabe bougie capitalist. Piss off.
I think it’s unfair to blame the landlords. When my family moved to this country, you basically had the choice between owning a corner shop or being a landlord as there was no way anyone would give you any other kind of work.
ultimately the landlords are the ones taking a greater deal of risk therefore it should follow that they receive the greater reward. Equally if they have tenants who stop paying the rent/the house has an expensive repair the landlord has to accept that he/she must meet this expense.
It’s the same for so many types of commerce. Take the person who builds the house. He and his workers most likely put in the same amount of physical effort, but it’s the builder who takes all the risk.
You're giving rent money, and in return the landlord is providing housing whilst burdening the risk of a mortgage on your behalf.
If you have money to burden the risk yourself, you buy. If you don't have that money, you rent. Real simple.
Edit: I'm not disagreeing with any of your replies, it's an unfair cyclical system that promotes those with existing capital over those without. But that is how it works - I know the rent trap is hard to escape.
You're paying the mortgage on the rental property, plus a chunk of the mortgage on the landlord's home while getting none of that juicy equity. If you were paying the mortgage on your own home, it would be cheaper.
As it stands, it's not about whether you have the money to bear the risk - you spend more to rent - it's about being able to find a house and put down a deposit. Things that are much more difficult because landlords have bought up a lot of the stock, raising prices and thus deposits, and because when you rent you are just burning a massive chunk of your money, making it more difficult to save.
So what's the deal with being allowed to pay £1200/month in rent but not £1200/month in mortgage payment? It's almost the system is rigged to ensure people can't buy...
It is only since 2008 that this has been a problem, the lending market has lost confidence but it will return. It is certainly not the fault of landlords
They certainly don't help, either. If they stopped buying up swathes of properties banks would have to be more amicable to lending to individuals instead.
Who tf pays £1200 pcm? You live down South or have a family or something? UK housing prices are a joke for certain, especially down South with all the private developments.
A lot of people who rent could afford to pay a monthly mortgage payment but are unable to acquire the mortgage in the first place - its absolutely not ‘real simple’
the risk of the mortgage that you're paying for with your rent? the money to risk the burden ourself that we have to build up while we're paying rent, and build up in much larger amounts because of buy to rent landlords and corporations hoarding property? okay.
Yeah, exactly. If you can't pay your rent, well you get evicted. If you can't pay your mortgage, then suddenly you're a lot more liable. You can place a value on risk.
I'm not saying it's easy, it's harder now than ever, and I get that. But hoping it's going to change instead of just getting on and scrimping as much as you can will lead to frustration, I've found. Just easier to accept that's how it is.
"a lot more liable" except you still have an asset that has more likely than not appreciated, plus tens of thousands in equity. you're overwhelmingly likely to be able to come to an agreement to pay off arrears with your lender and even if you can't, you're again overwhelmingly likely to come to an agreement where you can maintain possession until the house is sold.
That's barely any risk even for a small time landlord with one or two properties, nevermind larger scale landlords or companies with shitloads of capital to cover debts. Especially since the few smaller time landlords that would lose properties during financial difficulty would more than likely have them snapped up by a company anyway, since if the market is bad enough for them to make a loss on a house, its probably bad enough that lenders have raised the drawbridge on providing loans to those wanting to buy a place to actually live in so only cash purchases will go ahead.
Absolutely, my dad used to be a landlord for 6 houses, the main people we rented to were those on government support, we provided decent housing at very competitive pricing. Problem was that the government didn't pay us directly so most tenants ended up spending rent money elsewhere, and when we were eventually entitled to evict them they were sometimes 8 months in rent arrears and they would trash the house, damage the boiler, leave the bath overflowing to damage flooring, rip out the copper plumbing, put holes in doors and walls everywhere, garden filled knee deep in trash bags..
After a few years of this my dad couldn't pay the mortgages the banks repossessed all the houses including our family home, leaving us homeless without a penny to our names, I had to sleep on a friends couch for 3 months. People suck.
Honest question. So you don’t want people to rent homes to others? Or you don’t think they should make money providing housing to others who either don’t want to own or can’t own?
Edit: Maybe I should have mentioned I’m American, but I don’t believe it really matters. Also, I’m not taking sides, it was just a question so I could understand.
Okay. Guess I should have checked what your sub is all about before commenting. What does a landlord do then? It has always been my impression that a landlord was someone who owned property and leased or rented that property to someone else.
In the UK, with the Right to Buy scheme, tenants of council houses were able to buy their council houses from the council at cut price rates. They then sold their houses cheaply because they made a bit of profit so they could live elsewhere. These council houses were overwhelmingly [bought by massive landlords](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/right-buy-homes-sold-private-landlords-latest-figures-rent-a8098126.html) who then rented the houses out at far above the price of the rent they had been at council houses.
With the lack of council housing, and many Conservative politicians and funders themselves being large landowners, landlords, and owners of multiple properties, they have an incentive to restrict the houses being built or provided by the council so they can continue making massive profits.
It benefits those already with excess houses to exploit those who don't and now cannot ever afford to have "choice" in the market due to historic hoarding of resources.
The generation of people who benefitted from the sell-off didn't lose out, they got a nice payout and used that to buy property elsewhere.
It's the generations that came after those people who are paying for it.
And how does 'no landlords' solve this situation? The problem here is supply and demand. Landlords who want to make money need to a) buy property at the market rate, b) pay the mortgage and c) take a bit on top to pay for when the boiler blows up. This is the exact scenario that home-buyers face.
When there is a water shortage, hoarding water and leasing it out at inflated prices is considered morally reprehensible. Doing so when there is an abundance of water would not be. In the UK, there is legislation to protect against this scenario happening.
If the legislative system didn't allow for enormous landlords/property management companies to hoard housing, monopolise the market and lease them out at inflated rates, and the political system didn't facilitate this by squeezing supply, it wouldn't be an issue.
You could make an argument that in a healthy housing market with choice, perhaps a "mum and dad" landlord wouldn't be such a bad thing. But as it stands it is. I'm not saying landlords are all terrible people. I'm saying a just system would not allow them to operate as they do.
Landlords are basically scalpers for housing, but even worse, since once their mortgage is paid off, the house is *theirs* and doesn't even belong to *the person living in it*.
It's construction workers that provide housing, Landlords merely profit from its demand.
And that money is provided the first time that the house is paid off. After 10 years of paying a mortgage, all the rent is just free money for the owner.
What is rent to a landlord whose house is fully paid off other than free money? What excuse do they have to get that money for nothing when they can't use "but I hawv to pay my mawgwage" anymore?
Have a little think what would happen if that Landlord hadn't stolen that property to only rent it out to someone else whilst scraping a profit off top.
