Switch Theme:

Another Reason You Will Never Retire.....  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord




Lake County, Illinois

Yeah, I mean, you've got almost everything way better. To complain that house prices have gone up in places that have grown tremendously in the last 50 years just sounds like whining.

And our life expectancy isn't much different than Germany's, even though we have a much higher obesity rate. Maybe that is somewhat an issue with the healthcare system. Doctors should probably more often be telling people to eat better an exercise more instead of prescribing them more medication and doing more procedures. But is that because they are trying to get more money out of people, or are they giving people what they want? Ultimately your health, like most things, is always going to be your own responsibility.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

You know how "comparisons between countries on this sort of statistics is tricky" has already been explained earlier in the thread, right?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Seriously, this thread might as well be renamed "people who don't understand academic concepts mock said concepts".

I was thinking "Gibs Me Dat for Free Because I'm as good as my WW2 Vet Grandpa".


Also, a strawman is apparently one of the concepts that people struggle with...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 03:14:31


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know how "comparisons between countries on this sort of statistics is tricky" has already been explained earlier in the thread, right?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Seriously, this thread might as well be renamed "people who don't understand academic concepts mock said concepts".

I was thinking "Gibs Me Dat for Free Because I'm as good as my WW2 Vet Grandpa".


Also, a strawman is apparently one of the concepts that people struggle with...
I am reasonably certain he is unaware of the irony in his statement.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know how "comparisons between countries on this sort of statistics is tricky" has already been explained earlier in the thread, right?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Seriously, this thread might as well be renamed "people who don't understand academic concepts mock said concepts".

I was thinking "Gibs Me Dat for Free Because I'm as good as my WW2 Vet Grandpa".


Also, a strawman is apparently one of the concepts that people struggle with...
I am reasonably certain he is unaware of the irony in his statement.

It's not even half a strawman, more like a pile of it.

And also hillarious considering he won't even realise that his own position is more then questionable.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Yeah, I mean, you've got almost everything way better. To complain that house prices have gone up in places that have grown tremendously in the last 50 years just sounds like whining.

And our life expectancy isn't much different than Germany's, even though we have a much higher obesity rate. Maybe that is somewhat an issue with the healthcare system. Doctors should probably more often be telling people to eat better an exercise more instead of prescribing them more medication and doing more procedures. But is that because they are trying to get more money out of people, or are they giving people what they want? Ultimately your health, like most things, is always going to be your own responsibility.


I think part of it is the fear or hurting people's feelings these days. If someone gets told to exercise more or eat better by their doctor, they post a video complaining about how they were 'shamed' and that the doc didn't take them seriously.

It could possibly be a financial issue too, but we have the same here, and we have a socialised healthcare system.

I believe that the government should incentivise things that promote better physical activity. Theres a dire lack of education on the importance of strength, which I believe is a huge cause, not just of workplace injury, but a lot of medical problems in the general population.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Yeah, I mean, you've got almost everything way better. To complain that house prices have gone up in places that have grown tremendously in the last 50 years just sounds like whining.


Again. People aren't necessarily complaining, and no one has complained that house prices have risen in absolute numbers, which you have been pretty fixated on. They've made the observation that living costs relative to earnings have increased, and you've denied that reality, without any supporting evidence. Given you've now abandoned even trying to handwave the data I'm guessing that you are more or less conceding this to be the case.

Saying 'it is more expensive to live relative to earnings' is not synonymous with 'my living conditions are horrendous' or 'everything should be free'. Or even 'everything should be as cheap as it was for gramps'.

Whether quality of life is worth the divergence in living costs and earnings, and exactly how we measure quality of life, are different, and worthwhile conversations, but they're very distinct from the straightforward, measurable relative inflation of worked earnings and expenditures which was being discussed.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 08:47:14


 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I believe that the government should incentivise things that promote better physical activity. Theres a dire lack of education on the importance of strength, which I believe is a huge cause, not just of workplace injury, but a lot of medical problems in the general population.


Immediately I think of how they'd incentivize, which would probably mean take my money to pay someone else to eat Subway instead of Hardee's. Surely there's a better way than depending on some unsustainable government entitlement to encourage people to do the right thing?

