Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • rentmekid
    • By rentmekid 13th Jun 17, 2:36 PM
    • 51Posts
    • 25Thanks
    rentmekid
    landlord bashing
    • #1
    • 13th Jun 17, 2:36 PM
    landlord bashing 13th Jun 17 at 2:36 PM
    After reading a number of posts/replies on this forum, I have noticed that many people hate the idea of someone owning more than 1 property and renting out.


    Frequent comments are: "people cant afford to buy one property, why should you have 2", or similar.


    At the end of the day, a private landlord is providing a similar service to the housing association, so why the hatred, or is it jealousy?


    Also, its not the Landlords fault that someone cant afford a house.


    Are my view justified?
Page 9
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 15th Jun 17, 8:21 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Wait, so you're defining failure as not earning big bucks? How else is a teacher - or anyone similarly providing an essential societal contribution that is not well paid - a failure?no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if your primary motivation to work is money, don't complain if you pick a vocation

    Do you not think that society sets itself up for problems if people like, say, teachers or elder care workers can't afford a basic standard of living? 1: that depends on their individual circumstances. Which is exactly my point. If you have lots of debt - you are responsible for that. Teachers are paid a reasonable wage. Certainly enough to support oneself at a good level. 2: if you are in a position where you don't earn enough to support yourself - how is that my fault? Why should the law step in to protect your interest over mine- which is how this debate started Talented people will choose other career paths. Which is great for the company who hires them but not so great for students or frail older adults. In the past, people have been willing to sacrifice much more lucrative opportunities to go into the "helping professions" because the non-monetary rewards compensated for making less money. But there's a difference between being paid less while still having a decent living standard, and living payday to payday or worse.that is down to individual circumstances. There are literally millions of people earning less than teachers/nurses/careers/etc

    It's absurd that we as a society value -- as reflected by salary -- the folks in the City who make their money through magic tricks more than we value, say, teachers' aids. i don't. I think teaching assistants so an amazing job. I just don't agree they should get the same wage. But, given that's not likely to change anytime soon, we're getting a bargain if we can use policy to make reduce housing costs such that some talented people decide the intrinsic reward of teaching young minds or whatever is enough to compensate for being paid less than in a corporate job.
    Originally posted by itchyfeet123
    No I don't want the state interfering in the sale of property. That would be market manipulation
    • LadyL2013
    • By LadyL2013 15th Jun 17, 8:42 AM
    • 147 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    LadyL2013
    People seem to be thinking: making things fairer = punishing richer people and helping poorer people, or punishing hard work and rewarding not working hard.

    It is perfectly possible to encourage success and profit and a strong economy AND make things fairer. The two are not mutually exclusive.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 15th Jun 17, 8:51 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    People seem to be thinking: making things fairer = punishing richer people and helping poorer people, or punishing hard work and rewarding not working hard.

    It is perfectly possible to encourage success and profit and a strong economy AND make things fairer. The two are not mutually exclusive.
    Originally posted by LadyL2013
    That depends on your definition of 'fair'.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Jun 17, 9:12 AM
    • 14,785 Posts
    • 13,142 Thanks
    AdrianC
    That depends on your definition of 'fair'.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    <nods>
    Like I said, equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome - and rewards are measured very differently for different people.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 15th Jun 17, 9:44 AM
    • 4,525 Posts
    • 2,053 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    No I don't want the state interfering in the sale of property. That would be market manipulation
    Originally posted by Guest101


    As if they are not eyeball deep in manipulating (propping up) the market already. If they want SALES (loans) to pick up though they will need to manipulate a crash.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 15th Jun 17, 9:50 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    As if they are not eyeball deep in manipulating (propping up) the market already. If they want SALES (loans) to pick up though they will need to manipulate a crash.
    Originally posted by Crashy Time
    There's a massive difference between influencing the economy e.g. interest rates, tax, etc.


    And telling people who they can (and by proxy cannot) sell to. - that was the original suggestion, that is what I am arguing against.
    • johnbusby
    • By johnbusby 15th Jun 17, 9:53 AM
    • 147 Posts
    • 330 Thanks
    johnbusby
    There's a massive difference between influencing the economy e.g. interest rates, tax, etc.


