Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
.

All landlords who have any sort of brain will object to having an unoccupied unit, weather they own 1 unit or 500 units. That's a unit that isn't making them any money. Its not like a landlord whose primary business is making money off of rental income wants an unoccupied space. Landlords don't want to have to evict tenants. They want tenants who pay the rent and don't damage the property. The best scenario for a landlord is to have a long term tenant who never causes any problems and gives no reason for eviction.

Sorry but you are wildly incorrect. Many landlords with significant numbers of properties purposefully keep many empty to drive up prices. This is an severe problem in the UK, especially London, for example.

I dunno how it is in all of the US, but "corporate" apartment complexes are a major, major problem where I live. My area and especially my zip code are "hot" for new construction of housing. This is great and all, however the problem is, each new housing development is putting larger houses closer together on smaller lots for more money than I paid for mine. Apartments are just as bad, if not worse. . . There was a new complex put in relatively close to my house, and a friend asked me to check into it (nasty personal situation, they couldn't be "caught" with things such as housing listings on their web browsers, and yes, legal proceedings were underway) . . . This brand new apartment complex *started* at a roughly 850 sq. ft. studio unit listed for $1400/month. A 1 bedroom unit that was only slightly larger was closer to $1600/month.

Now, a brand shiny new apartment complex, sure, that will draw a higher price than the "old run down" one down the road, but the problem is, that old busted place, they are RAISING their rents right along with the brand new place. And the thing is, most of those places you really are NOT paying for anything as advertised. . . Rarely are there any "amenities" worth writing home about. Your commute still sucks. The "minutes away" shopping is more like an hour away because of all the traffic.

Back when I did own 2 properties and rented one out, I took the route that, I suspect many of us in the military take: have a property management company list it under these instructions: "I want rent set to make my mortgage and your cut" . . . As a result (they used a computer algorithm based on a number of factors in the area to determine rental rate) I made a "profit" of 200 bucks a month.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ha! thanks for explaining my own history to me.

I am willing to bet I know a lot more about the Irish Potato Famine and the underlying economic system that allowed it to happen than you do.

That's ad hominem and appeal to authority.. Either come up with a counter point or back down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only property owners keeping properties empty like you say are russian oligarchs and the like, and grouping regular landlords in with those people is just absurd.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

My girlfriend's family live in one. They pay bills. We're actually about to buy another, which we will live in (moving back and forth between where we live now and there every two-three months for work reasons). If, at a later date, we end up just living in one of them, then, depending on which one we're not living in, we will sell the other or keep it and rent it for the cost of council tax and bills to a PhD student or visiting academic in my old university, as a colleague of mine does already.

" but i do it for a better cause "
"my second domicile in walis is perfectly fine and does not disturb the village life by beeing empty all the time"

Is literally hilarious contrasted with your own standards.
Altough empty unit tactics are of course a issue, people with double living units then required are equally as bad, especially if they do not even fill the unit propperly.

Our jobs are 400 miles apart and we will have an infant by that point. We'll be continually moving back and forth and whilst we're lucky to have the capital to purchase, we'd burn it if we had to rent in London to cover when we need yo be there. We'd far rather live in the same place and remove the issue but we're in the same field and it has very few jobs in the UK.

We'll pay full council tax in both all the time rather than seeking exemptions that legally we are entitled to, and, as I said earlier, I think our council tax when each isn't occupied should be much higher than it is. I'd happily pay it. We should have to.

Not the point.
The point is you occupy and not fill propperly, removing supply from the market.

Unfortunately we will. It shames us, but my position is not that no one should be able to own a temporarily unoccupied property, nor even a permanently unoccupied one, only that they should be forced to pay for the privilege, and I would happily pay for it whilst we seek work within commuting distance of the same place. The minute it's possible to be in one place, we will be and no profit shall be made from the other.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ha! thanks for explaining my own history to me.

I am willing to bet I know a lot more about the Irish Potato Famine and the underlying economic system that allowed it to happen than you do.

If you truly did know all about it, then you'd know that the biggest factor was the Corn Laws combined with the dangers of monoculture farming. The problem with then further excarberated by the economic situation at the time encouraging land owners to use their land for more profitable cash crops(like beef). Add in that England botched the famine relief efforts though a combination of bad information and a wee bit of racism and you get a problem that was far greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm far from an expert. Clearly, you aren't one either though. the Potato famine is a warning against the dangers of monoculture farming, isolationist policies, the need for resilient domestic food production, and against general political ineptitude. Drawing the conclusion that the tenant-landlord relationship is inherently evil is selective memory.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

My girlfriend's family live in one. They pay bills. We're actually about to buy another, which we will live in (moving back and forth between where we live now and there every two-three months for work reasons). If, at a later date, we end up just living in one of them, then, depending on which one we're not living in, we will sell the other or keep it and rent it for the cost of council tax and bills to a PhD student or visiting academic in my old university, as a colleague of mine does already.