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Just Tony wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I believe that the government should incentivise things that promote better physical activity. Theres a dire lack of education on the importance of strength, which I believe is a huge cause, not just of workplace injury, but a lot of medical problems in the general population.


Immediately I think of how they'd incentivize, which would probably mean take my money to pay someone else to eat Subway instead of Hardee's. Surely there's a better way than depending on some unsustainable government entitlement to encourage people to do the right thing?


i doubt the government would do so, but let's just ignore the fact that public education could do it easily.
Alternatively just reimplement conscription, that oughta solve that issue really fast, not only that the state also gets a shitton of cheap labour and can also educate alot more people on gunsafety. Of course that however would also mean that the government would have to expand civil rights, as in implementing institution for higher participation of the average citizen.


Further, finaly banning corn siroop, could also solve some issues aswell.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 08:43:22


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 Just Tony wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I believe that the government should incentivise things that promote better physical activity. Theres a dire lack of education on the importance of strength, which I believe is a huge cause, not just of workplace injury, but a lot of medical problems in the general population.


Immediately I think of how they'd incentivize, which would probably mean take my money to pay someone else to eat Subway instead of Hardee's. Surely there's a better way than depending on some unsustainable government entitlement to encourage people to do the right thing?


The UK government has instituted a sugar tax on soft drinks to try and discourage high sugar content (a levy payable directly from the manufacturer to HMRC) and some folks have lobbied for similar penalties on high fat/high sugar ready meals.

Ignoring that fat isn't really a problem, I don't think putting levies that will be passed onto the customer on what are generally low cost foods often bought by poorer (in time and money) persons is a good way to go about things, but modifying prices on certain foodstuffs could be - we need to incentivise healthy foods rather than penalise unhealthy ones. Even in the ready meal market there are healthy options, they're just expensive.

That said, the main factors in unhealthy eating are poverty, lack of education, and lack of time, all of which need considerably more comprehensive, structural solutions.

Decimating school funding and PE being one of the first things to feel the hit definitely hasn't helped here.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 10:09:05


 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

I know plenty of people who plan to rent for the rest of their lives, or at least the foreseeable future, and put their savings into stocks and shares, or pensions etc, rather than trying to save for a house.


That is probably because actually saving up enough money to buy a house is extremely difficult without help, especially in areas of the country where house prices are rising at an incredible pace, such as London, Brighton, Bristol etc.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar





England

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Yeah, I mean, you've got almost everything way better. To complain that house prices have gone up in places that have grown tremendously in the last 50 years just sounds like whining.

And our life expectancy isn't much different than Germany's, even though we have a much higher obesity rate. Maybe that is somewhat an issue with the healthcare system. Doctors should probably more often be telling people to eat better an exercise more instead of prescribing them more medication and doing more procedures. But is that because they are trying to get more money out of people, or are they giving people what they want? Ultimately your health, like most things, is always going to be your own responsibility.


I think part of it is the fear or hurting people's feelings these days. If someone gets told to exercise more or eat better by their doctor, they post a video complaining about how they were 'shamed' and that the doc didn't take them seriously.

It could possibly be a financial issue too, but we have the same here, and we have a socialised healthcare system.

I believe that the government should incentivise things that promote better physical activity. Theres a dire lack of education on the importance of strength, which I believe is a huge cause, not just of workplace injury, but a lot of medical problems in the general population.

As it happens, the NHS does try to incentivise weight loss and exercise. Doctors can even prescribe exercise! This comes in the form of subsidised gym/fitness club memberships, often with their own dedicated weight loss fitness plan by a personal trainer. I think the personal trainer is a vital component- it massively helps with motivation and compliance.

Unfortunately, subsidised is still often too much for people to afford, especially if they don't live near a gym. I grew up in a very rural location, and accessing any services becomes difficult in that environment. I've already come across people who can't afford even their standardised prescription charges for vital meds, so a lkt of people will not be able to engage with subsidised exercise easily

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

 Haighus wrote:


As it happens, the NHS does try to incentivise weight loss and exercise. Doctors can even prescribe exercise! This comes in the form of subsidised gym/fitness club memberships, often with their own dedicated weight loss fitness plan by a personal trainer. I think the personal trainer is a vital component- it massively helps with motivation and compliance.