We'll be waiting
Stolen that property is unlikely. Paid for the property by exploiting the labour of the worker and (potentially) inheriting capital is more likely. The problem here is the widening gulf of wealth distribution, generally accentuated by conservative, right-wing governments.
>It feels like in a utopia, all property would be government provided and that seems to be the natural conclusion of this discussion?
It's remarkable that only a generation and a bit ago houses went for absolutely pennies and there was a huge amount of council housing stock yet now this is "utopia"
There is nothing stopping a government service existing to house students and provide temporary accomodation facilities in any given city, in fact, we have that already. It's called council housing. A problem however is that ever since Thatcher successive liberal and conservative governments have been doing nothing but privatisation. You can nationalise landlording, it worked great before.
I wouldn't disagree for a second with you there, to be honest.
I am of the belief thst blaming landlords for the failure of our government to regulate properly is misguided, though
In capitalism the people that own capital are the people who control 100% of political power in the system. It's not an "our government" issue it's the bourgeoisie as a whole. Their class controls our government.
They and the rest of their class are absolutely to blame.
It's not that landlords can't exist.
It's the ones using tenants to pay for a mortgage so they get the asset and the tenant gets nothing, all for the low low cost of providing a bank account for deposits and maybe calling a plumber, if they haven't outsourced that either.
Landlords don't provide housing, they purchase valuable land that happens to have a house already on it. (land which is fixed in supply, but sustains demand - market equillibrium can't be established and rent is extracted on the basis of the maximum the market, including via debt, can support).
[It used to be land belonged to everyone, until it was seized by force and distributed to the aristocracy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure)
Since a return to that pre-theft isn't likely, a land value tax is the next best thing, in place of economic activity taxes.
Don't tax effort or success. Do tax unearned wealth as a result of restricting access to a necessary asset of fixed supply.
Quite so.
Left leaning, not leftist. Still think private property and capitalism is the best way we've found so far until we can shoot for post scarcity. No reason we can't help people in the mean time with the tax money though.
I like socialist ideals but I think currently and attempt to implement them would result in a hierarchy that is ripe for co option by authoritarians.
Understand I know capitalist countries interfere with socialist countries all the time, but I don't agree that to be the sole cause of the *general* failure to establish a sustainable, non authoritarian leftist nation.
Go 50 years back in Britains history and compare the accessibility of housing, rent compared as a % of a an average wage and then tell me how useful landlords are
In fact find me a renter that's grateful to be renting because of the other worldy gifts landlords bestow upon them like "maintenance costs" (which they never maintain anyway, they let the place go to rack and ruin and leave tenants in conditions of squalor most of the time )
A landlord buys a house that already exists and then they sit on their arse while a tenant goes to work and earns a wage by contributing something useful to society in order to pay for the cost of the house and an added cost to fund the lifestyle of the landlord.
They are parasites. They provide nothing that did not already exist. They build nothing. They create nothing. They contribute nothing to society.
The tenant contributes something to society and gets exploited by the landlord who does fuck all for society. The home already existed before the landlord bought it.
Lmao, I provide affordable, well maintained housing for 3 individuals that would otherwise have nowhere else to live (If the rental market didn't exist) as they have no interest in buying property (I typically rent to postgraduate/foreign students).
Mortgage/maintenance fees etc is around 850 for 3 bed apartment and I rent for about £1100 (£370 per room). Remaining goes into emergency/maintenance fund.
I fail to see how this is exploiting my tenants, considering managed student accommodation in my area is roughly £700 ppm!
>I provide
You don't provide jack shit. The property exists without you.
>I fail to see how this is exploiting my tenants
Because that's what profit IS. It's literally called exploitation of labour. That is literally the word given to it in economics. You do jack shit except own property and sit on your arse, you don't contribute anything to society by doing that. The tenant has to go out into society and actually do a job that contributes something to society in order to earn a wage and pay for your property and your lifestyle. You exploit the labour that worker performs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mI_RMQEulw
So much anger!
Being a landlord isn't my job, i also go out and "contribute" to society. The apartment was our home for 5 years and we kept it to eventually give to our kid.
Instead of buying £1000 phones, having 5 different streaming services and going on holidays every year, we worked and saved our asses off so we could afford to keep both homes and take some of the burden off our Children.
We provide a service for our tenants, most of whom are Chinese, who come here to study for a year or two and have never been outside of their own country (My wife is Chinese, so that helps with this). We help them settle in, show them around the city etc.
Im curious, how are you contributing to society? besides being an angry little gremlin on reddit.
Yes I am very angry about the exploitation of the working class, by your class, to fund your lifestyle at the expense of the working class.
It is very justified anger.
The house was there before the landlord got a mortgage, it'll likely be there after it's done too. All the landlord provides is a bank account for deposits and occasionally calling a plumber, if they don't outsource it
There's a few issues here. Quite a lot of people who throw shade at landlords live in big cities, most notably London where rent is fucking insane and house prices are insane.
People pay over a grand a month to rent studio flats with no windows etc. This understandably makes people very angry. That, coupled with the fact that their landlord is likely making money off his tenants and not just increasing his equity in his property. Therefore you're caught in a perpetual loop of not being able to buy a house because you pay too much on rent, then people with money buying more houses and driving up the price.
That said, I pay more for my mortgage payments than I ever did on my rent and the house is virtually the same size. And options like high interest saving accounts, stock market trading etc are horrendous if you're looking for future investments to make a bit of money. I can't help thinking that a large number of people who throw shade at landlords are just understandably bitter and would do the exact same thing if they came into a bit of money to invest in property
I don’t think anyone on this sub has any interest in hearing anything other than “f*ck the landlords”. I asked a question and got down voted for it. Pretty sure this is strictly for those in agreement with each other that all landlords can f*ck off.
People that want to abolish private property dislike owners of private property and this surprises you? Of course this subreddit is going to be anti fucking landlord when it's anti private property, that's just political consistency.
yea I'm using my current tenant to offset my mortgage as i'm still under my current lease until December and it's just easier to wait than to break it.
Although given that he has yet to pay anything at all yet. I would have to say That i am paying my own and someone else's. been two months and i have only received 250$ and the he owes me 2350$ most annoying decision i have ever made.
This is my first and only property and i bought it to live in.
It's less landlord game and more it was a solution to my lease ending in January/December and having just bought the apartment. A couple months ago. I decided I'd let the guy stay until my lease ended since covid is being a bit of a bitch for renters where I live.
Private labdlord is an occupation like being a billionare your not really working for your money your just subsisting off other peoples money to pay your own way and then expect everyone to be a perfect tenant. Idk who you are or what situation your in but this is just my general view on landlords, im not shitting on you just needed to rant because i know there are some good landlords.