" but i do it for a better cause "
"my second domicile in walis is perfectly fine and does not disturb the village life by beeing empty all the time"

Is literally hilarious contrasted with your own standards.
Altough empty unit tactics are of course a issue, people with double living units then required are equally as bad, especially if they do not even fill the unit propperly.

Our jobs are 400 miles apart and we will have an infant by that point. We'll be continually moving back and forth and whilst we're lucky to have the capital to purchase, we'd burn it if we had to rent in London to cover when we need yo be there. We'd far rather live in the same place and remove the issue but we're in the same field and it has very few jobs in the UK.

We'll pay full council tax in both all the time rather than seeking exemptions that legally we are entitled to, and, as I said earlier, I think our council tax when each isn't occupied should be much higher than it is. I'd happily pay it. We should have to.

Not the point.
The point is you occupy and not fill propperly, removing supply from the market.

Unfortunately we will. It shames us, but my position is not that no one should be able to own a temporarily unoccupied property, nor even a permanently unoccupied one, only that they should be forced to pay for the privilege, and I would happily pay for it whilst we seek work within commuting distance of the same place. The minute it's possible to be in one place, we will be and no profit shall be made from the other.

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
.

All landlords who have any sort of brain will object to having an unoccupied unit, weather they own 1 unit or 500 units. That's a unit that isn't making them any money. Its not like a landlord whose primary business is making money off of rental income wants an unoccupied space. Landlords don't want to have to evict tenants. They want tenants who pay the rent and don't damage the property. The best scenario for a landlord is to have a long term tenant who never causes any problems and gives no reason for eviction.

Sorry but you are wildly incorrect. Many landlords with significant numbers of properties purposefully keep many empty to drive up prices. This is an severe problem in the UK, especially London, for example.

I dunno how it is in all of the US, but "corporate" apartment complexes are a major, major problem where I live. My area and especially my zip code are "hot" for new construction of housing. This is great and all, however the problem is, each new housing development is putting larger houses closer together on smaller lots for more money than I paid for mine. Apartments are just as bad, if not worse. . . There was a new complex put in relatively close to my house, and a friend asked me to check into it (nasty personal situation, they couldn't be "caught" with things such as housing listings on their web browsers, and yes, legal proceedings were underway) . . . This brand new apartment complex *started* at a roughly 850 sq. ft. studio unit listed for $1400/month. A 1 bedroom unit that was only slightly larger was closer to $1600/month.

Now, a brand shiny new apartment complex, sure, that will draw a higher price than the "old run down" one down the road, but the problem is, that old busted place, they are RAISING their rents right along with the brand new place. And the thing is, most of those places you really are NOT paying for anything as advertised. . . Rarely are there any "amenities" worth writing home about. Your commute still sucks. The "minutes away" shopping is more like an hour away because of all the traffic.

Back when I did own 2 properties and rented one out, I took the route that, I suspect many of us in the military take: have a property management company list it under these instructions: "I want rent set to make my mortgage and your cut" . . . As a result (they used a computer algorithm based on a number of factors in the area to determine rental rate) I made a "profit" of 200 bucks a month.

Yeah, those are a problem. But its not really a problem caused by the rental corporations themselves. They're just symptoms.

The real cause is an unsustainable economic bubble. Usually caused by a particular industry that is drawing in highly paid workers who begin competing with each other for housing. That is what drives up the housing prices past what the 'normal' people in the area can afford.

For an example. The tech companies that have been booming in the San Francisco Bay area. Google and Youtube mainly. Because they have created a concentration of a highly(overpaid) workforce, it drives the price of housing up for everybody else. And so you get houses on skid row being sold for six figures.

If booming industries didn't clump together, the effect they had on the local housing markets would be spread out more and wouldn't put excessive pressure on the rest of the population.

So what happens when my tenants move out, and I have a period of months where its unnocupied, who owns it? Because if you're suggesting the government picks up the tab of the mortgage, council tax, bills and maintenance then I'm right with you.. That would be awesome.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
So what happens when my tenants move out, and I have a period of months where its unnocupied, who owns it? Because if you're suggesting the government picks up the tab of the mortgage, council tax, bills and maintenance then I'm right with you.. That would be awesome.

No. They're suggesting that the government fine you outrageous sums for the crime of having your tenants leave and being unable to find someone to fill the vacancy. On top of you having to pay all the other taxes and bills you'd still have.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

You're not following. I'm not saying that when we own two properties that are not always occupied that we will not be contributing to a problem. I'm saying that people, including me, should be forced to help contribute to solutions to that problem.

My position is renting at profit is seriously damaging, and people with unoccupied properties should pay substantial council tax, and that by preventing the first, and enforcing the second, you significantly reduce both rent and house prices, alleviating the strain on poorer people.

Absolutely nothing I've said is inconsistent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
So what happens when my tenants move out, and I have a period of months where its unnocupied, who owns it? Because if you're suggesting the government picks up the tab of the mortgage, council tax, bills and maintenance then I'm right with you.. That would be awesome.