Unfortunately, subsidised is still often too much for people to afford, especially if they don't live near a gym. I grew up in a very rural location, and accessing any services becomes difficult in that environment. I've already come across people who can't afford even their standardised prescription charges for vital meds, so a lkt of people will not be able to engage with subsidised exercise easily



I did not know that! That's certainly good, but at the same time, how many people actually go and follow it through?

I don't think affordability should really affect your fitness though. Walking or jogging (although that's bad for you) outside is free. You can do press ups and pull ups (if they have football goals or a tree) in a park or playing field. I used to do hill sprints in my local park. It was good enough for rocky.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 12:35:16


Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in se
Regular Dakkanaut





When it comes to landlords Adam Smith said it best

Adam Smith wrote:"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

They do sow.. They sow through paying for the upkeep on the property, they pay for the insurance on the property, and take the risk with the asset equity. In other words, all the big overheads.

The people who live in my house are only able to do so because I spend time and money maintaining the property for them. Without that they wouldn't be able to live in the house. Taking properties from landlords isn't going to magically solve any social housing crisis, despite what all the modern armchair socialists say.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar





England

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
 Haighus wrote:


As it happens, the NHS does try to incentivise weight loss and exercise. Doctors can even prescribe exercise! This comes in the form of subsidised gym/fitness club memberships, often with their own dedicated weight loss fitness plan by a personal trainer. I think the personal trainer is a vital component- it massively helps with motivation and compliance.

Unfortunately, subsidised is still often too much for people to afford, especially if they don't live near a gym. I grew up in a very rural location, and accessing any services becomes difficult in that environment. I've already come across people who can't afford even their standardised prescription charges for vital meds, so a lkt of people will not be able to engage with subsidised exercise easily



I did not know that! That's certainly good, but at the same time, how many people actually go and follow it through?

I don't think affordability should really affect your fitness though. Walking or jogging (although that's bad for you) outside is free. You can do press ups and pull ups (if they have football goals or a tree) in a park or playing field. I used to do hill sprints in my local park. It was good enough for rocky.

(Disclaimer: the following is a purely UK perspective relating to the state of health in the UK)

I have no idea how successful it is overall! I may go see if there are any studies on this.

I agree that exercise is freely available, which is why I think the personal trainer aspect is the most important. From talking to people I know who have used exercise on prescription, those who were most successful engaged with a PT and used regular PT meetings as motivation to keep going. So you could argue it is subsidised personal trainers more than subsidised exercise.

I think doctors do need to do more for health promotion, but it is often very difficult when it threatens the rapport between a patient and a healthcare professional. The doctor-patient relationship relies on trust and openness to be effective, and pointing out that someone is overweight and needs to change their diet/exercise regime can just cause them to stop engaging with healthcare altogether if done poorly (which can jeopardise other, more acute health issues). Also, a lot of doctors are overweight*, and it feels pretty hypocritical to tell others to lose weight if you are too... It doesn't help that consultations are becoming increasingly pressured for time, so unless a patient specifically presents regarding their weight loss, it is hard to justify bringing up an entire separate tangent about their weight when a doctor may already be running 30 minutes or more behind. 1 issue: 1 appointment and all that- holistic care is becoming harder and harder to offer. Such are the pressures of the modern NHS.

However, I recently saw a great poster by Cancer Research UK that displayed the greatest cancer risk factors with circles- each circle being sized in proportion to their risk. After smoking, obesity was the largest circle. This is not even considering the multitude of other ways obesity affects health. So clearly, more needs to be done.

I actually think the comparison with smoking is pretty apt. Both are essentially paediatric diseases that mainly manifest problems in later life. Most addictions start in minors, and most people start being overweight when they are still children. Once you are already overweight, it becomes very difficult to change that. How much is something started as a child personal responsibility?


*Being a doctor is ironically pretty terrible for your health.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
They do sow.. They sow through paying for the upkeep on the property, they pay for the insurance on the property, and take the risk with the asset equity. In other words, all the big overheads.

The people who live in my house are only able to do so because I spend time and money maintaining the property for them. Without that they wouldn't be able to live in the house.



Who bought the house? How much for and when?

Taking properties from landlords isn't going to magically solve any social housing crisis, despite what all the modern armchair socialists say.


Solve. No. Massively reduce house prices? Yes. Though no one in this thread advocated 'taking' houses from landlords. I mentioned a particular party's policy to put marginally higher controls on landlords to stop people getting £2000 a month for cupboards with damp in Camden.

