Why do people resent buy-to-letters so much?

cells

66z wrote: »

The big part of the issue here is that landlords are rising prices not because they have to but because they CAN.

Generally not true imo. Most landlords do not increase rents on sitting tenants.

Also landlords do not set prices, tenants do. They bid against each other and drive the price up. Like you say there are landlords out there would could and would accept half the market rent but tenants outbid each other.

westernpromise

cells wrote: »

If you force a landlord to rent out for below what the market rent is, then they will just sell instead and renters would be no better off.

If anyone attempted to force me to let at below market value, I would simply mothball the property and leave it empty. Alternatively, I'd refit it to suit the holiday-let customer and market it to American tourists.

Samsonite1

66z wrote: »

I wouldn't think most of those people are dumber or less hard working than the landlords, and yet they are in much worse position. Is it then surprising that landlords are hated?

It is not surprising, but that does not mean it is right. As you say, it is the system is failing essentially. As is often the case, you only have to look to Scandinavia - I think in Stockholm, which is a pretty affluent city - there is a maximum rent set by the government to allow people of all situations to have a more equal chance of living in the city. This no doubt keeps property prices in check a little bit too. Oh and men now get 90 days paid paternity leave...

westernpromise

Samsonite1 wrote: »

It is not surprising, but that does not mean it is right. As you say, it is the system is failing essentially. As is often the case, you only have to look to Scandinavia - I think in Stockholm, which is a pretty affluent city - there is a maximum rent set by the government to allow people of all situations to have a more equal chance of living in the city. This no doubt keeps property prices in check a little bit too. Oh and men now get 90 days paid paternity leave...

I'm not what that tells one, really. The Swedish economy is less than a sixth of the size of the UK's and only about the size of just London.

Samsonite1

That says quite a lot of the welfare state can do so well with a smaller economy. But anyway, those figures are fairly irrelevant in terms of a successful model. Sweden's economy and population are more than big enough to prove that their model works.

cells

Samsonite1 wrote: »

It is not surprising, but that does not mean it is right. As you say, it is the system is failing essentially. As is often the case, you only have to look to Scandinavia - I think in Stockholm, which is a pretty affluent city - there is a maximum rent set by the government to allow people of all situations to have a more equal chance of living in the city. This no doubt keeps property prices in check a little bit too. Oh and men now get 90 days paid paternity leave...

How much is rent in Stockholm and can anyone easily find and get a rental within a few days like in London?
Is that city population growing by more than 1% a year?

Don't answer is you don't known for sure

TickersPlaysPop

westernpromise wrote: »

If anyone attempted to force me to let at below market value, I would simply mothball the property and leave it empty. Alternatively, I'd refit it to suit the holiday-let customer and market it to American tourists.

Landlords in it to make an income is part of the problem. The system should have a long time ago only allowed long term investment in housing, I. E. Not income based. Property as many say is a safe investment, so let people and companies invest for the long term and not profit unfairly. If that was in place a long time ago house prices now would be more in line with wages.

To allow the biggest value commodity in peoples lives inflate well over wages for so long has been the evil side of capitalism and has unfortunately gone so far that unwinding it will take a lot of system changes all of that available investment money should have been encouraged by government into increasing the quality and robustness of the economy Not allowed to increase the indebtedness of the population, which is the drive of the current financial system.... more more debt....

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Landlords in it to make an income is part of the problem. The system should have a long time ago only allowed long term investment in housing, I. E. Not income based. Property as many say is a safe investment, so let people and companies invest for the long term and not profit unfairly. If that was in place a long time ago house prices now would be more in line with wages.

To allow the biggest value commodity in peoples lives inflate well over wages for so long has been the evil side of capitalism and has unfortunately gone so far that unwinding it will take a lot of system changes all of that available investment money should have been encouraged by government into increasing the quality and robustness of the economy Not allowed to increase the indebtedness of the population, which is the drive of the current financial system.... more more debt....

what would the return on capital be?

mwpt

Samsonite1 wrote: »

I do agree that hating BTL landlords is just stupid. Investing money in the most stable commodity is not evil. You want to bet on your pension? You can do that. Why hate people who want to invest their money in housing? Getting shafted from the government is one thing, but people hating for no good reason is pretty silly. Renting out a house is still providing accommodation - how is that worse than leaving it for sale - same amount of housing available whatever the outcome. The difference being that it is rented instead of bought. Many people cannot get a mortgage, but can rent so this is a good thing for many.

All that understand in all of this is that the government is taking more money of those more fortunate - a very left-wing idea. No problem if that was the end of it, but the uneducated hatred of people trying to invest for the future annoys me just a little.

This thread has consisted of an http link explaining some reasons why people dislike BTL. Then BTL landlords saying these people are stupid. Then some of us explaining the reasons again. Then more of BTL landlords saying this is stupid. Then more explaining why. Then more saying it's stupid.

So I could suggest you read the thread but I guess you already have. I do not hate any BTL landlord, because hate is a stupid thing anyway and I'm sure most of them are just regular folk getting on in life not really thinking too hard that their actions may or may not make a difference to anyone else. And that is just normal. I dislike unscrupulous landlords the same way I'd dislike any other unscrupulous person.

So just a short repeat:
77% of renters say they would prefer to own their own property. People cannot afford property that previous generations could. People see landlords who have no higher skills or training than themselves, consuming the property they desire. People hate landlords.

It is silly, yes, they should instead direct their ire at a system which doesn't build enough and a lending environment that allows landlords to outbid owner occupiers.

cells

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Landlords in it to make an income is part of the problem. The system should have a long time ago only allowed long term investment in housing, I. E. Not income based. Property as many say is a safe investment, so let people and companies invest for the long term and not profit unfairly. If that was in place a long time ago house prices now would be more in line with wages.

No that is not true at all.

House prices were unsustainable low 20 years ago especially in London. This is the problem with the crash wishers they think the normal was the unsustainable low prices of 20 years ago

Exactly 20 years ago in Jan 1996 the average terrace house in Waltham Forest (London) was £67,263 which means half of the terrace homes sold were sold for less than that!

CPI has grown 50% over the last 20 years so if house prices had gone up with just CPI the average terrace house would cost £100,000 The Crash wishers would say yes please ..... but you cant build a house for that now! It is an impossible price!

So once again prices 20 years ago, especially in London were unsustainable low only the black plague can get us back there!

To allow the biggest value commodity in peoples lives inflate well over wages for so long has been the evil side of capitalism and has unfortunately gone so far that unwinding it will take a lot of system changes

Prices in half the country are lower in NOMINAL terms (or the same) as they were a decade ago. No one allowed or forced prices to do anything. London went crazy as 4 million people wanted to live there but there was only the capacity for 2 million to actually live there but London is not the whole country. About half the country is at real prices vs wages to what they were 12-15 years ago

all of that available investment money should have been encouraged by government into increasing the quality and robustness of the economy

a totally meaningless statement

Not allowed to increase the indebtedness of the population, which is the drive of the current financial system.... more more debt....

why dont you link to a you tube video with a debt monster cashing the earth?