No. They're suggesting that the government fine you outrageous sums for the crime of having your tenants leave and being unable to find someone to fill the vacancy. On top of you having to pay all the other taxes and bills you'd still have.

Not outrageous (by my definition), and not a fine, but I'd set unoccupied council tax at maybe three times occupied council tax. Enough that it's a significant driver to find occupants and reduce rents if need be, but not instantly crippling.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

You're not following. I'm not saying that when we own two properties that are not always occupied that we will not be contributing to a problem. I'm saying that people, including me, should be forced to help contribute to solutions to that problem.

My position is charging at rent is wrong, and people with unoccupied properties should pay substantial council tax, and that by preventing the first, and enforcing the second, you significantly reduce both rent and house prices, alleviating the strain on poorer people.

Absolutely nothing I've said is inconsistent.

1) Why is charging a profit for housing morally wrong? You've yet to explain this. All other basic necessities get charged for, and at profit. Thats the only way that those necessities can continue to be provided. The farmer and grocer who provide you with access to food also need to make a living. A landlord is no different.

2) How long would you give a landlord time to find a new tenant before you charged them these 'substantial fines' for having a vacant property? Its not like you can find tenants overnight. And sometimes in certain areas the tenants just don't exist. There are whole neighborhoods in Chicago where there is literally nobody living there. The people who own the properties can't do anything with them. Nobody will rent from them, the value of the properties is far less than what they paid for them, they're quite literally screwed. At least the tenants could leave to greener pastures. I would say its morally wrong to punish someone because they can't do the impossible task you've demanded of them.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

You're not following. I'm not saying that when we own two properties that are not always occupied that we will not be contributing to a problem. I'm saying that people, including me, should be forced to help contribute to solutions to that problem.

My position is charging at rent is wrong, and people with unoccupied properties should pay substantial council tax, and that by preventing the first, and enforcing the second, you significantly reduce both rent and house prices, alleviating the strain on poorer people.

Absolutely nothing I've said is inconsistent.

No it is, you can't state that it is a problem and expect that someone else, in this case the government, steps in and solves your issue THAT YOU ALSO HELPED CREATE AND MAINTAIN.

You are a self thinking individual which i assume is not under protection.

Act like one and show integrity or leave it BE.

But don't come in and state rent for profit bad, because company bad, because removal of market supply artificially inflates prices.

_________

And now to the economics part of your argument.

What do you think is the main builder and supplier off rent room?
In switzerland it's mandatory pensions.
They have to turn a earning else all older people are fethed.
Guess which rent room they build?

Did you guess it? Luxury ones.
Guess which are over supplied? Luxury ones.

They can't invest into lesser room because the state intervenes in switzerland not unlikely to your suggested system.
The market gets in this Segment chronically under-supplied.
Leading to inflating prices.

Morale of the story, be carefull what you whish for, especially in regards to government intervention.
_______

Later allevating the strain on poorer people.
So enforcing tax on middle class, the one that is the goal of most lower class citizens to achieve and therefore making it impossible to maintain the position solves what issue Excactly?
If anything you would need to finally tax the politicians and 0,5% of top earners propperly.
Guess what, Guernsey, Jersey the Bahamas and Panama have in common.

See the issue? You want these people to intervene which inevitably would work against their own interest.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Ha! thanks for explaining my own history to me.

I am willing to bet I know a lot more about the Irish Potato Famine and the underlying economic system that allowed it to happen than you do.

If you truly did know all about it, then you'd know that the biggest factor was the Corn Laws combined with the dangers of monoculture farming. The problem with then further excarberated by the economic situation at the time encouraging land owners to use their land for more profitable cash crops(like beef). Add in that England botched the famine relief efforts though a combination of bad information and a wee bit of racism and you get a problem that was far greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm far from an expert. Clearly, you aren't one either though. the Potato famine is a warning against the dangers of monoculture farming, isolationist policies, the need for resilient domestic food production, and against general political ineptitude. Drawing the conclusion that the tenant-landlord relationship is inherently evil is selective memory.

Mate, I know a lot more about it than you do. I teach monoculture farming and use the Irish potato famine as my example. Why was there a monoculture? Because of the economic system of tenant farming propagated by the Anglo-Irish Landlord class. The whole thing goes back to Cromwell and the catholic irish being dispossessed of their land and forced to rent from the Protestant landowners he created. The gigantic underclass of tenant farmers were farming potatoes because that was the only way to feed their families on the tiny plots of land allocated to them, and they could not buy any other food because all their money went on rent, trapping them in a cycle of poverty.

Add on to that the fact that lots of landlords saw the Famine as a way to clear out tennants and consolidate their farms, often selectively targeting Irish language speakers in a sort of half hearted ethnic cleansing, buying them passage on over crowded coffin ships to America or Liverpool where hundreds of thousands died in squalor while they repurposed the land into more profitable uses. You are correct about the Corn Laws, but that was more about famine relief than the situation that CAUSED the famine in the first place, which was the economic system of tennant farming taken to an extreme in Ireland because of sectarian hatred that it was not in other countries in Europe.