If you are as good a landlord as you claim it might increase your annual outgoings by a (tax deductible) couple hundred quid.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 14:52:54


 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
They do sow.. They sow through paying for the upkeep on the property, they pay for the insurance on the property, and take the risk with the asset equity. In other words, all the big overheads.

If that were true, the landlords would be begging to offload the properties to their tenants at cut-price rates. You know, to absolve themselves of the massive financial burden of owning the house.

In reality, what happens is that for every penny put into maintenance, most landlords are pulling a pound back in rent. There's a reason that people buy property as an investment, and it's not because it's a risky private equity job.

Dealing with a general refurbishment once every fifteen years(new bathroom/kitchen/carpets/paintjob) and the odd repair (new boiler, roof patch, etc) is really not that expensive. It feels it at the time for the landlord, because they're bulky lump capital expenditures (you can easily spend five grand on a new kitchen). Insurance is not much either. Not when you're pulling in £1000+ a month as a minmum in rent and the overall value goes up by 2-3% a year. There's a reason landlords are on average raking it in.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 15:08:18



 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Rich people buying up properties to rent also drives up the price for anyone looking to buy properties, forcing them to rent instead of buy, leaving more room for the wealthy to buy even more, and so on.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

If they're bringing in 1000 in rent, Id be willing to bet the mortgage is around 800 plus. None of that is pure profit unless they own the property completely.

I spend money on repairs probably 3-4 months of the year, usually on stuff the tenants have broken. The average repair costs more than my small profit margin. All these things add up.

I'd be willing to bet that if some of you got some experience as property managers you'd change your tune.

For example, the months my property has been unnocupied, my outgoings have been doubled, to the point of having nothing left from my paycheck for the month. Luckily I have savings to cover such events, but it's not an easy ride. The only reason I'm doing it is so I have the income to buy a forever home with my family when I leave the forces. I wouldn't bother otherwise as its not worth the hassle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Haighus wrote:

(Disclaimer: the following is a purely UK perspective relating to the state of health in the UK)

I have no idea how successful it is overall! I may go see if there are any studies on this.

I agree that exercise is freely available, which is why I think the personal trainer aspect is the most important. From talking to people I know who have used exercise on prescription, those who were most successful engaged with a PT and used regular PT meetings as motivation to keep going. So you could argue it is subsidised personal trainers more than subsidised exercise.

I think doctors do need to do more for health promotion, but it is often very difficult when it threatens the rapport between a patient and a healthcare professional. The doctor-patient relationship relies on trust and openness to be effective, and pointing out that someone is overweight and needs to change their diet/exercise regime can just cause them to stop engaging with healthcare altogether if done poorly (which can jeopardise other, more acute health issues). Also, a lot of doctors are overweight*, and it feels pretty hypocritical to tell others to lose weight if you are too... It doesn't help that consultations are becoming increasingly pressured for time, so unless a patient specifically presents regarding their weight loss, it is hard to justify bringing up an entire separate tangent about their weight when a doctor may already be running 30 minutes or more behind. 1 issue: 1 appointment and all that- holistic care is becoming harder and harder to offer. Such are the pressures of the modern NHS.

However, I recently saw a great poster by Cancer Research UK that displayed the greatest cancer risk factors with circles- each circle being sized in proportion to their risk. After smoking, obesity was the largest circle. This is not even considering the multitude of other ways obesity affects health. So clearly, more needs to be done.

I actually think the comparison with smoking is pretty apt. Both are essentially paediatric diseases that mainly manifest problems in later life. Most addictions start in minors, and most people start being overweight when they are still children. Once you are already overweight, it becomes very difficult to change that. How much is something started as a child personal responsibility?


*Being a doctor is ironically pretty terrible for your health.


I'd be mortified if I was told to lose weight. I'd be exercising immediately and adjusting my diet. It can seem like a lot of lazy excuses sometimes. In my opinion, unless you have a legitimate thyroid condition, the only one responsible for your weight/health is you. Get up and move.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 16:40:15


Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
If they're bringing in 1000 in rent, Id be willing to bet the mortgage is around 800 plus.


