Why so much hate for Landlords on MN?

Don't be mean to the poor landlords. They work hard to earn that money. Mine had to make a phonecall to a plumber the other day from his armchair. He has to do that every single year, the poor love.

In what way are landlords "earning" the rent. That is a serious misuse of the word 'earning'.
They do a bit of paperwork each year, make a few calls to tradespeople to deal with repairs, etc. If you have one or two properties it is hardly a full time job.

Yet the tenants are working full time to pay the rent (or claiming housing benefit from the state, so the money goes from the state to the landlord via the tenant).

Im intrigued by the poster who thinks the council should take back all the second (or more) homes.
There are many examples of councils and local authorities not maintaining or keeping properties in a reasonable state.
Iirc there were some horrific stories about Croydon Council a few years ago. Also instead of spending money buying up private LL properties, if they had that sort of spare cash (im pretty sure most councils dont) would it not be be better to build new social housing?

Im not a LL so ive no skin in the game. Im not that impressed with DDs student house....but i can see the need for rent properties, and dont believe that all LL are evil. I rented a room in a house when I left home. The landlord was very fair, and never put the rent up while I was there. My sister rented from the same LL for 10 years and I dont think he put her rent up once. When she moved out he helped do some repairs to the flat she bought.

Their income is legal. I didn't say it wasn't. But it's not earned income, it's investment income.
My point was I don't know why we are supposed to feel sorry for landlords or think they are doing some good noble thing for society just because they are (apparently) paying thousands in tax. So what? We all pay tax.
This is especially true when that income they are paying tax on isn't even income they've earned. Why do I give a shit?
They're still leeches however much tax they pay on the money given to them.

See my previous post:

I get that some people who can afford to buy, or who have already bought a home, might need to rent somewhere for various reasons like temporary jobs.
There would be nothing wrong with having private rental housing as a consumer service in theory, as long as everyone who needs to rent a permanent home has one from the state.
But as that is not the situation: there are waiting list for state housing. So in reality private letting is bad for society.

Your individual tenant might be rich and might already own other houses which they are not choosing to live in for some reason, but if you look at the big picture overall, private letting is bad for society in a situation where there are waiting lists for state housing and people can't afford to buy.
The solution is threefold: the state needs to build far more social housing to let, house prices need to fall so that more people can buy, and earnings need to rise so that more people can buy.

I don't agree. Properties are bought through limited company. Interest can be deducted. Over time the properties will be sold off and I only want to keep 1. Some I've bought over 20 years ago so hold a lot of equity in. If I wanted to I could pay off the mortgages on the 2 houses I bought over 20 years ago.

They are earning money legally. Do you include no Landlords on your dating profile? I don't think you'd need worry about getting responses.

Both are true.. just coming from the otherside

45% of landlords only own one property but they only account for 20% of private rentals.

80% of private rentals belong to a landlord with more than one property and nearly half of properties are let by a landlord with more than 5 properties.

As a renter you are 4 times more likely to rent from a landlord with more than one property than one property

No that is exactly the debate we are having.
The reason people hate private landlords is because they are profiting from the state's failure to provide a public service that is sorely needed.
They are profiting from poor people's inability to buy.

I get that some people who can afford to buy, or who have already bought a home, might need to rent somewhere for various reasons like temporary jobs.

There would be nothing wrong with having private rental housing as a consumer service in theory, as long as everyone who needs to rent a permanent home has one from the state.
But as that is not the situation: there are waiting list for state housing. So in reality private letting is bad for society.

Buy to let mortgages are mainly interest only.

I don’t know why MN hate landlords so much. I rented for years, all ok, fairly normal people.

That is the point.
Rental housing should be a public service - owned and run by the state, and not for profit.
Any old consumer service can be run for profit, and people have the choice whether they want to buy that service or not.

But people have no choice about housing. If they can't afford to buy, they need housing as a public service.

How very naive

Please explain your public service and the good it does to society

Neoliberalism 101.
privatise everything, con society if they just work hard enough they’ll achieve, keep dangling that carrot of achievement and success in front of them so they keep striving but never quite reaching it and then as a result everyone turns on each other instead of facing the real problem. People who believe getting rich at the expense of others at any and all costs with minimum effort have bought into the neoliberal lie. We see it very clearly with OP’s posts. I’m alright jack, screw you!
OP seems to genuinely believe they offer a public service 😂

She should be able to rent from the council, in an ideal world.

That is what is wrong with society: private landlords, private water companies, private electricity and gas, private railways, and on and on.
Profiteers and shareholders getting rich by owning essential services that should be provided by the state.

Are you accounting for the rise in the value of the house?

Yes, there will likely be capital gains tax at the end, but that tax is not 100% rate, so the owner still gets to keep some capital gain.

I'm really struggling to understand what you are trying to achieve OP. You seem to have little to offer other than dismissive one word responses ignoring everything said apart from what you agree with.