The famine was complex, but downplaying the role of landlordism in the whole thing is ignorant and wrong. And seriously, the Famine is the defining historical event in Irish history. we study it in school, we have to read books about it, we learn about it from practically every aspect of our culture. I would never dream of lecturing an American on the Civil War or the War of Independence, it is the height of hubris. That you cannot recognise that is a bit worrying tbh.

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
So what happens when my tenants move out, and I have a period of months where its unnocupied, who owns it? Because if you're suggesting the government picks up the tab of the mortgage, council tax, bills and maintenance then I'm right with you.. That would be awesome.

No. They're suggesting that the government fine you outrageous sums for the crime of having your tenants leave and being unable to find someone to fill the vacancy. On top of you having to pay all the other taxes and bills you'd still have.

Not outrageous (by my definition), and not a fine, but I'd set unoccupied council tax at maybe three times occupied council tax. Enough that it's a significant driver to find occupants and reduce rents if need be, but not instantly crippling.

Just calling something a "tax" doesn't change its punitive nature. If its punitive, its a fine.

What if the landlord really can't afford to reduce the rent? If you own a property to rent it out, the minimum rent you can ask for it is enough to cover the mortgage and any utilities you're including. The landlord then needs to charge a little above that just so he has some profit to make it worthwhile. And forcing him to sell the property off by legislating him out of the landlording business doesn't solve the problem. It just means that someone else will buy the property and have the choice of either living in it(in which case they are absorbing the entire cost) or renting it out as well.

Yes. Huge tenant blocks which are owned by foreign speculators that go unoccupied is a problem. If you want to fix it, go after that problem specifically.

Don't fine people simply for having empty units. Fine people for having absurd numbers/ratios of empty units. Charge high property taxes on foreign owners. Don't punish the small time landlords who are doing the right thing and are actually renting stuff out.

Private landlords are not really the issue...

I used to think like that when I was young, dumb blamed others for my problems and was on a very low income.

The main culprit preventing people buying, is low wages, gorwing population. But mainly its estate agent companies charging an absurd amount of money for being the middle man(doing virtualy no work in most cases), charging the tenants AND the landlord. Thus stopping anyone saving for a deposit because when you have to move (unless you are in a stable position and have a long term rental thing going on).

Ive had to move and change a few times (usually a change of ownership from one LTD company to another) and each time all of my saving disappeared as I had to pay new fees, new deposits etc. then go through a legal battle to get my deposit back as they will always try to make deductions for BS - They actually tried to charge me £150 because there was a bit of dust on a tiny part of a skirting board I must have missed when I cleaned...

Anyway the reason it happens is because tenants try to pull a fast one on landlords who then decide to use letting companies as a layer of protection. I know of scumbags that'd move into a place pay the deposit and 1 month rent up front and then do not pay ANYTHING until they are evicted ,which takes a minimum of 6 months in the UK sometimes longer, and more often than not leaving the property in a state which required renovating or renting out to someone with no standards or a bad situation..

Luckily I will be able to buy my own property this year in Hampshire (the most expensive area outside of London). I hope to own many more properties and rent them with my GF if our plan pans out.

You cannot compare someone who puts in a lot of work and invests their life and savings into properties with some massive asset holding company or some rich oversea oligarch company paying no tax and exploiting some sort of subsidy loophole..(London high-rises owned by Chinese companies as a prime example) There are very gakky people in every aspect of society that ruin it for the rets of us. To suggest that government intervention would not be hijacked by corrupt mofos who will profit is mad. You have to live in absolute dream land to tust the government not be corrupt and not play up to those that supply them with grossly overpaid positions after they leave office or party donations...

In the UK you already pay TAX on buying a 2nd, 3rd etc. properties. Its called stamp duty and it is a LOT of money. And yet I bet you a tiny portion of that money is being funnelled into making affordable housing. Its all a house of cards, its a farce.

 Grey Templar wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

You're not following. I'm not saying that when we own two properties that are not always occupied that we will not be contributing to a problem. I'm saying that people, including me, should be forced to help contribute to solutions to that problem.

My position is charging at rent is wrong, and people with unoccupied properties should pay substantial council tax, and that by preventing the first, and enforcing the second, you significantly reduce both rent and house prices, alleviating the strain on poorer people.

Absolutely nothing I've said is inconsistent.

1) Why is charging a profit for housing morally wrong? You've yet to explain this. All other basic necessities get charged for, and at profit. Thats the only way that those necessities can continue to be provided. The farmer and grocer who provide you with access to food also need to make a living. A landlord is no different.

I've stated explicitly in reference to this question above. Twice I think. You can disagree with why I think it's wrong, that's fine, but I'm not repeating myself when it's easily sought out in the thread.

2) How long would you give a landlord time to find a new tenant before you charged them these 'substantial fines' for having a vacant property? Its not like you can find tenants overnight. And sometimes in certain areas the tenants just don't exist. There are whole neighborhoods in Chicago where there is literally nobody living there. The people who own the properties can't do anything with them. Nobody will rent from them, the value of the properties is far less than what they paid for them, they're quite literally screwed. At least the tenants could leave to greener pastures. I would say its morally wrong to punish someone because they can't do the impossible task you've demanded of them.

