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

This makes no sense.

I bought land. If I don’t sell it before I die I leave it to my children.

there are families who have held the same land for centuries.

I’m standing on it. How is it not a physical reality?

I know there are some conspiracy theories spread by the “council tax isn’t legally due” types- is this why you’re referring to?

My point is that it's just a concept. Owning land is not a physical reality, not like owning objects. If I buy a loaf of bread I have it in my hand, I can eat it, burn it, give it to someone else, put it in the bin, it's mine. If I buy land, it's always there, before me, after me, regardless of me. That isn't ownership.

Emori · Today 15:03
The idea that a person can own land is laughable anyway. Land is here forever and you're only alive for, what, 80 years. Ludicrous. It's all a fiction.

Who should own it?
You could say the same for buildings - they may not be here ‘forever’ but they can last a few hundred years. Should a person be allowed to own a building?

But it doesn’t revert to public ownership after you die so what’s your point?

Both things can exist at once- that people with genuine and moral practises can exist in an unfair system.

The idea that a person can own land is laughable anyway. Land is here forever and you're only alive for, what, 80 years. Ludicrous. It's all a fiction.

You could read the thread to find out?

Eh?

By that notion, no one should sell food, thats profiting from peoples need to eat. No one should sell counselling or mental health care, thats profiting from peoples poor health... there should be no private physios, osteopaths, blah blah etc.

I'll just quit my job helping people fix their dog behaviour problems because I am profiting from their errors and their dogs suffering shall I. That'll really improve the world.

Curious to know @RealNavyEagle what IS ok to profit from?

That landlords are not ogres and provide a service, versus the OPs standpoint that landlords and letting agents are somehow making their money in an immoral way by charging for a roof over someone's head.

You could say that about any business that makes a profit. Or would it be alright to make a profit from extravagant goods and what is extravagant? It's surprising how much you actually have to charge over cost to make enough profit to make a business worth while.

I’m confused as to what your contributions have to do with this thread?
What are you trying to demonstrate in relation to the question?

That's because it is simple. I have tenants who have rented my properties for years and years and there are no problems. If they report an issue I sent my maintenance person around or a gas safe if a gas issue or electrician if electric. All maintenance and repair cost are written off against my tax bill. It is in my interest to maintain my property well. Rents rise by inflation but I capped it when inflation soared at 7 percent. In over 20 years I have only issued 1 single section 21.

The thing I find weird is people who know every little about the possibilities putting simple Obstacles in the way of radical ideas. Surely you’d stop and think “I don’t actually know too much about this, is my idea about why it can’t happen realistic?”

I wouldn’t respond to posts about say water supply screeching “yeah well Thames water wouldn’t let you do that would they” as I have very little idea about the art of the possible with water supply. I don’t understand why people do similar here

The thing is, if you suggest any other system apart from completely rampant capitalism, people (who don't understand the meaning of words) start calling you a communist. At least one PP has already done this.

If I could wave a magic wand, there would be state-owned (owned by the people) providers of all basic needs. Social housing, utilities - including internet, which is increasingly essential for modern life -clothing, food, medicine and healthcare etc. produced in the UK where possible and with suppliers paid fairly. We could cut out the middleman and keep money in the pockets of ordinary people, rather than have uber wealthy international corporate entities inserting themselves unnecessarily in the middle and skimming off huge profits for themselves. A private market could easily exist alongside this model, with people having the freedom to choose to buy products or services that are faster, more convenient, luxury etc. as is the case now. It would encourage private companies to focus on quality and service, because they would no longer be able to hold people to ransom as they frequently do in our current system. Consumers would have real choice, rather than just the illusion of choice.

Using the example of landlords, I'm sure even with ample social housing there would be people who want to rent because it suits their lifestyle or finances, or because they want to live in a certain property. But landlords would no longer hold the balance of power and tenants would have the option to rent housing at a reasonable rate rather than one which is artificially inflated and necessitates giving money to people who are no different than ticket scalpers in essence.

It's only a normal, socially accepted income stream if tenants bother to pay their rent, they can get away with squatting for months before the owner can get their property back, often deliberately damaged. It's a business, owning property, not yet another giveaway. Too many people are quick to demonise landlords, the bad ones need rooting out and so do the bad tenants.

I feel like that about Thames Water, why should something that we need to live and die very quickly without it, be metered. Queen Victoria and her husband thought everyone should pay a few pennies a year for clean running water and sewerage systems installed so we wouldn’t die of cholera!

Should we take exception at the corner shop owner, he or she sells food, another thing we need for survival, they open about 20hours a day, 365 days a year, drive nice cars and own half the street because they can afford to buy houses and rent them out, who has the better life though - in their opinion they do, but I wouldn’t want a shopkeepers life for love let alone money!

If we had to move to buy a property and start again, I would move and start again, because, I don’t want to pay someone else’s mortgage, but that’s me - a misery!

How does any of that allow me to chose and target you and the agency because I know you’re a good landlord and they are a good agency?

I have an agency advertised my houses and produce the contract as well as vet potential tenants. I always insist on meeting the selected tenant and I manage my properties myself. They have my number and can call if they have any issues. If a Landlord or an agency is managing the let they would need to be compliant with everything or they'd be fined.

No you’re suggesting it if they can’t afford a house. That’s not a choice.

Some people chose to live in a van because they prioritise other things. I haven’t chosen that and I have children so wouldn’t. But before I had children it’s something I genuinely considered for a few years - so I could live well on less and travel.

Im not suggesting people should live in a van if they don’t want to. I’m just suggesting there are creative options.

Simplistic in the extreme!

Answered above

And that’s the issue. The government have the ability to interfere in the market and reduce prices for citizens- to make decent housing a basic right- and pretty much chose not to.
This debate is about whether they should, not confirming the status quo which I’m sure we are all aware of

Who's going to build the social housing? The government and local councils can't afford it.

For all the miss representation nowadays, LL's can only follow the market rate, as do almost all other businesses.