On a BtL?! Not likely. I'd get £1k easy a month for my flat. Cost 215k and we've since double glazed it and stuck in new kitchen and bathroom. Lets say that's added their cost in value and it's at 245k. If we took out a BtL mortgage on that full value on 5 year fixed term we could be paying about 250 a month.

None of that is pure profit unless they own the property completely.


Huge numbers of landlords do own properties outright. Many more have BtL mortgages where they're only paying the interest.

I'd be willing to bet that if some of you got some experience as property managers you'd change your tune.


As it t goes our financial advisor did suggest we start renting properties because 'you could easily earn more than you do for far less work'. We do admittedly have quite a lot of capital.

The only reason I'm doing it is so I have the income to buy a forever home with my family when I leave the forces. I wouldn't bother otherwise as its not worth the hassle.


So it's profitable. You are making capital from capital. It's not a turgid, thankless task.

Who bought it? When and for how much? I find myself with a gut feeling that maybe it was your parents'...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 17:10:16


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

I don't know the specifics in the UK, but owning rental properties is one of the great ways in the US to build generational wealth. Not tons, and the margins get thinner the less of the work you can do yourself, but the tax code is so favorable to landlords its damn near a subsidy.

So, the way to do it is find a property in an area where people want to rent. This could be near a university, in a densely populated area, near a mass transit hub, or anywhere you have a short term population. buy the house, taking on debt to better leverage your down payment.

so, going into this, you have a loan, with interest, to repay, along with property taxes, insurance, and repairs/maintenance. You also need to find tenants, and occasionally evict tenants. You have expenses, in other words.

Now, unless you are incredibly bad at business, you will be making money. Even if you use a rental company to actually manage the property, gross rents will exceed gross costs by a pretty healthy margin. (For fun, look at monthly rents vs. property costs in any neighborhood. Do the math and you'll see that there's meat on that bone.)

Now, where does the magic come in? Depreciation! So, lets say you end up earning some money after paying all of your expenses. Now you have to pay taxes... except you also get to "write off" a percentage of the purchase price of the property each year to account for the loss of useful life. It gets complicated (buildings can be depreciated, but not land), but essentially you can deduct 3.8% of the purchase price of the property every year as an expense, which helps shield you from paying taxes.

The downside of depereciated a long term asset like a building is that when you sell it, you subtract all depreciation from what you paid to determine any profit. so if you hold a building for 15 years (half the usual depreceation life) after paying $200,000, then when you sell it, your taxable profit is based on you spending $100k, not $200k. So if you sell after 15 years for $250k, you have a taxable profit of $150k.

But wait! There is one more great trick in the tax code. If you inherit property, you no longer look to the purchase price to calculate profit, but rather the fair market value at the time of inheritance. So if you father bought a rental property for $100k, took 30 years of depreciation against his income, and hten dies, leaving it to you, you can either 1) sell it with no taxable profit, or 2) lease it out again, with the ability to depreciate it for 30 more years!

At it's most extreme, a family can buy a rental property, pay minimal taxes on the income, and leave a much more expensive property to their children, all without ever paying income taxes on the increase in that property.
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

nfe wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
If they're bringing in 1000 in rent, Id be willing to bet the mortgage is around 800 plus.


On a BtL?! Not likely.

None of that is pure profit unless they own the property completely.


Huge numbers of landlords do own properties outright. Many more have BtL mortgages where they're only paying the interest.



I'd be willing to bet that if some of you got some experience as property managers you'd change your tune.


As it t goes our financial advisor did suggest we start renting properties because 'you could easily earn more than you do for far less work'. We do admittedly have quite a lot of capital.

The only reason I'm doing it is so I have the income to buy a forever home with my family when I leave the forces. I wouldn't bother otherwise as its not worth the hassle.


So it's profitable. You are making capital from capital. It's not a turgid, thankless task.

Who bought it? When and for how much? I find myself with a gut feeling that maybe it was your parents'...



No. I bought it. And yeah of course its profitable at the end that's the whole point. I want to make money to provide a house for my family later.

And yeah, you're talking about interest only mortgages. But even then, the value of the house is still owed at the end of the term.


Let me put it another way, let's say Labour won and those policies were implemented. What do you think the effect would be? Do you really think those slum lords, or rich boys would really relinquish their properties? No, they'd chimf a bit about having to pay more and do property 'MOTs' and all that, but they'll still be able to pay it.