If tenants left prior to the end of their lease of their own accord, maybe you get a month, if it was the end of their tenancy agreement, or the landlord terminated it, then zero. The whole point for me is to move housing stock into state ownership, so none of your issues are a problem.

Because planed economics never lead to neopotism and clientelism.
Surely that has never backfired nfe.

I literally gave you the exemple of Zürich with massive investment of "stateowned" room, which surprise lead to clientelism.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Ha! thanks for explaining my own history to me.

I am willing to bet I know a lot more about the Irish Potato Famine and the underlying economic system that allowed it to happen than you do.

If you truly did know all about it, then you'd know that the biggest factor was the Corn Laws combined with the dangers of monoculture farming. The problem with then further excarberated by the economic situation at the time encouraging land owners to use their land for more profitable cash crops(like beef). Add in that England botched the famine relief efforts though a combination of bad information and a wee bit of racism and you get a problem that was far greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm far from an expert. Clearly, you aren't one either though. the Potato famine is a warning against the dangers of monoculture farming, isolationist policies, the need for resilient domestic food production, and against general political ineptitude. Drawing the conclusion that the tenant-landlord relationship is inherently evil is selective memory.

Mate, I know a lot more about it than you do. I teach monoculture farming and use the Irish potato famine as my example. Why was there a monoculture? Because of the economic system of tenant farming propagated by the Anglo-Irish Landlord class. The whole thing goes back to Cromwell and the catholic irish being dispossessed of their land and forced to rent from the Protestant landowners he created. The gigantic underclass of tenant farmers were farming potatoes because that was the only way to feed their families on the tiny plots of land allocated to them, and they could not buy any other food because all their money went on rent, trapping them in a cycle of poverty.

Add on to that the fact that lots of landlords saw the Famine as a way to clear out tennants and consolidate their farms, often selectively targeting Irish language speakers in a sort of half hearted ethnic cleansing, buying them passage on over crowded coffin ships to America or Liverpool where hundreds of thousands died in squalor while they repurposed the land into more profitable uses. You are correct about the Corn Laws, but that was more about famine relief than the situation that CAUSED the famine in the first place, which was the economic system of tennant farming taken to an extreme in Ireland because of sectarian hatred that it was not in other countries in Europe.

The famine was complex, but downplaying the role of landlordism in the whole thing is ignorant and wrong. And seriously, the Famine is the defining historical event in Irish history. we study it in school, we have to read books about it, we learn about it from practically every aspect of our culture. I would never dream of lecturing an American on the Civil War or the War of Independence, it is the height of hubris. That you cannot recognise that is a bit worrying tbh.

But again, none of those problems show that being a landlord is inherently evil. They really just show people being evil and abusing their power. You're confusing the method in which a problem was manifested for the actual problem. The problem wasn't that landlords and tenants existed, it was that certain landlords used their position to abuse their tenants because of religious and racial bigotry. On top of economic and agricultural problems.

If a guy uses a baseball bat to beat up someone because he doesn't like the color of their skin, their religion, or just because he looked at him funny, its not the baseball bat who is the blame and the proper response isn't to ban people from having baseball bats.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

You're not following. I'm not saying that when we own two properties that are not always occupied that we will not be contributing to a problem. I'm saying that people, including me, should be forced to help contribute to solutions to that problem.

My position is charging at rent is wrong, and people with unoccupied properties should pay substantial council tax, and that by preventing the first, and enforcing the second, you significantly reduce both rent and house prices, alleviating the strain on poorer people.

Absolutely nothing I've said is inconsistent.

No it is, you can't state that it is a problem and expect that someone else, in this case the government, steps in and solves your issue THAT YOU ALSO HELPED CREATE AND MAINTAIN.

You are a self thinking individual which i assume is not under protection.

Act like one and show integrity or leave it BE.

But don't come in and state rent for profit bad, because company bad, because removal of market supply artificially inflates prices.

_________

And now to the economics part of your argument.

What do you think is the main builder and supplier off rent room?
In switzerland it's mandatory pensions.
They have to turn a earning else all older people are fethed.
Guess which rent room they build?

Did you guess it? Luxury ones.
Guess which are over supplied? Luxury ones.

They can't invest into lesser room because the state intervenes in switzerland not unlikely to your suggested system.
The market gets in this Segment chronically under-supplied.
Leading to inflating prices.

Morale of the story, be carefull what you whish for, especially in regards to government intervention.
_______

Later allevating the strain on poorer people.
So enforcing tax on middle class, the one that is the goal of most lower class citizens to achieve and therefore making it impossible to maintain the position solves what issue Excactly?
If anything you would need to finally tax the politicians and 0,5% of top earners propperly.
Guess what, Guernsey, Jersey the Bahamas and Panama have in common.

