Buy-to-let Landlords - filling a need or evil capitalists?

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I assume that with these longer tenancies, that there if the tenant decides not to pay you any rent, or decides to trash the place, then you wouldn't have to wait three years to evict them?

If you read my post where I suggested it, I specifically said the greater security for good tenants should go alongside easier and quicker ways of getting rid of the bad.

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

I'm not surprised but why is that an argument against me pointing out the foolishness when I come across it? Most BTLers are just quietly getting on with their affairs and I have no clue about their feelings. But the majority that I come across on forums (with exceptions, eg. chuck) are obviously the more vocal ones, and seem to have a chip on their shoulder evident because they try to frame their 'business' with a humanitarian angle. Why bother? They're in it to make money, would sell up if they needed to or if there was better money elsewhere.

I know that you excluded me (thanks), so I am not ranting, merely clarifying. We are definitely in it to make money, there is no doubt about that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are greedy. We don't sweat our properties, for example our rents are a little below market value, and my mother in law (who passed away recently) lived rent free in one of our houses (my wife also paid all her bills), it is our most valuable property, worth about £1m. She lived there for over 25 years, and we had expected her to live for many more years, so it isn't as if we are extracting every possible penny out of our properties. But obviously I don't try and play some sort of humanitarian angle, I'm afraid when it comes to charity, canines do far better than humans from me.

missbiggles1

Cakeguts wrote: »

I think you need to explain why you think that most tenants want the security of social housing but that it is mostly the tenants who end tenancies not the landlords. A landlord is not going to evict a good tenant. There is no point in them doing this. This suggests that the tenancies are already long enough for most tenants.

But the fact is - he can and it's that fact that leads to the insecurity.

chucknorris

westernpromise wrote: »

I think we need a reciprocal insulting term for landlords to use of their greedy, entitled tenants.

How about "rentards"?

Sometimes it is better not to lower yourself to the levels of others, but I know that it is tempting to do so at times, and I am no angel.

mwpt

chucknorris wrote: »

I know that you excluded me (thanks), so I am not ranting, merely clarifying. We are definitely in it to make money, there is no doubt about that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are greedy. We don't sweat our properties, for example our rents are a little below market value, and my mother in law (who passed away recently) lived rent free in one of our houses (my wife also paid all her bills), it is our most valuable property, worth about £1m. She lived there for over 25 years, and we had expected her to live for many more years, so it isn't as if we are extracting every possible penny out of our properties. But obviously I don't try and play some sort of humanitarian angle, I'm afraid when it comes to charity, canines do far better than humans from me.

Thanks, and I understand. If I have ever used the word greedy in referring to a BTL landlord, I am sure it would have had appropriate context. I very much understand that BTL landlords are just regular people looking to earn money and many won't be trying to extract every last penny they can or for that matter giving it much more thought than "BTL is my pension". But behaviours have impacts and clearly we can't have an entire nation of landlords renting properties from each other, nor can we have no landlords.

I myself own shares in tobacco companies, something that perhaps some BTL landlords feel is morally reprehensible. I don't pretend I do this so that I provide a relaxing experience to people who choose to smoke, I do it because the companies pay good dividends. Btw, if you (collective) have a pension fund and you haven't specifically excluded FTSE 100 from it, you'll also own tobacco shares.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

I'm not surprised but why is that an argument against me pointing out the foolishness when I come across it? Most BTLers are just quietly getting on with their affairs and I have no clue about their feelings. But the majority that I come across on forums (with exceptions, eg. chuck) are obviously the more vocal ones, and seem to have a chip on their shoulder evident because they try to frame their 'business' with a humanitarian angle. Why bother? They're in it to make money, would sell up if they needed to or if there was better money elsewhere.

You can say that about the marketing of any business.

What's inherently different about BTL such you need to call the BS but, presumably, you don't worry too much about Lynx being in the business of making money whilst pretending they're all about making stinky men more attractive to women.

I don't think most BTL landlords have a chip on their shoulder but just get fed up as being portrayed as !!!!!! by people with obvious bias. Don't forget there's been an anti-landlord culture for ever so much of this is learned behaviour.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

You can say that about the marketing of any business.

What's inherently different about BTL such you need to call the BS but, presumably, you don't worry too much about Lynx being in the business of making money whilst pretending they're all about making stinky men more attractive to women.

I don't think most BTL landlords have a chip on their shoulder but just get fed up as being portrayed as !!!!!! by people with obvious bias. Don't forget there's been an anti-landlord culture for ever so much of this is learned behaviour.

We've been over this a lot. Can't you just re-read my old posts? Hint:
Food, Shelter, Clothing
Lynx is cheap

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

We've been over this a lot. Can't you just re-read my old posts? Hint:
Food, Shelter, Clothing
Lynx is cheap

I know. Making a profit from housing is morally different. It just is.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

You can say that about the marketing of any business.

What's inherently different about BTL such you need to call the BS but, presumably, you don't worry too much about Lynx being in the business of making money whilst pretending they're all about making stinky men more attractive to women.

I don't think most BTL landlords have a chip on their shoulder but just get fed up as being portrayed as !!!!!! by people with obvious bias. Don't forget there's been an anti-landlord culture for ever so much of this is learned behaviour.

Actually, this is worth addressing again because I feel sure you should be able to see the obvious.

I don't come across many Lynx investors who have prevented me from smelling nice by buying all the lynx cans and renting them back to me a spray at a time. They also don't come onto forums saying how they are doing us all a favour by providing an essential service and without them no-one would be able to smell nice. So I don't have to smack lynx investors down.

I am able to go to the supermarket and buy an incredible selection of cheap food, and this has come down in cost over the years. My clothes are cheap and coming down in cost too as the people who actually make stuff, make it better. I don't have any reason to be annoyed at the cost of clothes or food as the free market is doing its job and making my life better.

I cannot say the same about houses and I do come across property rentiers who come onto forums saying that without them people would be living under bridges. If you point me to the lynx rentiers, I'll have a word for them too if you like.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

I cannot say the same about houses and I do come across property rentiers who come onto forums saying that without them people would be living under bridges. If you point me to the lynx rentiers, I'll have a word for them too if you like.

Please do. I gave myself a spray down with Lynx and I'm still waiting for Lucy Pinder to arrive.

I think it's a Unilever brand.