Landlordism 2.0

[imtommygunn]

The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different.

[Rudi]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

[thewobbler]

The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren’t. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people “invest” in property it’s an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They’re every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

[imtommygunn]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

[thewobbler]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

100% capital gains tax on second properties would be an outstanding step towards ensuring that only those wishing to pursue a career in rentals get involved. Maintenance, legal fees, depreciation etc would all be accounted before before the 100% on gains.

Shelter should be a right. Not a game.

[thewobbler]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It’s exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else’s expense from a basic human need. It’s a disgusting way of life.

[clarshack]

The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren’t. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people “invest” in property it’s an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They’re every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

And accidental landlords?

[trueblue1234]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Has that not be done to an extent up here recently. You can’t ofset your mortgage payments against the rental income anymore.  Is that the same in The south?

[imtommygunn]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It’s exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else’s expense from a basic human need. It’s a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

[trailer]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It’s exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else’s expense from a basic human need. It’s a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

There is a huge difference between someone who has a house or two that they rent versus what is going on in Dublin with companies buying entire housing estates. Simple work around more than 3 houses and you're taxed to the balls. Cuts it right out. Massive boom and bust in housing is good for nobody. You need an even steady flow, with little incremental price rises over time.
But there is a need for a rental market. People need short term rents for jobs and college etc. They don't always want to buy so the market must offer both.

[thewobbler]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It’s exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else’s expense from a basic human need. It’s a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

Food is a great comparator. If food production levels were barely enough to feed the population, and businesses and individuals bought double, treble, quadruple amounts to what they need, while other starved as they had to no way to get or pay for food, would you describe the businesses as worse than the individuals?

I guess not.

But you then mustn’t equate shelter as a basic human need. I do. And the housing market is the single most disgusting thing about all of capitalism. And the flurry of greedy people who have neither the qualification nor skill to maintain a rental house, but have spent the last 30 years collecting them as investments and nest eggs (a way to generate money while doing nothing, regardless of who it hurts), need a lesson in being a good citizen.

[clarshack]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Has that not be done to an extent up here recently. You can’t ofset your mortgage payments against the rental income anymore.  Is that the same in The south?

I thought basic rate taxpayers in the North could still offset the interest on their mortgage payments but higher rate taxpayers couldn't from April 2020?

[HiMucker]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

100% capital gains tax on second properties would be an outstanding step towards ensuring that only those wishing to pursue a career in rentals get involved. Maintenance, legal fees, depreciation etc would all be accounted before before the 100% on gains.

Shelter should be a right. Not a game.

What about the average 2-3% rate of inflation? Would that be accounted for? A lot of people who invest their capital do it because offers a better return interest rates in the bank. That's obviously not ground breaking news. The other is that property is a great offset against the hungry monster of inflation. I take your point on the capital gains though. However a lot of landlords don't even consider selling because of the hit they would get on capital gains as it is as they are already in the higher tax bracket.

[thewobbler]

Of course it would be adjusted for inflation.

Your point about  it being a better investment than saving is a moot point to me. If it wasn’t an option, then something else - preferably not a basic human need - would become a more attractive investment than saving.

There’s also a very simple other point. If the average joe wasn’t spending 50%+ of his income on shelter, they would have both a lot more leverage to save and spend.

[Angelo]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

That's how I see it.

Property and land is becoming an ever appreciating commodity and those with money can now buy it up and profit off it thus depriving someone who actually has a genuine need for home ownership.

Governments are happy to allow this happen though, many of those who will vote on legislation are landlords themselves. First thing I'd do would be to deny any politician who is a landlord and therefore has a vested interest being allowed to take part on legislation relating to home ownership and rental caps.