See the issue? You want these people to intervene which inevitably would work against their own interest.

I'm sorry I genuinely don't want to be rude but a lot of this is difficult to read and I'm really not positive what you're trying to get across through most of it.

You don't think it's acceptable to want the state to create ways of contributing for members of society whose circumstances put them in positions where they have to do something they'd rather not or where they feel they're taking more than their share. Fair enough. I disagree.

If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

I don't care.
Your situation is created out of your own volition.
By your own problem identification you Fall under the same category as the problem generated by companies with significant market power.

That is my issue with your argument.

And to the last part:
There is no "Ablasshandel " for sins, and yes i am catholic thank you. You are just as guilty by your own percived problem as these multibillion companies using market position of oligopols to their own advantage.

There's a saying, rocks and Glass Houses, something.

You're not following. I'm not saying that when we own two properties that are not always occupied that we will not be contributing to a problem. I'm saying that people, including me, should be forced to help contribute to solutions to that problem.

My position is charging at rent is wrong, and people with unoccupied properties should pay substantial council tax, and that by preventing the first, and enforcing the second, you significantly reduce both rent and house prices, alleviating the strain on poorer people.

Absolutely nothing I've said is inconsistent.

1) Why is charging a profit for housing morally wrong? You've yet to explain this. All other basic necessities get charged for, and at profit. Thats the only way that those necessities can continue to be provided. The farmer and grocer who provide you with access to food also need to make a living. A landlord is no different.

I've stated explicitly in reference to this question above. Twice I think. You can disagree with why I think it's wrong, that's fine, but I'm not repeating myself when it's easily sought out in the thread.

2) How long would you give a landlord time to find a new tenant before you charged them these 'substantial fines' for having a vacant property? Its not like you can find tenants overnight. And sometimes in certain areas the tenants just don't exist. There are whole neighborhoods in Chicago where there is literally nobody living there. The people who own the properties can't do anything with them. Nobody will rent from them, the value of the properties is far less than what they paid for them, they're quite literally screwed. At least the tenants could leave to greener pastures. I would say its morally wrong to punish someone because they can't do the impossible task you've demanded of them.

If tenants left prior to the end of their lease of their own accord, maybe you get a month, if it was the end of their tenancy agreement, or the landlord terminated it, then zero. The whole point for me is to move housing stock into state ownership, so none of your issues are a problem.

1) No you haven't. You just say its evil because its damaging to the economy, without any actual proof or logical explanation of how it damages the economy.

2) How does having the government own all the housing solve any of the problems that "landlords are evil!". You're really creating a situation where everybody is a tenant of the biggest landlord of all time, and they have no choice in the matter. And if you think getting your landlord to fix the waterpipes is a pain now, having the government do it would take even longer. At least with a private person as a landlord, I could track them down to talk about any problems. With the government, I'd have to fill out masses of paperwork and wade through mountains of red tape for even a minor problem. Worse still, you probably couldn't even do any repairs yourself because your entire house is government property. Sure, you might be able to go fix the pipe yourself, but you'd be legally prevented from doing that because the government would have to do it.

Existing government run housing in all countries are universally considered dumps. Why you would want to force that situation on every single person is beyond me.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

You're not giving me much to work with here. Why specifically didn't it work? Is this social housing or houses to buy? What do you mean by 'clientel for its party'?

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


2) How does having the government own all the housing solve any of the problems that "landlords are evil!". You're really creating a situation where everybody is a tenant of the biggest landlord of all time, and they have no choice in the matter. And if you think getting your landlord to fix the waterpipes is a pain now, having the government do it would take even longer. At least with a private person as a landlord, I could track them down to talk about any problems. With the government, I'd have to fill out masses of paperwork and wade through mountains of red tape for even a minor problem. Worse still, you probably couldn't even do any repairs yourself because your entire house is government property. Sure, you might be able to go fix the pipe yourself, but you'd be legally prevented from doing that because the government would have to do it.

Existing government run housing in all countries are universally considered dumps. Why you would want to force that situation on every single person is beyond me.

A) I don't want the state to own all housing (I actually would in an ideal post-capitalist world, but not any time at all soon).
B) See above re: council housing here. My experience of council housing is limited to Fife and Glasgow, but: people generally think it's decent, councils vary but on the whole aren't bad at upkeep, people have individual named case workers that are their point of contact and responsible for their home, you can do much of the upkeep yourself, moreso than with many private landlords, and there are huge and relentless calls to provide more of it.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

You're not giving me much to work with here. Why specifically didn't it work? Is this social housing or houses to buy? What do you mean by 'clientel for its party'?

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.

I don't think there's a lack of it.(this might vary on geography). The problem is that they are all in an absolutely horrendous state because people living in those had zero respect for these properties and no self respect or self agency because reasons...

I know I live in one and we've viewed many. We had to put in a lot of our own money to do it up and make it liaveble and we are not even allowed to buy it... the next people moving in afterwards will likely be some twads and wreck it within a year and make it unliveable again. At which point do you just say no to government assisted housing?