    And telling people who they can (and by proxy cannot) sell to. - that was the original suggestion, that is what I am arguing against.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    The government has already gone far beyond interest rates and tax. Look at the shambles of a policy that is Help to Buy for a good example.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 15th Jun 17, 10:03 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    The government has already gone far beyond interest rates and tax. Look at the shambles of a policy that is Help to Buy for a good example.
    Originally posted by johnbusby


    I don't agree with Help to Buy, so ...


    I think there's too much obsession with home ownership in the UK personally, but each to their own.
    • LadyL2013
    • By LadyL2013 15th Jun 17, 10:05 AM
    • 147 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    LadyL2013
    It's not really about affluence, it's more about attitude.


    To use a really simple example. If I have 10 loaves of bread that I have worked for them, then great. I should enjoy that bread. But if you are doing your best and can only afford one loaf of bread and I then decide I'm also going to buy that loaf of bread and then sell it back to you for nearly double the price, that would be a bit of a cruel move, wouldn't it? Especially when I could do other things with those loaves that would also be profitable to me. I could exchange them for some cans of soup, or perhaps sell a loaf and put that money into something else. And those would all be perfectly fine things to do, I get to make a profit and reap the rewards of my success, without depriving others of something they really need, when I don't really need it myself.


    If you look at that scenario and think 'eff, the guy who can only afford one loaf, I'm having it anyway', then the problem is with your attitude, not how successful or affluent you are. There are plenty of people who have great success who also see something wrong withy that scenario. Indeed, I have been very fortunate financially and I have been very hard up financially and at no point has my attitude to the housing crisis and the lower end properties being used almost parasitically by some changed.


    It's just a bit of basic human decency to think about others, y'know?
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Jun 17, 10:07 AM
    • 14,785 Posts
    • 13,142 Thanks
    AdrianC
    I think there's too much obsession with home ownership in the UK personally, but each to their own.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    I'm just going to put this here without comment.

    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Jun 17, 10:10 AM
    • 14,785 Posts
    • 13,142 Thanks
    AdrianC
    To use a really simple example. If I have 10 loaves of bread that I have worked for them, then great. I should enjoy that bread. But if you are doing your best and can only afford one loaf of bread and I then decide I'm also going to buy that loaf of bread and then sell it back to you for nearly double the price, that would be a bit of a cruel move, wouldn't it? Especially when I could do other things with those loaves that would also be profitable to me. I could exchange them for some cans of soup, or perhaps sell a loaf and put that money into something else. And those would all be perfectly fine things to do, I get to make a profit and reap the rewards of my success, without depriving others of something they really need, when I don't really need it myself.
    Originally posted by LadyL2013
    Your analogy falls down on one fairly major detail.

    Loaves of bread are for consumption. They don't store for the future.
    The person who doesn't buy a loaf still gets to eat a loaf.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 15th Jun 17, 10:22 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    It's not really about affluence, it's more about attitude. - Can you expand?


    To use a really simple example. If I have 10 loaves of bread that I have worked for them, then great. I should enjoy that bread. But if you are doing your best and can only afford one loaf of bread and I then decide I'm also going to buy that loaf of bread and then sell it back to you for nearly double the price, that would be a bit of a cruel move, wouldn't it? - So there's only one loaf of bread? No other substitute would do? You can only afford one, and it must be that one?


    Especially when I could do other things with those loaves that would also be profitable to me. I could exchange them for some cans of soup, or perhaps sell a loaf and put that money into something else. And those would all be perfectly fine things to do, I get to make a profit and reap the rewards of my success, without depriving others of something they really need, when I don't really need it myself. - Is this about letting property? I'm so confused now


    If you look at that scenario and think 'eff, the guy who can only afford one loaf, I'm having it anyway', - I dont think that. then the problem is with your attitude, not how successful or affluent you are. There are plenty of people who have great success who also see something wrong withy that scenario. - What I would see as wrong, using your scenario is that a 'police officer' (read authority) would force you to sell your bread for a set price. Indeed, I have been very fortunate financially and I have been very hard up financially and at no point has my attitude to the housing crisis and the lower end properties being used almost parasitically by some changed. - I appreciate this example works for you, but honestly I'm lost. Is this about property sale or renting?


    It's just a bit of basic human decency to think about others, y'know?
    Originally posted by LadyL2013


    I'm glad you put that last line. Absolutely it is about human decency. Which is a moral stand point. Me and you are unlikely to share the same morals - probably not drastically different, but not identical.


