BTL, vile lowlife business, nobody wants to be living under their roofs

twadge_face

Cleaver wrote: »

Then why don't you make that clear instead of broad, sweeping comments about the entire private lettings industry being completely immoral? It clearly isn't all immoral, as there are plenty of people who want to privately rent and do so from decent landlords. Everyone's happy.

Of course it is way more complex than I write. I know that and I presume anyone who is interested enough to read my posts knows that too. I suppose all I do is to take a stance and run with it.

It's perhaps a result of learning to appreciate the subtleties of the Daily Mail's editorial viewpoint.

Ultimately... emotional manipulation.

Does that make me a bad person and/or a hypocrite? Probably! But do I care? Nah... it's an internet forum after all. I pride myself on flicking onto a transparent kind of mode as/when appropriate.

I genuinely don't like upsetting people though and I think I did that with you, hence the apology.

I don't think anyone would disagree that landlords who revel in massively rising house prices and treat their tenants poorly are quite immoral.

Yes, and this is the point in general.

By the way, I don't mind who you 'lump' me in with. It's only an internet forum.

Phew!

Yeah, fun I guess. It used to be a bit more fun that it is at the moment as the debate used to be a bit more measured on both sides. So maybe I'm here out of habit more than anything else?

Hmm... whereas I see this forum as a facet of the function of entropy, which I help facilitate, making me thus a bit of a git.

I think I might step down from posting on this forum. People were taking me seriously! Take cover!

BYEEEEEEEEE!

*goes offline as !!!!!!_face; never to return again!*

twadge_face

diable wrote: »

I think your keyboard has gone all funny...........

sticky keys mate...

diable

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

sticky keys mate...

salivating?

Cleaver

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

I genuinely don't like upsetting people though and I think I did that with you, hence the apology.

I can honestly say that you didn't upset me, this is just an internet forum. You might be confusing robust debate with someone who is upset. I think there has been one instance on this forum in nearly three years that slightly 'upset' me (if that's even the right word) as I think most of us take things with a pinch of salt on here.

There are probably a dozen or so posters on here that could make me a bit upset if they started saying things as they are people I quite like, in a weird internetty type way. The rest are just usernames that are good for a bit of banter.

Percy1983

My whole argument that rental income should be less than mortgage payments comes down to one simple fact... at the end of the it you get a free house.

So even if you where 10% short you would pay 10% of the mortgage but still end up owning 100% of the house.

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

My whole argument that rental income should be less than mortgage payments comes down to one simple fact... at the end of the it you get a free house.

But what is the point of you making statements like this?

I'd like to see all Santander Execs roasted on a fire, Tesco seeing minus profits and local butchers being used again and Wetherpoons going bust. But my personal opinion of businesses is really not relevant. They follow the rules and the public decide whether to use them or not. I may not like the three businesses above, but they seem to follow the law and other people seem to like using them. So fair play.

You don't like landlords, so don't use them. You can't just say that rental income should be less than the mortgage payment as there's no way of enforcing this and nor should there be.

Lynsey

Rental values are based on area and supply and demand. There will be properties out there where rents don't cover the mortgage payments (not interest only), especially those bought at the peak.

Lynsey

Percy1983

Cleaver wrote: »

But what is the point of you making statements like this?

I'd like to see all Santander Execs roasted on a fire, Tesco seeing minus profits and local butchers being used again and Wetherpoons going bust. But my personal opinion of businesses is really not relevant. They follow the rules and the public decide whether to use them or not. I may not like the three businesses above, but they seem to follow the law and other people seem to like using them. So fair play.

You don't like landlords, so don't use them. You can't just say that rental income should be less than the mortgage payment as there's no way of enforcing this and nor should there be.

The big difference is all the businesses you mention actually do something for the profit, a Landlord may have to make a few phone calls a year.

Also in tesco buying milk they aren't denying me buying milk and pushing the price up of milk everywhere else at the same time for there forcing me to shop with them.

Meanwhile BTL landlords are helping prices up prices more people out so there is more people to rent form them...

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

The big difference is all the businesses you mention actually do something for the profit, a Landlord may have to make a few phone calls a year.

What does any rental company do?
Take car rental for example. They check your credentials, get you to sign a contract for an agreed period of time, maintain the vehicle pay tax on their profits, are available for the contractee should anything go wrong with the vehicle, clean between contracts, ensure there is no damage, ensure the vehicle is in a fit state for use.

What's so different from property rental?

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

The big difference is all the businesses you mention actually do something for the profit, a Landlord may have to make a few phone calls a year.

If all a landlord does is make a few phone calls a year then they are outsourcing the maintenance on the property. Which is fine, but it probably masks how much work is actually done each year.

Also, why does it matter how much work someone puts in to make a living? If I scatter a bit of paint on a canvas and someone wants it for £500,000 does that make me lazy, or somehow immoral? I buy and sell shares and sometimes I get a good one and make a load of money for just a few clicks of a mouse. Am I immoral or evil?

If you do something to make money, or a profit, then you've done something. For some people this might be months of hard graft, for others it might be seizing a simple opportunity that no one else spotted that doesn't cost a lot or take a lot of time but makes a shed load of cash. That's just life I'm afraid.

There seems to be a bit of an old-fashioned view on this forum that you need to make something pyschical to somehow deserve money. There are many industries nowadays where this isn't the case.

Am I saying therefore that all BTL is great and good luck to them all? No, not at all. As I've said above, there's been a lot poor legislation and culture in this country that isn't healthy when it comes to BTL. But blaming individuals for seeing an opportunity and making money? Can't really see much wrong in that.

Percy1983 wrote: »

Also in tesco buying milk they aren't denying me buying milk and pushing the price up of milk everywhere else at the same time for there forcing me to shop with them.

No, but Tesco are evil the other way. They force milk suppliers to the point of bancruptcy to ensure that you get cheap milk. I would suggest that Tesco have far worse morals that any BTL landlord in this country, but we've had this debate before and the whole board (apart from Really2 I think) thought I was mad, so let's not get in to this again.