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

You're not giving me much to work with here. Why specifically didn't it work? Is this social housing or houses to buy? What do you mean by 'clientel for its party'?

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.

Social housing is in switzerland generally a demand of Center left parties..
It didn't work because Zürich is left, Zürich regulated the market to death and has a massive Pool of social housing, which is filled to the brim with Party members.

Government holding significant market sway is Automatically tied to the party and integrity of the people in charge at that time.
Are you now seeing the issue?
You complained about companies having enough power to dry out supply and inflate prices due to market power. Good, a proper cartel /monopoly law of propperly enforced would solve the issue just aswell.

What do you think can and will happen if questionable groups get access to a monopoly though?

And belive me, I've seen very questionable behaviour in my Service to the state.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Social housing is in switzerland generally a demand of Center left parties..
It didn't work because Zürich is left, Zürich regulated the market to death and has a massive Pool of social housing, which is filled to the brim with Party members.

Government holding significant market sway is Automatically tied to the party and integrity of the people in charge at that time.
Are you now seeing the issue?
You complained about companies having enough power to dry out supply and inflate prices due to market power. Good, a proper cartel /monopoly law of propperly enforced would solve the issue just aswell.

What do you think can and will happen if questionable groups get access to a monopoly though?

And belive me, I've seen very questionable behaviour in my Service to the state.

There's around 415,000 people in Zurich and about a fifth live in social housing/cooperatives, right? ca.83,000 people. Your saying the overwhelming majority of those (or at least a significant number, even if it's one per household, are affiliated with one party? Wild.

How does the cooperative housing work? That sounds interesting.

In any case, from the few articles I've just whipped up to skim, all stress that the Swiss housing sector is unique in Europe, so I'm not sure how representative it is. I personally have no fears about drastically increasing the stock available to councils in the UK. Our systems for awarding houses are pretty transparent and fairly isolated from parties, if awash with red tape.

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Social housing is in switzerland generally a demand of Center left parties..
It didn't work because Zürich is left, Zürich regulated the market to death and has a massive Pool of social housing, which is filled to the brim with Party members.

Government holding significant market sway is Automatically tied to the party and integrity of the people in charge at that time.
Are you now seeing the issue?
You complained about companies having enough power to dry out supply and inflate prices due to market power. Good, a proper cartel /monopoly law of propperly enforced would solve the issue just aswell.

What do you think can and will happen if questionable groups get access to a monopoly though?

And belive me, I've seen very questionable behaviour in my Service to the state.

There's around 415,000 people in Zurich and about a fifth live in social housing/cooperatives, right? ca.83,000 people. Your saying the overwhelming majority of those (or at least a significant number, even if it's one per household, are affiliated with one party? Wild.

How does the cooperative housing work? That sounds interesting.

In any case, from the few articles I've just whipped up to skim, all stress that the Swiss housing sector is unique in Europe, so I'm not sure how representative it is. I personally have no fears about drastically increasing the stock available to councils in the UK. Our systems for awarding houses are pretty transparent and fairly isolated from parties, if awash with red tape.

Swiss housing sector is comparable to London or any large metropolit Region that is booming.

Cooperative housing works like any Cooperative just with housing as focus.
Altough i heard that economical form is a bit of a swiss thing.

Red tape btw is an issue. Cue DDR.

 Argive wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

You're not giving me much to work with here. Why specifically didn't it work? Is this social housing or houses to buy? What do you mean by 'clientel for its party'?

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.

I don't think there's a lack of it.(this might vary on geography).

No doubt it varies by area - but in June last year there were a million families waiting on council houses in England, with two thirds of them having already waited more than a year, and council house overcrowding hit a record high in January.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/09/more-than-1m-families-waiting-for-social-housing-in-england
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/31/overcrowding-social-housing-england

 Argive wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

You're not giving me much to work with here. Why specifically didn't it work? Is this social housing or houses to buy? What do you mean by 'clientel for its party'?

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.

I don't think there's a lack of it.(this might vary on geography). The problem is that they are all in an absolutely horrendous state because people living in those had zero respect for these properties and no self respect or self agency because reasons...

I know I live in one and we've viewed many. We had to put in a lot of our own money to do it up and make it liaveble and we are not even allowed to buy it... the next people moving in afterwards will likely be some twads and wreck it within a year and make it unliveable again. At which point do you just say no to government assisted housing?

Well, I think its definitely important to have some government assisted housing. But expanding it into a standard living arrangement for anyone other than the poor is a bad idea. The tenants though should be held to higher standards too.

My ideal solution to housing for those who can't afford their own places would be as follows,

Cities would build government housing units that would be required to be serviced by public transportation(be that buses or trains or whatever), the number of units would be based on some % of the local population. Residents wouldn't pay any rent, however they would be required to maintain basic standards of behavior. IE: No damage could be done to the units. No excessive trash. No illegal activity. Units would be inspected on at least a monthly basis. The units themselves would either be apartment complexes or in denser areas would be larger apartment buildings. To save money and space, the apartments would have shared kitchen spaces. Violations of behavior rules and damaging the units would result in sentences of labor to pay restitution.