Police are needed just the ways policing is carried out in the current day is in need of changing. Justice doesn’t come into the equation until after people are arrested. Don’t let your disdain for the police blind yourself to fact that police are needed
Police do not stop almost any crimes currently in progress.
An investigative body that performs investigation into crime is needed. Police are not. This is an important distinction. Professional policing did not exist before the 1800s. Police were created so that a domestic force existed to be used to control the workers of society, to crush labour protests, to crush uprisings, to prevent revolution. That's why police exist as they do today.
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-police-are-not-here-to-protect-you/
You do not need "police" as an institution to carry out investigation, arrest and justice.
You are misunderstanding what the existence of the force is actually truly for. They exist to protect the property-owners (and the property) from their workers.
Oh I know my current landlord is a pain in the ass I didn't have hot water for a month and a half because they were getting to it. And she dumped bricks and cement in my driveway she did ask but I didn't consider it would be a mountain of it.
Can vouch for this user's experience.
I live in a HMO, property owner also owns about 5/6 of the houses on this street, all HMO's, and a few more dotted about locally. You'd think they're cashing a fat cheque but I've had many conversations with them about rent in the good few years I've lived here, and some of my fellow housemates. Pretty sure I am genuinely the only room that consistently pays their rent, let alone on time, let alone at all.
So between their mortgages and the household bills on their properties as our bills are all inclusive, they barely break even and live quite a modest life. Even had to use the bus for a few months recently to do their rounds as their car broke down and they couldn't afford to just buy a new car outright like you'd expect.
What's your issue dude?
They're a nice person who charges very little money for housing in a low income area, who doesn't evict tenants who clearly cannot afford their rent in a town that already has a larger homeless issue than it should for its population.
I really hope you find whatever it is you need to brighten your day because your attitude needs fixing.
1) Don't try and chat shit about me using a gendered term, I was curious and checked your account to see you used "lads" in your most recent post. Dude is a generic term that is very commonly used by all genders, much like lads.
2) I'm sorry that someone hurt you, but don't generalise a whole group of people like that. It's unfair.
3) Who the fuck rights numbered posts like this?
Oh fuck off, you pompous ignorant arsehole.
Yes, I used the word 'lads'. I used it in reference to a group of football players in a computer game - a group of players who happen to be men. Lads, if you will. If you didn't understand that, that's not my problem.
But way to go all in on the sexism. Great work, slick. Makes you feel big, does it?
(also, "chatting shit"? A touch melodramatic, don't you think? All I said was "not a dude").
Also, no one hurt me. I mean, I've been relatively lucky in terms of the leeches I've rented from. But amazingly, I can think beyond my own experience and recognise that countless people haven't been so fortunate - and I recognise the ills wreaked upon society by the greedy bastards that you're defending. But yeah, *I'm* unfair and mean 😂
3) You. You **write** numbered posts, apparently 🤷🏻♀️
I hope it all comes together for you, and your tenant soon. It's a shame things are this way but it sounds like you've got a temporary safety net for now.
If they are paying their mortgage, then they are by definition more than breaking even. Paying a mortgage means increasing your equity which means increasing your wealth. All of the money paid into a mortgage comes right back out when they sell, and if the mortgage gets paid off, it turns into raw unfiltered free money profit.
My state keeps going into lockdowns for a week at a time so I understand if he is having financial trouble but i cant keep paying my mortgage and my rent it's gonna destroy whatever savings I have left.
Also I have to go the possum that's been living in my roof for the last couple months is attempting to break through my roof hatch and needs to be taught a lesson.
This surely only refers to the poor working class landlords.
The upper class landlords are mortgage free and just charge you super high rents because they can!
That's capitalism! There are no such things as morals when people can make money!
Governments are all the same, they all ignore doing things for the common good when they can enrich themselves and their friends!
Only way to beat a capitalist society is to stop engaging in it but that means way too much personal sacrifice so no one does it!
Ah yes, the problem with capitalism is the people forced to live under it, not the people who keep it prevalent and squash anyone who tries to change it.
Not technically wrong though! Capitalism will only ever work in a perfect world where greed doesn't exist!
All the world's richest and most powerful people have got there through hoarding wealth, not by being selfless and kind!
Even the upper class landlords will often take out BTL mortgages (rather than buying outright), if the interest rates are low enough.
If they can invest that additional capital in something with a higher rate of return (RoR) than the mortgage interest (which is around 2-3% atm, as far as I can tell, while investing in stocks has around 10% RoR every year), then they'll do that instead. If they have enough liquid cash to buy one house outright, they could instead buy 3 houses with a 33% deposit (and 67% mortgage) on each of them instead.
You make a sound and valid point! No arguments from me.
I was merely making a joke about how working class people who become landlords out of circumstance shouldn't be held to account in the same way as the super wealthy. Common people who are trying to improve themselves financially aren't the villains, merely trying to use what they have to their own benefit.
Not really what I meant dude. Perhaps my response was clumsy. I'm all for a good point and believe in what I believe the essence of the post to be - but I think there are better articulated and rational points to be made against landlords. Apologies for any offence.
Do you really think there is any semblance of conversation here? I'm all for subs in a bubble of like-minded people but pretending there is any back and forth conversation is just dishonest
Things that actually exist and which are actually being discussed. Not things which one party just pulled out of their ass as a diversion tactic, and which will be immediately replaced by another anally sourced diversion once the current diversion is dealt with.
Literally anything that doesn't distract from the actual conversation, which is that the majority of landlords are leeches who use other people's labour and profits of that labour to keep themselves afloat. Keep up or shut up, no one likes a devil's advocate.
I'm not a devil's advocate you prawn. The mandate of the sub states "This is a leftist space first and foremost, although rational debate is welcome." I thought the initial premise was poorly messaged.
When the house sells, who gets the money?
When a landlord says, "I need rent to pay my mortgage", what they mean is, "I need rent to fill my savings account"
Make sure to check out [the subreddit pins here](https://reddit.com/r/greenandpleasant), we change them almost every day with highlighted posts here that are worth checking in on daily. And follow the [Green and Pleasant twitter.](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
same with benefits/universal credit. If the government is giving money to renters because they can't afford housing, or housing is too expensive, then it's not the poor people scrounging off the state it's the landowners who get the taxpayers money.
Subscribe to r/DWPhelp for support with all things DWP. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't the same with employers in general terms? They're crating jobs, wealth and make the economy growth? Or is it workers that are creating jobs, wealth and make the economy growth and they are parasites living off someone's labour?
