Buying a house (and renting)

Karl_ wrote:All landlords should feel bad about choosing to use their financial resources to purchase state-violence-enforced ownership of a shelter they aren't using, then profiting from the basic need of other humans to sleep in that shelter rather than freezing to death on the ground. They should simply invest in something else.

I'll invest in weapons companies and Nestlé instead then.

In this country we have a thing called work, it just sounds like you should all get better paid jobs tbh.

Maybe have less coffees and avocados on toast.

Karl_ wrote:All landlords should feel bad about choosing to use their financial resources to purchase state-violence-enforced ownership of a shelter they aren't using, then profiting from the basic need of other humans to sleep in that shelter rather than freezing to death on the ground. They should simply invest in something else.

The justification I see for a landlord profiting from a rental property would be equivalent to the tenant instead owning the property but employing someone as a house manager. The house manager's job is to deal with any maintenance issues, organise the payment of bills, keep the house in good condition, and insure the property to remove financial risk from the owner.

A key aspect of this being ok is that it is a voluntary arrangement that the person living at the house does not have to engage in but may pay for and benefit from if they wish. The problem with the existing system (where the house ownership is inverted from the above scenario) is that tenants are forced into the arrangement because buying a house is not a possible alternative.

This is why I've previously argued that renting is not inherently bad because it provides a service with benefits in comparison to home ownership. That's in the context of a hypothetical world where no one is forced to rent. The same argument can't be applied to a landlord using a lettings agent because the lettings agent is acting as the "house manager" in that scenario and the landlord is purely profiting from property ownership.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Karl_ wrote:All landlords should feel bad about choosing to use their financial resources to purchase state-violence-enforced ownership of a shelter they aren't using, then profiting from the basic need of other humans to sleep in that shelter rather than freezing to death on the ground. They should simply invest in something else.

The justification I see for a landlord profiting from a rental property would be equivalent to the tenant instead owning the property but employing someone as a house manager. The house manager's job is to deal with any maintenance issues, organise the payment of bills, keep the house in good condition, and insure the property to remove financial risk from the owner.

A key aspect of this being ok is that it is a voluntary arrangement that the person living at the house does not have to engage in but may pay for and benefit from if they wish. The problem with the existing system (where the house ownership is inverted from the above scenario) is that tenants are forced into the arrangement because buying a house is not a possible alternative.

This is why I've previously argued that renting is not inherently bad because it provides a service with benefits in comparison to home ownership. That's in the context of a hypothetical world where no one is forced to rent. The same argument can't be applied to a landlord using a lettings agent because the lettings agent is acting as the "house manager" in that scenario and the landlord is purely profiting from property ownership.

I agree wholeheartedly. Renting is not just not inherently bad, it’s actually really beneficial in some circumstances. There’s been times where I would have literally had to pass up promotions and career changes if I hadn’t been renting and therefore be able to up sticks with 30 days notice. Never would have been able to move to Japan if I’d had to sell a house first.

I’ve got no problem with regulation and tenant protection but the idea that renting out a house you don’t live in is some inherently evil act you should feel ashamed of ridiculous.

Now I should scarper before Karl does a state violence on me.

Where was all this chat when I was holding down the centrist melt fort with conversation pits?

Skarjo wrote:[
I agree wholeheartedly. Renting is not just not inherently bad, it’s actually really beneficial in some circumstances. There’s been times where I would have literally had to pass up promotions and career changes if I hadn’t been renting and therefore be able to up sticks with 30 days notice. Never would have been able to move to Japan if I’d had to sell a house first.

That's true of course, some people don't want to be tied down and want the freedom to move at short notice.

I think councils and not for profit companies will do a fairer job than buy to let landlords though.

The rents around here are £1100+ per month for 1 bed flats. So we have a situation where people (especially young people) cannot afford to buy or rent.

If house prices were at a level where ordinary people could afford them, then I'd have much less of an issue with buy to let landlords.

That does sort of touch on another issue which I'm right in the middle of experiencing right now - buying and/or selling a house is goddamn nightmare and far more complex, involved and costly than it reasonably should be!

Remember in Oblivion when you just hand over a bag of money and the house is yours. Videogames did not prepare me for this world

Ecno wrote:Where was all this chat when I was holding down the centrist melt fort with conversation pits?

It's the same point really - hypothetically a rental market existing for houses with conversation pits is fine, providing it's voluntarily entered into. Our current system is not of voluntary renting, so reform should definitely favour addressing current problems rather than preserving optional luxuries. If affordable social housing is available to everyone who needs it, then there's not a problem with there also being conversation pit houses you can pay a premium to live in. The former is clearly more important though.

