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

[RealNavyEagle]

I’m not saying every landlord or agent is evil, before anyone jumps in. But I do think there’s something deeply uncomfortable about profiting from people’s basic need for shelter, especially when that profit often comes with minimal accountability and maximum power over tenants’ lives. Rent increases “because the market allows it,” poor maintenance, opaque fees and agents acting as unchallengeable gatekeepers… it doesn’t always sit right with me as a way to earn a living.

AIBU to feel uneasy about this being a normal, socially accepted income stream?

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.

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

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

What’s your career of choice op ?

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

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.

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

That’s ok, no loss to the thread

Indeed.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

And who should provide this housing?
Rachel Reeves?

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

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

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

Are you mentally deducting the mortgage contributions from the tenant from your calculation of profit? The fact that the tenant pays your mortgage so that each year you own more and more of the property is really the bulk of the money you're making as a landlord.

Yep, I lived in some absolute dives and didn't get buy car until I was 34, when I was on my third home purchase (having bought a flat at 23 and sold at 29, another house did up and sold at 33) and any holidays were £20 easyjet flights, a bed in a hostel and eating bread and cheese from supermarket on the beach, many a holiday done for under £100 each. DH and I were on our 2nd joint purchase before 1st child was born, and bought our final forever home when youngest was 1. Which still needed work, but was perfect plot and location. As you say, with hard work, a long term plan and willingness to make compromises it is possible. We had emotional support from family, but no financial support. Both our parents had worked their way up from nothing and were very determined we do the same. Mine could have helped financially but they didn't, they wanted us to 'make it' under our own steam. Which annoyed me at the time but with hindsight I'm glad - I'm really proud of what DH and I have built through hard work, despite both having a disability.

My best friend was kicked out of home at 16 by her alcoholic father, worked 4 jobs to rent a bedsit, did an OU degree in her (limited) spare time and now owns a house worth over 700k.

Yes. I looked at what I bought for and sold for and any equity i built up when figuring out whether my roughly 5 years as a landlord were profitable or not. Taking into account cost of repairs for damage done by the tenants, missed rent, gaps in tenants, letting agent fees, legal costs.

One tenant alone caused 4k+ of damage over a years tenancy. Their rent was £450 a month, I got about 375 of this after fees. I paid £100 a month in service fees and insurance to the landowner, so that left 275. The total rent I received over this year was therefore around 3250, less than the damage caused. I withheld their 475 deposit, which they had the cheek to challenge. So still less than damage caused, without even factoring in my mortgage of around 400 per month which I still had to pay, after also paying rent whilst working at GOSH on a salary of around 25k at that point.

When we were courting and saving for our first home we used to make 2 halves of lager and a cigarette scrounged from parents last all Saturday night - those were the days!

But again, that’s not the point. You as a landlord exist in a profit system, and you are getting a slice, or no slice, your choice- but profit is built in throughout.

the main issue for your profit is you bought the property on the private, profit making residential market. That’s exactly where your problems start

do you know what housing associations will sell the property you paid £450k for to each other? £40,£50k. Non profit valuation is totally different.

they have no mortgage- no high profit product sold by a lender, which you probably have.

they don’t need to pay for multiple people to make profit in the supply chain for repairs, maintenance and services like you do.

the fact that you don’t make profit in a capitalist market is totally unrelated to the behaviour of a NOT FOR PROFIT market.

the fact that you’re mixing the 2 shows how little of the suggested regulation you are able to relate to and put into context.

Fortunately, you’re unfortunately depending on how you want to look at it the absolute dives haven’t existed for awhile because you know Law
And therefore they have to be paid for
I don’t look back romantically at the shit holes. We lived in in Bristol with no heating damp everywhere no hot running water and the price reflected that obviously. But today’s kids wouldn’t stand for that and they’re not wrong.

Rags to Riches stories like your friends are becoming rare and rare because again student loans, even applied to the OU.

Also I don’t get when are these people referring too? I’m an early 80s baby and house buying when I was in my 20s was easy as fuck; no questions asked 100% mortgages, pre hyper property inflation, jobs were easy to come by especially in big cities

these rags to riches house buying surely belong in the 70s (my parents!)