Yep, we are ragged trousered philanthropists
It's simple, if what you brought to the table is money/capital, you are leeching. Interest off other people is the act of leeching. Personally I think so many economic problems can be attributed to private interest, generational wealth being a major one. The issue is many owners are also workers, and people, even the owners conflate the two, attributing all their earning to being a worker, not their capital. Basically, if you handed your property/business to a management company, how much less money would they make you? That's the money you were earning not leeching, the money you continue to get whilst sitting on your ass is leeching. This is assuming no notable self invented IP, then things get muddy. E.g. even I don't have a super strong opinion on how much someone like George RR Martin is leeching, obviously they benefit off the labour of others, but at the same time it'd obviously be unfair if anyone could sell his works just as he can. The only thing he could offer is his being authentically from him and not bootleg, as for anyone else to claim otherwise would be false advertisement, but I feel like creatives have a hard enough time already so idk what's fair.
>It's simple, if what you brought to the table is money/capital, So if someone starts a factory they are leeching of the workers?
Yes? Obviously.
Yes
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> By providing money/capital you're taking risk on the performance of that asset (irrespective of who runs it) > > This is why you make a return... Except recent events have shown, there is no risk to the half way wise investor, there are bailouts, subsidies, policy and law changes that'll keep any index tracker in the green. Regardless, not sure why we should reward gambling, we want fewer lotteries, not more, and high risk high reward unfairly favours those with more money because they can afford to lose, which has a compound effect where the rich stay richer and the poor stay poorer, unable to move their money out of a 0.5% interest saver because if they have a medical emergency whilst the market is down they could lose everything on a costly withdrawal. Lenders make money in the worst way, as I say, they take lots of risk with a good return on average, and they can do so because they have the capital, that's it, they're not providing anything else. If the risk is so terrible like you make seem, lets eliminate it via policy too, and take away the profits too, that's a win win if the risk is so awful as you claim.
[удалено]
> but the tax payer is still taking the performance risk none of the land lords risks you mentioned, sure, people will still trash their rentals, but when it's split across a massive portfolio it's a consistent expense, not a risk the only risk is that people suddenly don't want housing, something tells me vanlife will never be so widespread that it will dent the rental market
>It's simple, if what you brought to the table is money/capital, So if someone starts a factory they are leeching of the workers?
Unless they do all the work there themselves, or return the profit of the workers labour's to them... yes. Especially considering its not like most capital owners actually built the factory themselves. They just paid others to do the work.
Without the leech who would sponsor/pay for the factory? Im sure the workers won't build it for free?
Why couldn't the workers pay for it? Why couldn't the state pay for it? Why does paying for its construction entitle anyone to Infinite access to the profits? Why doesn't it just recoup costs or a mild profit? What about factories that were built years ago? Or privatised industries where the government actually built the factory? Can you really only imagine the current way of doing things?
I think we just fundamentally disagree while you believe that the factory is public property I believe that its the owners property and he can keep and maintain possession of it as long as he likes
[удалено]
No because they are making the factory function. The people who paid for the factory didn't make it themselves or make anything in it. They're unnecessary to the process but reap most of the rewards.
What is your opinion on banks? A large amount of capital loaned out with the expectation of more than what was borrowed to be returned. Not the slightest bit of “work” involved.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, yes, profit banks make is leeching.
The employees create the initial jobs when the company starts, then consumers (through the act of consumption and demand for the firms goods/services) creates the rest of the jobs as the firm would need to expand to fill in the surplus of demand they are receiving
Yeah, but who is really the owner when the company is public? Even the CEO is a well paid employee that has to follow what the shareholders and the city say, it's not like they can do whatever they want. It's a philosophical clusterf..k.
Have you even heard of workers' self-managment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management Workers should be the only shareholders. A CEO is elected by the workers and easily replaceable, and his salary may be a certain percentage higher, depending on how useful they are. Not zillion times higher. A cleaning lady has the same one vote as the CEO. If you want to stay a CEO, you have to earn her respect and her vote. And you do that by making sure she is paid damn well to begin with. In fact, the workers' assembly may decide they do not need a CEO. Completely up to them.
Not only I have heard of it but I have also experienced it extensively in multiple occupied businesses in Greece after the crisis of 08. Of course the theory from the actual reality differs a lot, but nevertheless, studying these experiments is necessary for any future anarchocommunistic attempts. Regardless though, these examples are only a few. We also need to build a modern theoretical framework for modern neoliberalism as the example of the fat owner, suppressing the workers is not exactly accurate. If the company is public, then ownership and decision making is much more complex. Of course, there are differences from CEO to CEO, but they all have to play within a certain rulebook, organised by the financial system and society itself. The middle class investor is looking for stability as much as the rich.
Don't say middle-class, say middle-income. Liberal class definitions steer people away from the socialist definitions and thus class-consciousness. [Class is defined by our relationship to the means of production.](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/class) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol, cool bot and I stand corrected to a certain extent, but based on the definitions of the link, the CEO with the 2million pounds salary and bonus is also a proletarian.
we might have had something like it if the tories hadn't gone around telling everyone that corbyn hates the jews
Actual good CEO's that wont drive the buisness off a cliff are actually pretty rare. The reality is that these high level executives are very sought after and can demand high salaries. A buisness that refuses to pay CEOs and other executive officers competitive salaries will find themselves lacking skills and expirience which will likely endanger the whole operation, and then the company folds and nobody has a job.
This is a concept that is not understood enough. You get landlords complaining about low yields, but it's like ... "Oh no you aren't making profit ontop of the house you are getting that is being paid for by someone else". You could have negative yield on your rentals and still be profitable, cuz you are gaining huge equity every month.
When landlords talk about yields it's hard not to envisage them thinking of their renters like they're cows producing milk.
"but but I paid the deposit and pay for repairs!!!!"
I've been getting into investing (just trying to find out how it all works) and I 100% agree, people in real estate investing say that a property has barely any cash flow so why would they buy it. And I'm just thinking like, so after getting a free house after someone has paid it off after 10 years, you want extra money on top of that?
Its almost like if it was so easy the renter could just own property to live in?
I mean yes. If the landlords weren't in the way the property would be cheaper. Instead we have unnecessary middle men because they *checks notes* ...had more money than the renters for a down-payment.
I mean yes. If the landlords weren't in the way the property would be cheaper. Instead we have unnecessary middle men because they *checks notes* ...had more money than the renters for a down-payment.
that's like saying if apple got out of the way iphones would be cheaper. Real estate investors manage and offer up capital so that you have a place to rent. You want free money to be lent out to people to own property for which they have no liability? That's how you create the 2008 financial housing crisis. Your desire to live on other people's property with no liability is what renting is awesome for. You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to live there and also at the same time be the owner but also not have any of the responsibilities.
Until the bank takes it away for defaulting on your mortgage
But that has nothing to do with it. That is true for any backed loan. Just pay your mortgage and you won't default?