The ability to rent is not what is being disputed. How many times do we have to spell that out?! Any arguments made to that effect in support of landlordism in this debate will be struck from the record!

OR is clearly describing a hypothetical market that does not exist. He even says as much! You obviously have to apply real-world context to any consideration, at which point it immediately does become an inherently evil act. It only sounds ridiculous to you because you're trying to make it sound ridiculous by using terms like 'inherently evil' to make us think of baddies from Disney cartoons.

OrangeRKN wrote:If a landlord plans on evicting the tenants to move in themselves at a later date I think that should be made very clear to any prospective tenants because being evicted sucks.

I also don't like renting through an agency (as I do now) as opposed to privately directly with the landlord (as I have before). Privately it feels like the landlord is doing some work to justify their profit - they deal directly with maintenance and any issues, they can organise paying bills, and anything else - whereas through an agency all the work is contracted out and the landlord does nothing but watch the profit roll in.

This was my exact situation before we moved into the house we bought and it still sucked. Our landlords were a semi-retired couple who were upfront about the potential need to evict us six months into the tenancy because they may have needed the place to live when they themselves moved house. That created the implication that we were effectively paying for the privilege of housesitting a maisonette as we were told to keep the place spotless, up to the point that they bought us cheap Ikea chopping boards to ensure we wouldn’t cut up the cheap linoleum kitchen surface they had just installed.

Even though there was little risk of their move falling through they still served us the notice six months in to "play it safe" then retracted it after their sale went through smoothly. It wasn’t a great experience for us and it went pretty much the best way it probably could have!

I’m glad to be out of it and wish security for tenants would be much better than it currently is, rather than weighted towards those who have the money to invest in owning access to a basic human need.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:The ability to rent is not what is being disputed. How many times do we have to spell that out?! Any arguments made to that effect in support of landlordism in this debate will be struck from the record!

OR is clearly describing a hypothetical market that does not exist. He even says as much! You obviously have to apply real-world context to any consideration, at which point it immediately does become an inherently evil act. It only sounds ridiculous to you because you're trying to make it sound ridiculous by using terms like 'inherently evil' to make us think of baddies from Disney cartoons.

But which is it? Is renting in a real world context inherently evil or not? You can’t accuse me of making it sound ridiculous by using the term ‘inherently evil’ when you’ve literally just said that a real world renting market is inherently evil!

Whether you are a good landlord or not the reality is that you are contributing to an environment that makes cost of living (be that ownership or rental) higher for those who are already in a position where they are potentially struggling financially.

Skarjo wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:The ability to rent is not what is being disputed. How many times do we have to spell that out?! Any arguments made to that effect in support of landlordism in this debate will be struck from the record!

OR is clearly describing a hypothetical market that does not exist. He even says as much! You obviously have to apply real-world context to any consideration, at which point it immediately does become an inherently evil act. It only sounds ridiculous to you because you're trying to make it sound ridiculous by using terms like 'inherently evil' to make us think of baddies from Disney cartoons.

But which is it? Is renting in a real world context inherently evil or not? You can’t accuse me of making it sound ridiculous by using the term ‘inherently evil’ when you’ve literally just said that a real world renting market is inherently evil!

Renting is not inherently evil.

Renting out property in a time of a housing shortage with the sole intention of making large sums of money out of poor people is inherently evil.

Skarjo wrote:

Karl_ wrote:All landlords should feel bad about choosing to use their financial resources to purchase state-violence-enforced ownership of a shelter they aren't using, then profiting from the basic need of other humans to sleep in that shelter rather than freezing to death on the ground. They should simply invest in something else.

I'll invest in weapons companies and Nestlé instead then.

Is the suggestion here that there are no morally "good" investment opportunities or just none that offer the near guaranteed returns on investment that property ownership does?

All landlords should be shot out of a big cannon into the sun

Kezzer wrote:All landlords should be shot out of a big cannon into the sun

Mate, it was your own fault you got kicked out of the pub.

I have been kicked out of a pub exactly twice - both times for falling asleep.

Kezzer wrote:All landlords should be shot out of a big cannon into the sun

In an alternate rather literal Marvel universe this is the origin of starlord

I am going to buy the sun (The star which we orbit) and rent out the light it gives us all.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Kezzer wrote:All landlords should be shot out of a big cannon into the sun

In an alternate rather literal Marvel universe this is the origin of starlord

If all life on Earth need sunlight so much why don’t they buckle down and buy their own star?