It's going to price small property owners like me who are just looking to provide for their families out, and put me in with all those other renters, the very ones they're trying to provide for.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 17:12:41


Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
nfe wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
If they're bringing in 1000 in rent, Id be willing to bet the mortgage is around 800 plus.


On a BtL?! Not likely.

None of that is pure profit unless they own the property completely.


Huge numbers of landlords do own properties outright. Many more have BtL mortgages where they're only paying the interest.



I'd be willing to bet that if some of you got some experience as property managers you'd change your tune.


As it t goes our financial advisor did suggest we start renting properties because 'you could easily earn more than you do for far less work'. We do admittedly have quite a lot of capital.

The only reason I'm doing it is so I have the income to buy a forever home with my family when I leave the forces. I wouldn't bother otherwise as its not worth the hassle.


So it's profitable. You are making capital from capital. It's not a turgid, thankless task.

Who bought it? When and for how much? I find myself with a gut feeling that maybe it was your parents'...



No. I bought it.


Fair enough, you've ignored the question several times across a couple threads and didn't seem to understand buy to let mortgages do I assumed. My bad.

And yeah, you're talking about interest only mortgages. But even then, the value of the house is still owed at the end of the term.


At which point you remortgage and continue to pay interest only.

Basing what the average landlord pays on normal mortgages is absolute nonsense, mate. The vast majority have BtLs or own the properties.

You're £1k rent = £800 mortgage is more like £1k rent = £200-250 mortgage if you had no deposit. Since you need a higher deposit for BtL, it's probably much lower than that.

You can't bemoan the life of the landlord based on personal experience (despite still profiting and getting a mortgage paid on your behalf, essentially gifting you a savings account with monster interest) because you're doing it so much more inefficiently than most of them.


EDIT: to address your own edit: how much do you think this would cost you? Having to pass a property MOT? If it's substantial, the place is a dive and you deserve to be punished. If it isn't, can you really not find 1-200 tax-deductible quid once a year, if it was even nearly that high?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 17:31:25


 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
If they're bringing in 1000 in rent, Id be willing to bet the mortgage is around 800 plus. None of that is pure profit unless they own the property completely.

I said a thousand because that's really the bottom of the basement for a 1-bed here in London. And many landlords do own properties outright even if you don't.

I spend money on repairs probably 3-4 months of the year, usually on stuff the tenants have broken. The average repair costs more than my small profit margin. All these things add up.

If you're spending more money on repairs than you're extracting in rent, you've either invested in some truly godawful crapholes that are falling to pieces (your poor choice) or rented to absolute maniacs (also your poor choice).

Not to mention that you don't get to just handwave the rent taken off and put into the mortgage as if it were money you no longer have, money that you never see again. That money going into the mortgage is effectively like a savings account. With continual property price increases, that £800 a month you're tucking into the mortgage will probably have turned into £8000 of value in a decade. Worst case scenario and it stays the same, you'll own the property outright. It's certainly no money wasted, it's money invested.

I'd be willing to bet that if some of you got some experience as property managers you'd change your tune.

We're not idiotic enough to believe that you pay off a mortgage on additional properties out of the goodness of your kind charitable heart, no.

For example, the months my property has been unnocupied, my outgoings have been doubled, to the point of having nothing left from my paycheck for the month. Luckily I have savings to cover such events, but it's not an easy ride. The only reason I'm doing it is so I have the income to buy a forever home with my family when I leave the forces. I wouldn't bother otherwise as its not worth the hassle.

That's your decision to have made to borrow money on a commercial loan to buy a property. Nobody made you do it. Complaining 'Oh woe is me, I don't always have someone else's income to leech off to pay for my long term investment plan 100% of the time' isn't quite the heartrending story you think it is.


Contrary to what the above may make you think, I have no personal problem with landlords or buy to let. I just recognise that when you (or me, or anyone else) buys a house, lets it out, and uses the income to pay off the mortgage or any other personal cost? They're effectively leveraging their good credit score to become a parasite on the income of somebody who has a worse one. Renting is fine for many people who don't want to be tied down, or have other reasons for not wanting property (prefer to spend it on experiences, or travel or whatever). But for every person like that, there's a hundred stuck in effective feudal servitude to anonymous landlords. They work their arses off and the landlord sucks most of the long term reward out of their earnings and puts it to work in the landlords favour.