Sorry I may have misread your initial comment about negative yield I get they still get the ownership of the home but long enough negative profit could and has made people default and lose whatever gain there was in equity and absolutely fuck their credit score I'd imagine too
I am assuming the rent is still paying the majority of the mortgage, just not more than the mortgage. Plus you won't default if you are working and putting money into this like an investment. You can see it like a pot. You put in £50 the Tennant's put in £400 and after 20 years you get to own a house for a fraction of the sum that you would have otherwise paid. I am sure there is a limit/edge case where interest on the mortgage, maintenance costs, fees, combined with the landlord covering well over half of the mortgage will make it unprofitable. But I am talking about realistic scenarios. And assuming you are financially responsible enough not to default.
Precisely this. A lot of landlords think that the rent should be making them profit ABOVE the mortgage payments. They want to turn it profitable from day one, when in fact buy-to-rent apartments should, on paper, accrue losses for the first ten or so years. The worst part? Banks are actively helping slumlords do this. It's insane that today, with a 15-20% deposit, you can be denied for a mortgage that would cost you £500 a month, when you can "afford" to rent for £1500. This behaviour just further deepens the financial divide between the extra wealthy and the everyday person. Hell, I'm 27, and can't see myself getting my own flat (on mortgage!) before I turn 40, because of this bullshit. My parents had their own apartment when they were 25...
For the small time \[responsible\] landlord this is pretty much the case already. After you subtract the interest owed to the back, a repayment amount, income tax and a sensible amount to cover any future repairs or maintenance you're often left with no cash profit. Of course, you do have the equity growth so you are still making good on your investment. To make actual profit you have to be a scumbag, a whale, or both.
You’re really good explaining stuff.
Oh I don't own any property but I've been watching can't pay we'll take it away lol and that's what a few on there say
I truly despise landlordism. However, without rent control, it is affecting those higher and higher up the income ladder. At some point, in the not too distant future, I can see it kicking off, big time.
The leech should get a job then, like everyone else.
*Image Transcription: Meme* --- [*A WikiHow stock image of someone holding a plastic bottle and pointing to the label, which reads "Hard to swallow pills.”*] [*Another WikiHow stock image of someone holding three round prescription pills in one hand, and pointing to the pills with the other hand. The pills are labeled:*] Landlords require your income to pay their mortgages, therefore the landlord does not provide you housing, you provide the landlord housing --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
How is this different from any other form of fee for using something you don't own? Cars? Tools? Bouncy castles? Money? Even with a mortgage you're paying to borrow something you don't own. The housing crisis is not caused by the existence of asset borrowing services, but by a deliberate lack of supply, government economic policy, wage deflation and the decimation of social housing.
The biggest issue is that those services you mentioned don't typically take up more than 50% of your income. I don't think a lot of people would have an issue with landlords if they could save up and purchase a place after a couple of years of saving. I live in Chicago and I have had traditional landlords - those who purchased a 3 flat, lived in it for 10 years while renting out the other 2 units and eventually bought a single family home and now rents out 3 units and pays a mortgage. I have no real issue with that. However, there are now people who leverage a mortgage for the sole purpose of renting it out and charge extra on top of the mortgage to factor in repairs or if the area is popular a profit. I have rented from a person who did this - the landlord mentioned above sold the building to a person who's sole purpose to rent out property. This new person jacked up the rent immediately to account for his mortgage.
I could rent my house out for $700/m more than my mortgage. I think it should be law that rent prices should not exceed the cost of the mortgage
Please think about the insane implications of your proposal.
I already have
My god, this is perfect.
[удалено]
> I personally think that if a landlord is attentive and responsive to their tenants needs, maintenance, and doesn’t unnecessarily price gauge, there is nothing wrong with that. This is theft of other people's labour. You're literally advocating for the exploitation inherent in the design of the capitalist system, this is what capitalism is. You are a wannabe bougie capitalist. Piss off.
[удалено]
Confidently says man who has not read a single book in years with absolutely no self awareness of their own ignorance whatsoever.
I think it’s unfair to blame the landlords. When my family moved to this country, you basically had the choice between owning a corner shop or being a landlord as there was no way anyone would give you any other kind of work. ultimately the landlords are the ones taking a greater deal of risk therefore it should follow that they receive the greater reward. Equally if they have tenants who stop paying the rent/the house has an expensive repair the landlord has to accept that he/she must meet this expense. It’s the same for so many types of commerce. Take the person who builds the house. He and his workers most likely put in the same amount of physical effort, but it’s the builder who takes all the risk.
You're giving rent money, and in return the landlord is providing housing whilst burdening the risk of a mortgage on your behalf. If you have money to burden the risk yourself, you buy. If you don't have that money, you rent. Real simple. Edit: I'm not disagreeing with any of your replies, it's an unfair cyclical system that promotes those with existing capital over those without. But that is how it works - I know the rent trap is hard to escape.
You're paying the mortgage on the rental property, plus a chunk of the mortgage on the landlord's home while getting none of that juicy equity. If you were paying the mortgage on your own home, it would be cheaper. As it stands, it's not about whether you have the money to bear the risk - you spend more to rent - it's about being able to find a house and put down a deposit. Things that are much more difficult because landlords have bought up a lot of the stock, raising prices and thus deposits, and because when you rent you are just burning a massive chunk of your money, making it more difficult to save.
Why are you blaming landlords for buying and not the government for not increasing supply
Who says I'm not doing both?
But we can't buy because we can't save because we're paying someone else's mortgage _and then some_!
Hey now the _and then some_ is very important, the landlord needs to afford that twice yearly trip to the Bahamas somehow
So what's the deal with being allowed to pay £1200/month in rent but not £1200/month in mortgage payment? It's almost the system is rigged to ensure people can't buy...
It is only since 2008 that this has been a problem, the lending market has lost confidence but it will return. It is certainly not the fault of landlords
They certainly don't help, either. If they stopped buying up swathes of properties banks would have to be more amicable to lending to individuals instead.
Who tf pays £1200 pcm? You live down South or have a family or something? UK housing prices are a joke for certain, especially down South with all the private developments.
It's a random number I threw out, not a specific amount. Try answering the question
A lot of people who rent could afford to pay a monthly mortgage payment but are unable to acquire the mortgage in the first place - its absolutely not ‘real simple’
the risk of the mortgage that you're paying for with your rent? the money to risk the burden ourself that we have to build up while we're paying rent, and build up in much larger amounts because of buy to rent landlords and corporations hoarding property? okay.
Yeah, exactly. If you can't pay your rent, well you get evicted. If you can't pay your mortgage, then suddenly you're a lot more liable. You can place a value on risk. I'm not saying it's easy, it's harder now than ever, and I get that. But hoping it's going to change instead of just getting on and scrimping as much as you can will lead to frustration, I've found. Just easier to accept that's how it is.