This would be paid for by scaling back existing social programs such as rent subsidies and changing unemployment benefits to put people to work on public works projects like repairing roads in exchange for food and some small amount of pay.

Basically, just give people who are destitute a place they can live with a roof over their heads til they can find something better, but they'd have to maintain basic standards of behavior and work on public projects in exchange.

Just bring back workhouses. Go the whole hog!

I've never had a pleasant experience with landlords in my life, problem with renting someone elses property is they will...well..literally lord over it.

nfe wrote:

 Argive wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

You're not giving me much to work with here. Why specifically didn't it work? Is this social housing or houses to buy? What do you mean by 'clientel for its party'?

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.

I don't think there's a lack of it.(this might vary on geography).

No doubt it varies by area - but in June last year there were a million families waiting on council houses in England, with two thirds of them having already waited more than a year, and council house overcrowding hit a record high in January.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/09/more-than-1m-families-waiting-for-social-housing-in-england
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/31/overcrowding-social-housing-england

How many of those are people who are already living accommodation(private or corporate landlords) paid for by govt. due to housing benefits and also waiting on housing, and how many are people who can and do afford to pay rent(otherwise they would be homeless?) but want cheaper housing to better their quality of life so they can go on holidays and etc but not do the extra work and effort?? And how many people genuinely need housing??

Ok lets spit ball here, a million households... If we assume there's on average 3 people at each household that indicates a total population of 4.5% of the UK where people are on the waiting lists.

The unemployment rate of 3.8%. So we can assume 3.8 of the 4.5 are already being recipients of housing benefits in private or corporate landlord accommodations right? Broadly speaking. So that leaves say 1% of people who are waiting on social housing.

25% of the population is renting privately by the end of the year 2021(https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/12/one-in-four-households-in-britain-will-rent-privately-by-end-of-2021-says-report). I would think if the rental prices are that unaffordable the waiting list would be close to 20%. Some people are happy to rent and don't want to buy and would rather get smashed, go on holiday and party I guess....

When you have government that is throwing money at hovels for people to live in are you surprised market prices go up??



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Argive wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you actually had bothered to read what i wrote earlier regarding Zürich one of the most expensive cities on this Ball of misery then you would understand my issue with having state owned market controll.

But alas, you'd rather seem to stand on an ideological soapbox then propperly argue so I for one consider this done.

In fact as an exemple even Zürich with a oh so left leaning policy of building more cheap space to rent to keep prices low has actually not solved anything and rather produced clientel for it's Party. Having solved no issue.
Other exemple Zug, right leaning this time, the only positive thing to say is that they didn't waste tax money for clientelism

You're not giving me much to work with here. Why specifically didn't it work? Is this social housing or houses to buy? What do you mean by 'clientel for its party'?

Council housing here is ok. Only problem is that there's a horrendous lack of it after decades of selling it off and deliberately failing to replace it.

I don't think there's a lack of it.(this might vary on geography). The problem is that they are all in an absolutely horrendous state because people living in those had zero respect for these properties and no self respect or self agency because reasons...

I know I live in one and we've viewed many. We had to put in a lot of our own money to do it up and make it liaveble and we are not even allowed to buy it... the next people moving in afterwards will likely be some twads and wreck it within a year and make it unliveable again. At which point do you just say no to government assisted housing?

Well, I think its definitely important to have some government assisted housing. But expanding it into a standard living arrangement for anyone other than the poor is a bad idea. The tenants though should be held to higher standards too.

My ideal solution to housing for those who can't afford their own places would be as follows,

Cities would build government housing units that would be required to be serviced by public transportation(be that buses or trains or whatever), the number of units would be based on some % of the local population. Residents wouldn't pay any rent, however they would be required to maintain basic standards of behavior. IE: No damage could be done to the units. No excessive trash. No illegal activity. Units would be inspected on at least a monthly basis. The units themselves would either be apartment complexes or in denser areas would be larger apartment buildings. To save money and space, the apartments would have shared kitchen spaces. Violations of behavior rules and damaging the units would result in sentences of labor to pay restitution.

This would be paid for by scaling back existing social programs such as rent subsidies and changing unemployment benefits to put people to work on public works projects like repairing roads in exchange for food and some small amount of pay.

Basically, just give people who are destitute a place they can live with a roof over their heads til they can find something better, but they'd have to maintain basic standards of behavior and work on public projects in exchange.

Yeah. I agree there are solutions I would like to see implemented.
Can you imagine the outrage some people would be told they have to work to receive states benfits?? (I'm only speaking for the UK).
This thread will get locked any minute now so sadly we will not be able to discuss these ideas at length.

Bottom line is, if you are on dakka you are already in the 1% (western society) of the world. So why the bichin?
There are ethical ways to conduct yourself as a business, a landlord an employee, a enant etc. and thats all you can do unless you run for parliament/start your own party movement. .