Updating post from Reddit.
So according to the mob here all Landlords are evil. But this article was very informative on that being just ridiculous against reality. So my question is does everyone know this and is willfully ignorant of the facts out there? Or are they misled and can honest information change perception?
Everyone knows this, doesn’t stop them still hating landlords lol.
There is a key contention pretty much all tenants have, and it’s that they wished they could own a house as easily as prior generations could. Especially people under 30 today who may never own a house even if they are as successful as their parents who were able to buy a house.
What has this got to do with anything? Well this A): causes an inherent dislike for landlords, and B): means tenants expect far more from landlords who they view as profiteering off them by providing no real service.
I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with this common viewpoint I’m outlining, I have mixed feelings as someone who is currently a tenant but is set to be a LL soon. But having been on both sides of the coin I see the perspectives. Tenants obviously want to own a house rather than rent one for the same, if not more money. Landlords are just people taking advantage of a legal and common money making endeavour, ie they are acting rationally and logically too.
Call me old fashioned but I still think it’s unfair to judge others based on my own frustrations. And I find it borderline ridiculous when people are being slated based on complete lies. The tenant forums are full of just nasty vitriol spreading lies. But maybe you’re right and they know it’s lies but don’t care as it plays to the angry mob.
The facts are that Landlords have been the government's scapegoat for failing housing policy for years. Now, you get a Socialist Government that promised to go further and farther—it's not good to be a private landlord if you care about people's opinions of you.
It’s the system that’s hated not landlords in general.
The housing situation for younger people is just dire. In cities, which is where most young people who could consider home ownership are, the “housing ladder” is the UK’s American dream, by which I mean only a fool would still believe it. Flats have stopped appreciating so buying one doesn’t get you anywhere leaving houses which are way out of reach for most, even successful professional couples.
If you view it from an economic point of view, “passive income” is just a bad thing for a society with the exception of investment where that money is being used to grow businesses etc. The idea that a large proportion of the population will just at some point start making passive income off of others while continuing their real career is frankly crazy. No body well intentioned would design society this way.
We live during a time of rapidly growing wealth inequality and home ownership is just one of those watershed points that are bound to cause friction under those circumstances. You can’t honestly expect to take advantage of a system that is ultimately exploitative and not expect a modicum of animosity, even if it would be better to direct that at policy makers.
But hey, give wealth inequality a few more decades of unchecked growth and we’ll all be on the same side again 👍
Edit: by the way the article you shared is a laughable example of straw man fallacy. It’s clearly written to get you aggravated.
The idea of property currently being “passive” income is another myth. I think we’re stuck in the early 2000’s mindset there.
Are you suggesting that it takes significant work or that it doesn’t earn much? I agree it does take a bit of work and stress but really like a few hours a month of actual work on average. As for profit, I often hear that it “barely covers the mortgage” but that’s not reflecting the fact that a lot of that mortgage payment is accruing equity in the property.
Profit does not include paying the principal on the loan. This is different from a residential mortgage where you pay interest PLUS principal. So it’s another myth I’m afraid.
You seem to be referring to the difference between interest only and standard repayment. The vast majority of landlords as the article points out are just normal people letting out their old home. These people will almost all have standard repayment loans.
This is just not correct. You can’t let your property out on a standard residential mortgage. They might give you permission for 6 months but then you have to go through the time and expense of switching to a BTL mortgage. Or the bank will force the issue and tell you that you have breached your mortgage terms and potentially default the mortgage. And yes, arranging this is not free and it does take time - which I would call work. This conversation is actually very enlightening on how much false info is out there.
Im not talking about the difference between residential and buy to let mortgages. Im fully aware of the need for a buy to let mortgage.
That being said from googling it seems most people choose interest only for buy to let loans which is news for me. Why people would choose to not pay off the balance is beyond me. No wonder landlords lost it when interest rates went up, they took the risk to not pay down their debt 🤷
Is it possible that you’re being sold a lie on how rich average landlords are and they don’t have the means to repay the principal in many cases? The narrative is all about the very top level investor landlords. But surely it’s wrong to completely ignore the majority of Landlords who don’t fit that profile?
If I had hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt and no way to pay it off I would sell my second home. Holding that much debt under the circumstances you suggest is just bad financial management.
So you are saying the risk of being a Landlord is too high for your risk tolerance? But you also don’t think that Landlords should make a return on their risk if they choose to take it? I hope that you can see the paradox.
So buy a flat then? You are banging on about housing not being a commodity - here is something you can buy, today, cheaply, that will provide you a roof over your head. And yet, like the grubby capitalists that landlords/the system are supposed to be, you poo poo it because "they aren't appreciating any more"
Couldn't make it up lmao
I own a flat but would only buy one which is share of freehold or at least a leasehold where freehold has been purchased by the other residents. More control over costs.This apparently is only 6 to 8% of flats in UK, 20% in London. So not the majority
Yep this is a huge turn off from flats and is probably the main reason for stagnant/declining value at the moment.
As wealth inequality increases, the rich and corporations (in this case private equity) will keep finding ways to chip away at your lifestyle. Most of the rental income a landlord takes in goes straight to a bank in the form of a mortgage payment and increasingly to a freeholder and management company as what is effectively rent. This is just the new way to make money out of people and it targets those who are more well off because the less well off are already pushed to the limit. Next decade it will be something else then something else until there’s no middle class.
Wealth inequality will kill this country by a thousand cuts.
It's not just that. We bought our flat in our 20s and were able to do so as we married in our early 20s and were in the rare position of being dual income/young enough to live with family. We also decided early on that we only wanted one child. Saved 70k in 3 years and bought a 2 bed flat in a 1930s block where the freehold was owned by residents.
The average person in London is now coupling up long term/buying in their 30s and most couples want 2 children (whether that materialises with a hefty mortgage in the SE/commuting costs is another thing) so flats are unattractive for that reason. Any kind of property is pretty much unaffordable for most singles in the se or London.
Just pointing out that the narrative sold to people on how to achieve homeownership has become a lie that’s all.
Im an economic actor and the only difference between me and a landlord is that they own property that they rent. Im not trying to draw lines in the sand, im just offering my perspective on why landlords receive animosity.
My husband is the only person in our residents management company who is actually an owner occupier, the rest are landlords, mostly former owner occupiers.
I find that infographic hard to believe re less than 5% of landlords paying higher rate tax. Their day jobs alone would make them higher rate taxpayers never mind the rental income..in fact it would be almost impossible even for someone who first bought 20 years ago to not be a higher rate taxpayer but to be able to have enough equity to buy 2 London properties (keeping the first one as a buy to let) given that the thresholds are frozen. For us to even buy one flat 6 years ago, my husband is a higher rate taxpayer.
And yet these numbers are directly from HMRC. I think having a London centric view will always warp the lens through which we see things. I was a bit surprised by the extent to which things have been misrepresented in the media even though it never made sense based on what I knew.