To not agree with how some people make their money, specifically landlords and letting agents?

Who is saying that people shouldn't be paid? Either you've completely missed the point or you're deliberately trying to obfuscate the conversation because for some reason you love living in our current late stage capitalist hellscape.

I don't think anybody has expressed an opinion that people shouldn't be paid, or that they should work for free, or that there should be no goods and services available on an open market. You seem to be arguing with an imaginary adversary of your own invention.

What several PP have expressed is that essential goods and services (food, housing, water, utilities, education, healthcare etc) should be not-for-profit, or more specifically that there should be a not-for-profit option available, with the private market existing to provide uplifted goods and services for those who want them. Not-for-profit doesn't mean free, and it doesn't mean the people working in those industries shouldn't be paid. In actual fact, the hope would very much be that the actual workers and producers in these industries would receive a fairer compensation package without the need for both workers and consumers/service users to sacrifice wealth and productivity to billionaire corporate entities.

So your friend wouldn't need to rent a house to pay for her mother's care (remember that the vast majority of this money simply goes straight into the pocket of the wealthy private care home owner) because the state would provide a quality care service where the staff are well paid and well trained. If she wanted to rent her home for profit, then she would be competing with excellent and affordable social housing rentals, so she would need to actually add some value that people were willing to pay her in inflated sum for, such as a particular location or luxury standard accommodation.

Ditto the supermarkets. If we had Great British Grocery Stores that sold goods produced fairly in the UK and sold to the consumer at cost price, where everybody was free to shop for basic staple items, there is no reason why supermarkets could not exist alongside this. But again, they would need to actually provide something that people were willing to pay extra for, such as luxury or niche items. No longer would they be able to cream off multi billion pound profits by screwing suppliers and overcharging customers for basics.

Many private landlords don't make much profit if they have a mortgage and do everything responsibly and in line with the law. I actually made a loss when I was a landlord, as I didn't increase rent on tenants whilst in situ, repaired everything promptly, often paying high call out fees to do this. I had some useless tenants who caused thousands of pounds of damage. I sold up as soon as I could (was prevented from selling when I originally wished due to leasehold issues), and you will see other posts on here from responsible landlords saying same, that will be selling as soon as current tenants leave. Which leaves the dodgy landlords

Around 2004 was the first purchase, which is quite high on your graph I think.

And who should provide this housing?
Rachel Reeves?

I’ve rented for fifteen years before buying and I can’t say I didn’t have choice or ‘power’. I signed a legal agreement and the landlord/ agency stuck to it by fixing any issues I had during the tenancy.

I then got a mortgage and paid much more for my shelter and the bank is profiting rather nicely. It’s not that different to renting really when your ltv is very low, especially if you’re on an interest only mortgage…

My question to you is if I worked my socks off snd paid up my mortgage and then got a second house, what do you expect me to do with my first one if I’m not wanting to sell just yet because I want one of my children to have it when they are old enough?

You’ve misunderstood the OP. She had never mentioned housing being free. She is talking about it being not for profit.

Not the OP but I do agree with her and I think this is a really interesting question.

institutional investors usually invest very long term and accept industry standard return on investment. I have worked for some and they are generally pretty good and less likely to cut corners or need to squeeze margins, because they are far less leveraged than BTL unprofessional landlords.

many of them specialise in social housing.

so all in all I think they’re ok. I think they would still be interested in investing if they had to comply with stricter regulation/ market interference.

Let's see,
Basic needs:

Shelter
Food
Water
Education

Just as a start off.

So housing should be free, and so should food and water. So landlords, including ones like our lovely lady who rents her elderly mum's house out so she can afford care for her, shouldn't get paid.
Okay. That will actually mean she sells the house, so it won't be available to rent, but who really minds that...
Supermarkets should stop charging for food too, that really isn't fair. The workers are literally being paid to provide our needs, so they should be doing it out of goodwill only.

It's not fair that teachers profit for teaching either, so we should stop paying teachers. After all they're only profiting off children's need for educations.

And the people in energy companies/water company also shouldn't expect to be paid. They're profiteering over our needs, too.

What line of business are you in Op? I'm sure I can work out a reason why you shouldn't be paid too.

@RealNavyEagle How do you feel about institutional investors such as pension funds?

Indeed.

That’s ok, no loss to the thread

Have you taken a look at a large water companies accounts to see where their profit comes from? I would advise it.

At work about fifteen years ago, was two young men and two young women who bought a small terraced property, the downstairs front room and the upstairs bedroom were identical sized, there was a back bedroom which they rented out to a couple of colleagues, they shared a big kitchen, a downstairs bathroom with indoor toilet, and an outdoor toilet.

About a year later, they bought the same again, rented the three rooms out plus the attic room. They are big landlords/property developers now, and they are all under 40. They really don’t care what people think of them, because they felt unheard when they were younger.

in my experience, the more unheard someone feels, the harder they work to keep a roof over their head that doesn’t leak. By the way “Buy to let” mortgages weren’t readily available before 1997.

Let’s talk about the water companies profit of the most basic basic need for clean water
I don’t expect to get it for free however when I hear about their profits, it’s outrageous

What’s your career of choice op ?

I couldn't possibly engage with such a ridiculous statement.

It depends if the properties are mortgage free. Most will have a combination of property and stocks and shares. Best to spread the risk.

Indeed, I have no skin in this game as I went straight from uni into a mortgaged property but it will be a different kettle of fish for today’s young people, most of whom could never hope to do that due to the current climate.

My father had rental properties years ago but found that he made a lot more money through investments and got rid. I’d imagine that’s increasingly the case now with the new renting homes acts and various hoops to jump through. Houses are often liabilities as well as assets.

You don't like landlords? You should see the profits the big house builders make?

Frankly I'm sick and tired of people pitching in to landlords the whole time and I'm glad I am not one any more.

I agree with you. Living in a flat share or living at home for longer. Forgoing the new car and the multiple trips and weekends away would save a comfortable deposit over 5 ish years.
If you really want something then you find a way to make it happen.
Buying whilst renting a family home with a couple of kids in tow is always going to be incredibly difficult. Best to get the house before the kids….

Most landlords don’t care what other people think of them tbh. We rent out several properties and what someone thinks of us is absolutely none of my business. I can’t say I’ve ever thought about it tbh.

While the finger wagging 'stop spending money on smashed avocados on toast' trope can be easily mocked there is a grain of truth to the sentiment. I am constantly amazed at the spending habits of my nieces/nephews/grads at work etc be it the need for latest tech (£800 phones, sports watches, headphones), high end cars on finance, fashion and frequent eating out. I freely admit to being a potentially boring old fart who makes a pack lunch for work and drinks free instant coffee but I still marvel that I seem to spend a fraction of what they do on a day to day basis even though I am more immune then them to the general cost of living.

Younger generations will never have the opportunities for home ownership as their parents and grandparents so naturally they will dislike the idea of landlords. Doesn’t stop making it a viable income stream for many?
Op you raise a very valid argument however when you demonise the landlords they will sell up and the cost of renting will soar. This is what essentially happened post Easter 2020 when landlords could no longer off set their costs against their rental income. The public welcomed this but unfortunately they are the ones who have suffered via reduced supply leading to a steady increase in rental prices.

That’s ok, you can always come back if you think of some

I think increasingly fewer people see it as a respectable way to make money these days. Comments online frequently signal a strong dislike of private landlords, particularly amongst the younger generations.