    What I'm opposed to is the state saying: The moral position of one party is backed up by the law.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Jun 17, 10:28 AM
    • 14,785 Posts
    • 13,142 Thanks
    AdrianC
    What I'm opposed to is the state saying: The moral position of one party is backed up by the law.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Hmm. That's exactly what the job of government is, of course. To make new laws, based on the consensus of the MP's moral positions...
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 15th Jun 17, 10:41 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Hmm. That's exactly what the job of government is, of course. To make new laws, based on the consensus of the MP's moral positions...
    Originally posted by AdrianC


    Sure, ofcourse. Or the moral position of a judge.




    I think I wasn't clear in what I wrote, so apologies. I'm providing my ideal - the reality unfortunately is that morals and feelings are now more important than fact.


    To me it's fundamentally wrong for the state to force a positive. IE To compel someone to do something, rather than no do something. (I appreciate it's all linked)


    To use the earlier example - it's fundamentally wrong for the state to force an individual to accept an offer on their house, purely on the basis of who made that offer.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Jun 17, 10:46 AM
    • 14,785 Posts
    • 13,142 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Or the moral position of a judge.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Judges don't make laws. They interpret them.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 15th Jun 17, 11:10 AM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Judges don't make laws. They interpret them.
    Originally posted by AdrianC


    Indeed, but the interpretation is often not uniform. The judges personal experience and morals may dictate how they interpret it.
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 15th Jun 17, 11:25 AM
    • 1,506 Posts
    • 1,472 Thanks
    steampowered
    Judges don't make laws. They interpret them.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    "Common law" means "law made by judges" - essentially the outcome of judge decisions made through the years.

    Judges do have to interpret Acts of parliament. But there are plenty of areas of law which are solely common law, with no Acts of parliament.

    For example contract law is almost entirely judge made.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 15th Jun 17, 11:47 AM
    • 2,667 Posts
    • 3,637 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    What I want to know is how many people who can't afford to buy a property can afford car finance? I am only asking this because when I was younger I used to drive to work in a silver coloured car that had a green bonnet. The orignal bonnet had rusted so we got another one from a scrap yard but couldn't find one the same colour as the car. I don't see nearly as many cars now with odd coloured doors etc. The point with my car was that we considered buying a home much more important than having a new car or even a second hand newer one. If the old one still went you got a spare part from a scrap yard.
    • LadyL2013
    • By LadyL2013 15th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    LadyL2013
    I'm glad you put that last line. Absolutely it is about human decency. Which is a moral stand point. Me and you are unlikely to share the same morals - probably not drastically different, but not identical.


    What I'm opposed to is the state saying: The moral position of one party is backed up by the law.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Well yes, there is only one type of bread and your options are to have no bread at all, to borrow the bread off of me or buy your own bread, but if I buy your bread, you're left with only 2 choices. There are other breads, but you're likely to run into the same problem.

    The law wouldn't be prohibiting landlords from buying property, far from it, it would just be saying that in X situation with X type of property, FTB get first priority. It's no different to waiting lists for other things, it just means those who need it most, get first try (as long as that offer is reasonable). They don't get it for free, they still have to be financially suitable.
    • LadyL2013
    • By LadyL2013 15th Jun 17, 5:50 PM
    • 147 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    LadyL2013
    What I want to know is how many people who can't afford to buy a property can afford car finance? I am only asking this because when I was younger I used to drive to work in a silver coloured car that had a green bonnet. The orignal bonnet had rusted so we got another one from a scrap yard but couldn't find one the same colour as the car. I don't see nearly as many cars now with odd coloured doors etc. The point with my car was that we considered buying a home much more important than having a new car or even a second hand newer one. If the old one still went you got a spare part from a scrap yard.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    I see what you're getting at and it's true that some live beyond their means and that's why they can't afford things, but there's also many people living within their means and they still can't afford a property. For example, the average price for a starter home where I live is 150k, let's assume, you've saved your average 10k deposit, hen you'd need to be earning at least 28k a year to get a mortgage for said property and that's being optimistic. The average wage for the UK last time I checked was about 25k. So even if you're earning about average and have saved a deposit, you're still out of luck in many areas.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,220Posts Today

6,878Users online

Martin's Twitter