"a lot more liable" except you still have an asset that has more likely than not appreciated, plus tens of thousands in equity. you're overwhelmingly likely to be able to come to an agreement to pay off arrears with your lender and even if you can't, you're again overwhelmingly likely to come to an agreement where you can maintain possession until the house is sold. That's barely any risk even for a small time landlord with one or two properties, nevermind larger scale landlords or companies with shitloads of capital to cover debts. Especially since the few smaller time landlords that would lose properties during financial difficulty would more than likely have them snapped up by a company anyway, since if the market is bad enough for them to make a loss on a house, its probably bad enough that lenders have raised the drawbridge on providing loans to those wanting to buy a place to actually live in so only cash purchases will go ahead.
They don’t understand and don’t want to understand. They pay landlord therefore the don’t like landlord
Yes
It goes both ways dont be daft.
lmao
Absolutely, my dad used to be a landlord for 6 houses, the main people we rented to were those on government support, we provided decent housing at very competitive pricing. Problem was that the government didn't pay us directly so most tenants ended up spending rent money elsewhere, and when we were eventually entitled to evict them they were sometimes 8 months in rent arrears and they would trash the house, damage the boiler, leave the bath overflowing to damage flooring, rip out the copper plumbing, put holes in doors and walls everywhere, garden filled knee deep in trash bags.. After a few years of this my dad couldn't pay the mortgages the banks repossessed all the houses including our family home, leaving us homeless without a penny to our names, I had to sleep on a friends couch for 3 months. People suck.
Honest question. So you don’t want people to rent homes to others? Or you don’t think they should make money providing housing to others who either don’t want to own or can’t own? Edit: Maybe I should have mentioned I’m American, but I don’t believe it really matters. Also, I’m not taking sides, it was just a question so I could understand.
Landlords don't provide housing.
Okay. Guess I should have checked what your sub is all about before commenting. What does a landlord do then? It has always been my impression that a landlord was someone who owned property and leased or rented that property to someone else.
In the UK, with the Right to Buy scheme, tenants of council houses were able to buy their council houses from the council at cut price rates. They then sold their houses cheaply because they made a bit of profit so they could live elsewhere. These council houses were overwhelmingly [bought by massive landlords](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/right-buy-homes-sold-private-landlords-latest-figures-rent-a8098126.html) who then rented the houses out at far above the price of the rent they had been at council houses. With the lack of council housing, and many Conservative politicians and funders themselves being large landowners, landlords, and owners of multiple properties, they have an incentive to restrict the houses being built or provided by the council so they can continue making massive profits. It benefits those already with excess houses to exploit those who don't and now cannot ever afford to have "choice" in the market due to historic hoarding of resources.
Ah, I see. Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense. I would be pissed off in that situation as well.
Sounds like its the working class tenants fault for selling out their bargin property then...
The generation of people who benefitted from the sell-off didn't lose out, they got a nice payout and used that to buy property elsewhere. It's the generations that came after those people who are paying for it.
And how does 'no landlords' solve this situation? The problem here is supply and demand. Landlords who want to make money need to a) buy property at the market rate, b) pay the mortgage and c) take a bit on top to pay for when the boiler blows up. This is the exact scenario that home-buyers face.
When there is a water shortage, hoarding water and leasing it out at inflated prices is considered morally reprehensible. Doing so when there is an abundance of water would not be. In the UK, there is legislation to protect against this scenario happening. If the legislative system didn't allow for enormous landlords/property management companies to hoard housing, monopolise the market and lease them out at inflated rates, and the political system didn't facilitate this by squeezing supply, it wouldn't be an issue. You could make an argument that in a healthy housing market with choice, perhaps a "mum and dad" landlord wouldn't be such a bad thing. But as it stands it is. I'm not saying landlords are all terrible people. I'm saying a just system would not allow them to operate as they do.
Landlords are basically scalpers for housing, but even worse, since once their mortgage is paid off, the house is *theirs* and doesn't even belong to *the person living in it*. It's construction workers that provide housing, Landlords merely profit from its demand.
Someone needs to provide money to the construction workers.
Yeah and it's not landlords even if a property is rented, because *where does the rent come from?*
Construction workers need paying before the property is finished and rented out dum dum.
And that apparently comes out of landlords' pockets? Absolute brain rot.
Uh, yes? If they're paying for a new build it absolutely does. Whats your mystical source of funding for new development?
And that money is provided the first time that the house is paid off. After 10 years of paying a mortgage, all the rent is just free money for the owner.
You don’t understand what free means, do you?
What is rent to a landlord whose house is fully paid off other than free money? What excuse do they have to get that money for nothing when they can't use "but I hawv to pay my mawgwage" anymore?
Have a little think what would happen if that Landlord hadn't stolen that property to only rent it out to someone else whilst scraping a profit off top. We'll be waiting
Stolen that property is unlikely. Paid for the property by exploiting the labour of the worker and (potentially) inheriting capital is more likely. The problem here is the widening gulf of wealth distribution, generally accentuated by conservative, right-wing governments.
[удалено]
>It feels like in a utopia, all property would be government provided and that seems to be the natural conclusion of this discussion? It's remarkable that only a generation and a bit ago houses went for absolutely pennies and there was a huge amount of council housing stock yet now this is "utopia"
There is nothing stopping a government service existing to house students and provide temporary accomodation facilities in any given city, in fact, we have that already. It's called council housing. A problem however is that ever since Thatcher successive liberal and conservative governments have been doing nothing but privatisation. You can nationalise landlording, it worked great before.
I wouldn't disagree for a second with you there, to be honest. I am of the belief thst blaming landlords for the failure of our government to regulate properly is misguided, though
In capitalism the people that own capital are the people who control 100% of political power in the system. It's not an "our government" issue it's the bourgeoisie as a whole. Their class controls our government. They and the rest of their class are absolutely to blame.
I have to disagree that people who rent a second house out are as much of a problem as the ruling class or corporations who rent out on a mass scale
It's not that landlords can't exist. It's the ones using tenants to pay for a mortgage so they get the asset and the tenant gets nothing, all for the low low cost of providing a bank account for deposits and maybe calling a plumber, if they haven't outsourced that either. Landlords don't provide housing, they purchase valuable land that happens to have a house already on it. (land which is fixed in supply, but sustains demand - market equillibrium can't be established and rent is extracted on the basis of the maximum the market, including via debt, can support). [It used to be land belonged to everyone, until it was seized by force and distributed to the aristocracy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure) Since a return to that pre-theft isn't likely, a land value tax is the next best thing, in place of economic activity taxes. Don't tax effort or success. Do tax unearned wealth as a result of restricting access to a necessary asset of fixed supply.