In your case, you're taking their earnings, and putting it into what is effectively a long term investment fund for yourself. Yes, it may sometimes have a higher short term cost. Yes, it may make you work a little on weekends. It's like any investment fund where you can't withdraw the money at a moment's notice. But just like those funds, when the time for renewal comes up, your overall net assets have increased considerably. It's why you do it. The profit is long term.

The problem is that when your kids inherit, they'll own the asset without the long term slog to get it. If they're financially prudent? They buy another two or three houses using the one they got from you as security. Assuming they play their cards right, they'll get mortagages to cover those. And every few years that goes by, their net worth increases, meaning they can get more mortgages with the intent of getting renters to pay them. In the lifespan that it took you to amass one to three properties, your kids will use them as a springboard to get quadruple that. And so on to the next generation. Assuming there's no massive property crash, and they don't gamble and invest their money well? By the time it hits four generations down, they have an office which administrates it all for them whilst they sit on a yacht somewhere.

Meanwhile, your tenants who could never got a good credit score for whatever reason never have anything to pass on. Them and their kids will spend their lives toiling to hand over their earnings to increase the net wealth of you and yours. Hurrah for capitalism! Remember kids, the more money you have, the easier it is to make money...

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 17:32:05



 
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

Buy to let mortgages aren't always interest only. And when I said end of the term, I meant the property value is always owed, you don't just pay interest prices for the rest of your life. If anything interest only mortgages are riskier because if you end up in negative equity at that end point you're always going to owe more than you can sell up for.

I never said woe is me, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. I' m pretty happy that I'm a property owner. I want to make sure my families future is safe. I'm just saying that it's not a money pot or income for me at all. I have to work hard to keep it functioning correctly.

So let's say you've taken my property, and all the others previously rented out, then what? Who's going to own them? You've said yourself the people who are renting most likely have poor credit and or not enough income to get mortgages, so how are they going to afford the houses? They're not suddenly going to be affordable to the unqualified school leaver working in JD sports.

The property would have to be owned and maintained by the government, probably leading to increased taxes as they wouldn't be able to tax landlords if there arent any.

It's not feasible as I've already said. Redistribution of wealth does not work, without massive government intervention.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Buy to let mortgages aren't always interest only.


It is so overwhelmingly the majority that most money advice website treat it as a definition of BtL.

And when I said end of the term, I meant the property value is always owed, you don't just pay interest prices for the rest of your life. If anything interest only mortgages are riskier because if you end up in negative equity at that end point you're always going to owe more than you can sell up for.


Yes, you usually pay interest only forever - or sell the property or pay the balance in full. Usually you just remortgage every 2-5 years.

I never said woe is me, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. I' m pretty happy that I'm a property owner. I want to make sure my families future is safe. I'm just saying that it's not a money pot [i]or income for me at all. I have to work hard to keep it functioning correctly.


It is exactly that.

So let's say you've taken my property, and all the others previously rented out, then what? Who's going to own them? You've said yourself the people who are renting most likely have poor credit and or not enough income to get mortgages, so how are they going to afford the houses? They're not suddenly going to be affordable to the unqualified school leaver working in JD sports.


Who is advocating taking them? What are you talking about? Is a hundred quid a year going to sink most landlords?

The property would have to be owned and maintained by the government, probably leading to increased taxes as they wouldn't be able to tax landlords if there arent any.


Like social housing properties? That we used to have hundreds of thousands more of?

It's not feasible as I've already said. Redistribution of wealth does not work, without massive government intervention.


You've claimed it's not feasible, with fallacious anecdotes as evidence.
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






I’d steer clear of Interest Only mortgages, as they rely on a linked investment product. So you’re still having to pay in, the cost isn’t that much lower, and you’re constantly exposed to the risk of the investment product underperforming.

There was a massive banking scandal involving such products in the UK, only eclipsed by PPI (glad to see the back of that one, personally).

I’ve known peeps for whom it worked out, and that’s all fine and dandy. I’ve also known peeps forced to downsize quite drastically when the investment choked.

