118 Landlords Panic and try lobbying MP's yet again

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In direct response to your question to the poster - could quite easily be councils.

are the lives and life chances of people who rent off the council better or worse than people who rent off a private landlord?

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Nationalising the stock of housing currently held by BTL landlords doesn't sound easy or cost effective.

plus there is never enough,

at one point Hackney council owned more than half of all the homes in hackney, yet there were still waiting lines for people to get a council home

so I suppose the answer to the council houses are great cheerleaders, is for all homes to be owned by the council.

chucknorris

allthingsmustpass wrote: »

Certainly buy to let landlords are a scourge, it is right they are targeted.


Chucknorris is certainly bored and unimaginative, I could think of better things to do than make comments like the above, whether I was 'rich' or poor.

The truth is, having money isn't all its cracked up to be. The thrill was the chase, and I dare say chucknorris felt that at one time when the buy to let business model looked to be working for him. But read between the lines, seems to me this chancer has been at the 'now what?' stage for quite some time.

Very few people respect buy to let landlords, for obvious reasons. It is not a 'fun' business to get into and do, you don't have much to learn, or indeed much to do. Having money in itself is often a pain as well, people will treat you differently, often asking for help.. and you're never sure what they want from you.

It is not a life to be envied, but you read between the lines just a little and you can see people like that often crave respect, and they perceive envy as a component of that and so eagerly want to see it, where it is there or not.

Chucknorris is here to serve his own psychological needs, and is bored.

The answer is to plough your own farrow, in a respectable arena. So not landlordism, plainly. Choose growth, learning, hard work. Its fun! Not work! Actually FUN! Fun of the type the buy to let landlord may have never even known at all. Maybe a few times… they will remember it. That thrill.

Strive in a field worthy of respect and you can have a blast. And you won't be spending as much time on forums like chucknorris does.

Pity is more appropriate than envy. As buy to let draws to a close, amusement is also an appropriate response.

Good luck to the good people. Bye bye to the buy to let landlords.

You are an idiot if you think that you can categorise all landlords as being the same.

I don't spend that much time on here actually, and far from being bored there is a lot going on in my life. I'm retiring from work next summer, and I have plenty going on to be me fully occupied and content, I'm looking forward to it.

You make it sound like I don't do anything else except own property. Isn't being a chartered surveyor and a university lecturer (which are my professions) respectable enough for you? What do you do, that makes what I do look so poor by comparison?

Most people don't start a business for fun, they do it for financial gain, particularly when you are talking about doing it in addition to working. Although I must admit that my other business of racecourse bookmaking was actually great fun for most of the 30 years that I did it.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps you should follow people post more closely if you want to criticise them. Chucknorrris has be saying he intends to sell some of his properties for sometime.

You may have noticed, but very recently I have accelerated this, and it is quite likely that I will sell a property next year. Probably just after I retire in the summer, so I'll have plenty free time to sort it out, and possibly get the flat refurbished.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Nationalising the stock of housing currently held by BTL landlords doesn't sound easy or cost effective.

Who said anything about nationalising any homes?

Once again, you resort to making things up to take issue with them.

allthingsmustpass

chucknorris wrote: »

You are an idiot if you think that you can categorise all landlords as being the same.

I don't spend that much time on here actually, and far from being bored there is a lot going on in my life. I'm retiring from work next summer, and I have plenty going on to be me fully occupied and content, I'm looking forward to it.

You make it sound like I don't do anything else except own property. Isn't being a chartered surveyor and a university lecturer (which are my professions) respectable enough for you?

Most people don't start a business for fun, they do it for financial gain, particularly when you are talking about doing it in addition to working. Although I must admit that my other business of racecourse bookmaking was actually great fun for most of the 30 years that I did it.

More insult slinging, how inane.

I could have been clearer, I was referring to entrepreneurial activity, having plainly overestimated you. So you have some salaried employment, big woop. Respectable, not really, tedious & unadventurous certainly.

And a bookie. Brilliant. Goes rather well with buy to let, a del boy through and through.

Now I can see why you're so desperate for respect, and why you come onto forums like this. How many people hate you, do you think? Has to be in the tens or hundreds?

If ever there was a post that shot the poster in the foot, dear oh dear.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In direct response to your question to the poster - could quite easily be councils.

how 'easy' would it be for councils to produce accommodation for million people?

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who said anything about nationalising any homes?

Once again, you resort to making things up to take issue with them.

I definitely think that there should be more social housing, but I also think that the existing stock should be controlled better too. It would be much easier to regulate who stays there, than build new properties (which should be done too). But a good place to start, would be to take back social housing from those that don't need it. Maybe this is going to happen, to be honest I have forgotten what new rules are going to be implemented and what they have just simply talked about possibly doing.

chucknorris

allthingsmustpass wrote: »

More insult slinging, how inane.

I could have been clearer, I was referring to entrepreneurial activity, having plainly overestimated you. So you have some salaried employment, big woop. Respectable, not really, tedious & unadventurous certainly.

And a bookie. Brilliant. Goes rather well with buy to let, a del boy through and through.

Now I can see why you're so desperate for respect, and why you come onto forums like this. How many people hate you, do you think? Has to be in the tens or hundreds?

If ever there was a post that shot the poster in the foot, dear oh dear.

Desperate for respect? I really couldn't give a hoot about what you think, I was merely pointing out your errors. So what do you do for a living?

The purpose of entrepreneurial activity is to make profit, I've made plenty of that, have you?

IronWolf

chucknorris wrote: »

Thanks, I know what you are saying (or I think I do), and for that reason I would not buy into a bond fund (which might/would fall if/when interest rates go up). I would be buying a corporate bond (or 2 or 3) and holding it/them for its/their entire life(s), then get full redemption without any capital loss (or gain). To be honest it probably wouldn't be a significant (comparatively speaking) amount, merely a small move towards some diversification.

Please feel free to correct my logic if this sounds wrong (I am no expert on bonds and shares), but I was thinking if the equity markets corrected and fell, that might push bonds up. That might give me an opportunity to sell a corporate bond and move the proceeds into the stock market while it is lower. Not that I would want equity markets to fall, but they do anyway, whether I want it or not.

Yes I see what you're saying, holding just 2-3 bonds would of course be 'riskier' than a fund, and there's the opportunity cost of tying up your money for so long, but you wouldn't suffer a capital loss. I think the stock market is far more attractive atm despite being near its all time highs, I might even be more tempted by NS&I than corporate bonds (I assume you have too much for a bank account) as the yields on investment grade bonds isn't that much better and you can access your money any time.