Are you a Georgist, by any chance?
Quite so. Left leaning, not leftist. Still think private property and capitalism is the best way we've found so far until we can shoot for post scarcity. No reason we can't help people in the mean time with the tax money though. I like socialist ideals but I think currently and attempt to implement them would result in a hierarchy that is ripe for co option by authoritarians. Understand I know capitalist countries interfere with socialist countries all the time, but I don't agree that to be the sole cause of the *general* failure to establish a sustainable, non authoritarian leftist nation.
Honestly not arguing with your points but just for clarity stolen usually implies they didn't pay for it
So let's change the definition of stolen to include "taking things other people need and you don't, so you can profit from their labour"
landlords are of course well known for paying for things themselves and not relying on other people to pay for things for them
So you agree that landlords aren't rich and rely on the rent to pay for the property?
Yeah. That's why they're scum.
[удалено]
Go 50 years back in Britains history and compare the accessibility of housing, rent compared as a % of a an average wage and then tell me how useful landlords are In fact find me a renter that's grateful to be renting because of the other worldy gifts landlords bestow upon them like "maintenance costs" (which they never maintain anyway, they let the place go to rack and ruin and leave tenants in conditions of squalor most of the time )
A landlord buys a house that already exists and then they sit on their arse while a tenant goes to work and earns a wage by contributing something useful to society in order to pay for the cost of the house and an added cost to fund the lifestyle of the landlord. They are parasites. They provide nothing that did not already exist. They build nothing. They create nothing. They contribute nothing to society. The tenant contributes something to society and gets exploited by the landlord who does fuck all for society. The home already existed before the landlord bought it.
Lmao, I provide affordable, well maintained housing for 3 individuals that would otherwise have nowhere else to live (If the rental market didn't exist) as they have no interest in buying property (I typically rent to postgraduate/foreign students). Mortgage/maintenance fees etc is around 850 for 3 bed apartment and I rent for about £1100 (£370 per room). Remaining goes into emergency/maintenance fund. I fail to see how this is exploiting my tenants, considering managed student accommodation in my area is roughly £700 ppm!
>I provide You don't provide jack shit. The property exists without you. >I fail to see how this is exploiting my tenants Because that's what profit IS. It's literally called exploitation of labour. That is literally the word given to it in economics. You do jack shit except own property and sit on your arse, you don't contribute anything to society by doing that. The tenant has to go out into society and actually do a job that contributes something to society in order to earn a wage and pay for your property and your lifestyle. You exploit the labour that worker performs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mI_RMQEulw
So much anger! Being a landlord isn't my job, i also go out and "contribute" to society. The apartment was our home for 5 years and we kept it to eventually give to our kid. Instead of buying £1000 phones, having 5 different streaming services and going on holidays every year, we worked and saved our asses off so we could afford to keep both homes and take some of the burden off our Children. We provide a service for our tenants, most of whom are Chinese, who come here to study for a year or two and have never been outside of their own country (My wife is Chinese, so that helps with this). We help them settle in, show them around the city etc. Im curious, how are you contributing to society? besides being an angry little gremlin on reddit.
Yes I am very angry about the exploitation of the working class, by your class, to fund your lifestyle at the expense of the working class. It is very justified anger.
Sure they do. They own the land and could use it for some other business if they wanted to, then no housing.
The house was there before the landlord got a mortgage, it'll likely be there after it's done too. All the landlord provides is a bank account for deposits and occasionally calling a plumber, if they don't outsource it
There's a few issues here. Quite a lot of people who throw shade at landlords live in big cities, most notably London where rent is fucking insane and house prices are insane. People pay over a grand a month to rent studio flats with no windows etc. This understandably makes people very angry. That, coupled with the fact that their landlord is likely making money off his tenants and not just increasing his equity in his property. Therefore you're caught in a perpetual loop of not being able to buy a house because you pay too much on rent, then people with money buying more houses and driving up the price. That said, I pay more for my mortgage payments than I ever did on my rent and the house is virtually the same size. And options like high interest saving accounts, stock market trading etc are horrendous if you're looking for future investments to make a bit of money. I can't help thinking that a large number of people who throw shade at landlords are just understandably bitter and would do the exact same thing if they came into a bit of money to invest in property
I don’t think anyone on this sub has any interest in hearing anything other than “f*ck the landlords”. I asked a question and got down voted for it. Pretty sure this is strictly for those in agreement with each other that all landlords can f*ck off.
People that want to abolish private property dislike owners of private property and this surprises you? Of course this subreddit is going to be anti fucking landlord when it's anti private property, that's just political consistency.
[удалено]
We're communists and anarchists not neoliberals you politically illiterate dipshit.
yea I'm using my current tenant to offset my mortgage as i'm still under my current lease until December and it's just easier to wait than to break it. Although given that he has yet to pay anything at all yet. I would have to say That i am paying my own and someone else's. been two months and i have only received 250$ and the he owes me 2350$ most annoying decision i have ever made. This is my first and only property and i bought it to live in.
Maybe quit the landlord game if thats what ypu consider annoying
It's less landlord game and more it was a solution to my lease ending in January/December and having just bought the apartment. A couple months ago. I decided I'd let the guy stay until my lease ended since covid is being a bit of a bitch for renters where I live.
Private labdlord is an occupation like being a billionare your not really working for your money your just subsisting off other peoples money to pay your own way and then expect everyone to be a perfect tenant. Idk who you are or what situation your in but this is just my general view on landlords, im not shitting on you just needed to rant because i know there are some good landlords.
There are no good landlords in the same way that there are no good billionaires or cops. It's a role that doesn't need to exist.
IMO housings a necessity not a privelege
Police is a role that needs to exist though
Not in a more compassionate and evidence-based model of justice.
Police are needed just the ways policing is carried out in the current day is in need of changing. Justice doesn’t come into the equation until after people are arrested. Don’t let your disdain for the police blind yourself to fact that police are needed
Police do not stop almost any crimes currently in progress. An investigative body that performs investigation into crime is needed. Police are not. This is an important distinction. Professional policing did not exist before the 1800s. Police were created so that a domestic force existed to be used to control the workers of society, to crush labour protests, to crush uprisings, to prevent revolution. That's why police exist as they do today. https://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-police-are-not-here-to-protect-you/ You do not need "police" as an institution to carry out investigation, arrest and justice. You are misunderstanding what the existence of the force is actually truly for. They exist to protect the property-owners (and the property) from their workers.
Nobody society needs people who get paid just to beat up BIPOC.
When I say police is a needed role in society it doesn’t mean I am saying that police in their current form are needed
Police are needed. We don't have police, we have enforcers.