My main concern now are retirement mortgages. Basically you release the equity in your house - or at least a portion of it. And for as long as you live, the interest keeps on accruing. Yes it can help keep a roof over vulnerable heads, and that’s one thing. But it also means many estates losing the main property to service that debt when the last borrower snuffs it. Straight to the bank, do not pass Go, do not collect any form of inheritance.

Then there’s the same thing I’ve been warning of for years. Mortgage PPI, and the next, inevitable economic downturn.

Regardless of what triggers it, it is coming. If it hits hard, mass redundancies up and down the UK. People who have borrowed to the hilt to get their mortgage in the first place may well struggle to find new employment at all, let alone one with sufficient income to service the mortgage.

MPPI used to be there to cover it. Accident, Sickness, Unemployment. If any of those hit, the policy kicked in and paid your mortgage. For how long varied product to product, but average was 12 months.

Except, with the PPI scandal, a lot of home owners claimed it was mis-sold. And that involves it being cancelled straight off the bat, refund or not.

So all those at risk of unemployment? All those who might struggle to find a similarly salaried replacement job? No 12 month cushion to get ducks in a row. They’ll be on the Repossession Express.

And when Repossession goes up, auctions go up, house prices come down. Knock on effect is negative equity for those who still have their jobs. Which means they’ll struggle to move up the property ladder. The whole system seizes.

So if you know a home owner, have a chat with them about making sure they’ve got suitable coverage. Mortgage Repayment Insurance is usually a pretty good deal. Relatively inexpensive for its benefits. If they’ve no cover, now is the time, yeah?

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

I never said woe is me, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. I' m pretty happy that I'm a property owner. I want to make sure my families future is safe.

I apologise if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here; but it really sounds to me like you're trying to make being a landlord sound like this massively onerous task and risky investment for poor return.

When in reality, assuming you're not a mug charging well below market rent, have tenants from hell, or buy an absolute dump? It's easy money. The whole point of being a landlord, the whole reason that you and absolutely everyone else do it, is for the explicit purpose of leeching a large chunk of someone else's income away for little effort whilst building up a high value long term investment portfolio (aka property).

I mean, heck, you don't even have to rent. Property value goes up so fast here in London that people buy it as an investment choice on the assumption that just the net value of the property will increase faster than the equivalent value in investment fund interest. Hence all the empty 'luxury' flats. Which means that rental income in places like London is literally just the small cherry on the icing.

I'm just saying that it's not a money pot or income for me at all. I have to work hard to keep it functioning correctly.

Did you hear me saying how my girlfriend's parents did zero work bar a new carpet on a flat for the last twenty something years? Yet they were raking in over ten grand a year for that flat. Given they bought it for £25,000 back in '96, they've not only paid it off several times over, they now have an asset worth in the region of £400,000 for virtually no effort.

You may well be a more conscientous landlord than them, but the truth is, you work as hard as you want to as a landlord (assuming the basics are covered - heating, double glazing, etc), If you don't want to do any work at all, you just give it to an estate agent. You get less money, but then you really don't have to do any work for it!

So let's say you've taken my property, and all the others previously rented out, then what? Who's going to own them? You've said yourself the people who are renting most likely have poor credit and or not enough income to get mortgages, so how are they going to afford the houses? They're not suddenly going to be affordable to the unqualified school leaver working in JD sports.

Hey, I never claimed to have a solution. I'm just contesting the idea you seem to be pushing that it's hard work from the sweat on your brow for well-earned small potatoes. When in reality, you've decided to leverage your good financial standing to leech off people in less good financial positions to make your position even better still.

I know it sounds pretty morally loaded and offensive like that, but I'm honestly promise I'm not judging negatively you for it. Everyone does it, and you're just trying to (quite fairly) provide a reliable income stream for you and yours. It's just the system we all live in, unfortunately. It's the government's job to create new housing stock and thus make sure that the people at the bottom aren't too disadvantaged; not yours.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/18 20:24:13



 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Being a small time landlord won't make you rich, but it is probably the most reliable, high return investment you can make.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 19:56:42


 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Polonius wrote:
Being a small time landlord won't make you rich, but it is probably the most reliable, high return investment you can make.


I just wanted to say actually Pol, since I didn't comment earlier; that your post a little ways back was a pretty good one. Nobody else has mentioned it, and good forum contributions deserve acknowledgement.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 20:25:54



 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: