Rent trap confounds dreams of a generation - landlord greed grows

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Not when there is a shortage and demand outstrips supply, due to artificially restricted supply.

supply and demand determine price


supply can be increased if the price is high enough (empty properties brought into the system, newbuilds, subdividing large properties)

and demand can be reduced by having smaller properties, sharing, living with parents, students choosing not to have two homes etc.

common sense really

Fella

ILW wrote: »

Not when there is a shortage and demand outstrips supply, due to artificially restricted supply.

Why not?

Contrary to what some people on here would like to claim being a landlord isn't guaranteed easy money. It's a business like any other. Landlords can & do go bust.

ILW

Fella wrote: »

Why not?

Contrary to what some people on here would like to claim being a landlord isn't guaranteed easy money. It's a business like any other. Landlords can & do go bust.

It is a low risk business which does little to help the further economy in terms of employment etc.

I think it is a pity that capital that could be used to create new and growing ventures is being sucked away from from them.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

It is a low risk business which does little to help the further economy in terms of employment etc.

I think it is a pity that capital that could be used to create new and growing ventures is being sucked away from from them.

One might have thought that the amount of capital required to buy a property for owner occupation or by a landlord for rental occupation by a deserving hard working family, would be broadly similar.

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

One might have thought that the amount of capital required to buy a property for owner occupation or by a landlord for rental occupation by a deserving hard working family, would be broadly similar.

If it were there would be no profit for the landlord.

ruggedtoast

Fella wrote: »

Actually sensible & successful landlords do exactly that. The basis of all good business is to provide something people want at a competetive cost.

The rest of your post doesn't even merit a response, just yet more dull class war garbage.

Rot and poppycock. The only thing you have to do to be a successful landlord on the South East is be fortunate enough to have a spare property.

Many letting agents actually try and shift people out at the end of their ASTs so that they can get another lot of bogus referencing fees.

There are good landlords but they're by no means the rule, and there is no particular reason other than personal integrity for them to be any different to the legion of cynical mini Rachmans the buy to let industry has created.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

If it were there would be no profit for the landlord.

I don't understand you.

Are you saying the purchase price of a property is different when a owner occupier buys than when a intending landlord buys?

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand you.

Are you saying the purchase price of a property is different when a owner occupier buys than when a intending landlord buys?

Sorry, misread your post.

My point was that if that say £150,000 had been directly or indirectly been invested into a growing businesses, it would have been much more beneficial to the economy as a whole due to such things as increased employment.

BTL does not tend to involve any work required over and above what an OO would have done. (Probably less).

Percy1983

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

There is a lot of jealousy here - landlords provide a service end of. Those who rent get a home to live in

Its much like the good 'service' ticket touts do.

The save me 10 minutes buying tickets and change £50+ for it, what a bargain.

The same reasons I never pay anything to touts or landlords, I refuse to fund such wrong behaviour.

The bigger problem is with the touts you can choose not to go to a concert, with a landlord the choice is be homeless or pay which isn't really much of a choice is it.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Sorry, misread your post.

My point was that if that say £150,000 had been directly or indirectly been invested into a growing businesses, it would have been much more beneficial to the economy as a whole due to such things as increased employment.

BTL does not tend to involve any work required over and above what an OO would have done. (Probably less).

I am comparing 150,000 spent by a landlord with 150,000 spend by a owner occupier.
In both cases 150,000 of capital is used that could in principle be used to create the next big thing.

Also of course when one person uses capital to buy a property that money goes to some-one else (the seller) who may be about to invest in some new venture.

I would also contend that how much 'work ' is involved is pretty irrelevant; how much work is involved putting one's money into a savings a/c or even buying shares?


Maybe the dislike of landlords clouds the economics of the situation.



I can't really agree that providing homes for people who need them is somehow bad for the economy.