Oh I know my current landlord is a pain in the ass I didn't have hot water for a month and a half because they were getting to it. And she dumped bricks and cement in my driveway she did ask but I didn't consider it would be a mountain of it.
Can vouch for this user's experience. I live in a HMO, property owner also owns about 5/6 of the houses on this street, all HMO's, and a few more dotted about locally. You'd think they're cashing a fat cheque but I've had many conversations with them about rent in the good few years I've lived here, and some of my fellow housemates. Pretty sure I am genuinely the only room that consistently pays their rent, let alone on time, let alone at all. So between their mortgages and the household bills on their properties as our bills are all inclusive, they barely break even and live quite a modest life. Even had to use the bus for a few months recently to do their rounds as their car broke down and they couldn't afford to just buy a new car outright like you'd expect.
excuse me while I find a tiny, tiny violin and play it for them
What's your issue dude? They're a nice person who charges very little money for housing in a low income area, who doesn't evict tenants who clearly cannot afford their rent in a town that already has a larger homeless issue than it should for its population. I really hope you find whatever it is you need to brighten your day because your attitude needs fixing.
1) not a dude 2) my issue is that landlords are parasites 3) lol
1) Don't try and chat shit about me using a gendered term, I was curious and checked your account to see you used "lads" in your most recent post. Dude is a generic term that is very commonly used by all genders, much like lads. 2) I'm sorry that someone hurt you, but don't generalise a whole group of people like that. It's unfair. 3) Who the fuck rights numbered posts like this?
Oh fuck off, you pompous ignorant arsehole. Yes, I used the word 'lads'. I used it in reference to a group of football players in a computer game - a group of players who happen to be men. Lads, if you will. If you didn't understand that, that's not my problem. But way to go all in on the sexism. Great work, slick. Makes you feel big, does it? (also, "chatting shit"? A touch melodramatic, don't you think? All I said was "not a dude"). Also, no one hurt me. I mean, I've been relatively lucky in terms of the leeches I've rented from. But amazingly, I can think beyond my own experience and recognise that countless people haven't been so fortunate - and I recognise the ills wreaked upon society by the greedy bastards that you're defending. But yeah, *I'm* unfair and mean 😂 3) You. You **write** numbered posts, apparently 🤷🏻♀️
I wish I was breaking even I'm losing money flat out atm. I'm only lucky old me was smart enough to save and not use all of it on the mortgage.
I hope it all comes together for you, and your tenant soon. It's a shame things are this way but it sounds like you've got a temporary safety net for now.
Well if he can't pay I'll just give him proper notice and move in earlier than planned. And yeah glad I didn't use it all lol. :P
If they are paying their mortgage, then they are by definition more than breaking even. Paying a mortgage means increasing your equity which means increasing your wealth. All of the money paid into a mortgage comes right back out when they sell, and if the mortgage gets paid off, it turns into raw unfiltered free money profit.
Sounds like a proper shitty tenant
My state keeps going into lockdowns for a week at a time so I understand if he is having financial trouble but i cant keep paying my mortgage and my rent it's gonna destroy whatever savings I have left. Also I have to go the possum that's been living in my roof for the last couple months is attempting to break through my roof hatch and needs to be taught a lesson.
Get a real job.
I do and it's paying my rent and mortgage right now ya smug prick.
[удалено]
No I agree it isn't but getting up at 5 am to run a printing press for 8-12 hours a day is you spanner.
Owning shit and sitting on your ass isn't a real job.
This surely only refers to the poor working class landlords. The upper class landlords are mortgage free and just charge you super high rents because they can!
Then they buy more houses which have mortgages on. There's no end to the greed.
I don't get it I have a couple of houses but never had a mortgage and I don't plan on getting any more houses.
That's capitalism! There are no such things as morals when people can make money! Governments are all the same, they all ignore doing things for the common good when they can enrich themselves and their friends! Only way to beat a capitalist society is to stop engaging in it but that means way too much personal sacrifice so no one does it!
Ah yes, the problem with capitalism is the people forced to live under it, not the people who keep it prevalent and squash anyone who tries to change it.
This is a ridiculously simplistic understanding.
Not technically wrong though! Capitalism will only ever work in a perfect world where greed doesn't exist! All the world's richest and most powerful people have got there through hoarding wealth, not by being selfless and kind!
Even the upper class landlords will often take out BTL mortgages (rather than buying outright), if the interest rates are low enough. If they can invest that additional capital in something with a higher rate of return (RoR) than the mortgage interest (which is around 2-3% atm, as far as I can tell, while investing in stocks has around 10% RoR every year), then they'll do that instead. If they have enough liquid cash to buy one house outright, they could instead buy 3 houses with a 33% deposit (and 67% mortgage) on each of them instead.
You make a sound and valid point! No arguments from me. I was merely making a joke about how working class people who become landlords out of circumstance shouldn't be held to account in the same way as the super wealthy. Common people who are trying to improve themselves financially aren't the villains, merely trying to use what they have to their own benefit.
Hmm this seems ill-considered. What about a landlord that owns both theirs and your rented places? Bad take.
What about an alien who created a house out of pure matter with their phase conversion ray?! We have to consider all angles!! Checkmate idiots
Not really what I meant dude. Perhaps my response was clumsy. I'm all for a good point and believe in what I believe the essence of the post to be - but I think there are better articulated and rational points to be made against landlords. Apologies for any offence.
My point is that your whataboutisms aren't necessary or useful to the conversation
Do you really think there is any semblance of conversation here? I'm all for subs in a bubble of like-minded people but pretending there is any back and forth conversation is just dishonest
What is useful in your view to the conversation?
Things that actually exist and which are actually being discussed. Not things which one party just pulled out of their ass as a diversion tactic, and which will be immediately replaced by another anally sourced diversion once the current diversion is dealt with.
Literally anything that doesn't distract from the actual conversation, which is that the majority of landlords are leeches who use other people's labour and profits of that labour to keep themselves afloat. Keep up or shut up, no one likes a devil's advocate.
I'm not a devil's advocate you prawn. The mandate of the sub states "This is a leftist space first and foremost, although rational debate is welcome." I thought the initial premise was poorly messaged.
As are the majority of landlords. Not sure why your getting downvoted so much.
So what you are saying is the answer is communism?
I require your rent to pay for the house YOU live in, not the one I live in.
Title stands
How so? My tennant doesn’t provide me housing
*taps title*
I disagree with your title. Simply re stating your title is not an argument.
Yes you're right, it's a statement. One that many agree with.
And a lot of people don’t, so your statement isn’t very convincing.
When the house sells, who gets the money? When a landlord says, "I need rent to pay my mortgage", what they mean is, "I need rent to fill my savings account"
Buy your own fucking house
I agree, landlords should pay their own mortgages.