Greedy landlords rub their hands with glee as Londoners queue in the cold to buy flats

[editor]

Too angry sounds a hell of a lot like too lazy IMO.

There are good arguments to be made in favour of your opinion.

None are tremendously straightforward and all require a lot of hard work to be shown but the "throw your hands up in despair", "shaking of heads" and general "tutting" school of thought is extremely moronic and tends to characterise your attitude to London more and more.

Perhaps you are just getting old ---- but it seems as if you are also getting more and more intolerant and resentful as you do so.

I do a lot of work elsewhere to get across my opinions and beliefs but I'm afraid I'm not always able to find the time to post up a considered response to every single story that breaks. But seeing as you're being so critical here and accusing me of being 'lazy', may I ask what you're offering? What's your opinion?

 

[Diamond]

Too angry sounds a hell of a lot like too lazy IMO.

There are good arguments to be made in favour of your opinion.

None are tremendously straightforward and all require a lot of hard work to be shown but the "throw your hands up in despair", "shaking of heads" and general "tutting" school of thought is extremely moronic and tends to characterise your attitude to London more and more.

Perhaps you are just getting old [edit: no real names, thanks] but it seems as if you are also getting more and more intolerant and resentful as you do so.

e2a - apologies on the names front - didn't realise that the policy had categorically changed but will respond in due course accordingly.

 

[Diamond]

I do a lot of work elsewhere to get across my opinions and beliefs but I'm afraid I'm not always able to find the time to post up a considered response to every single story that breaks. But seeing as you're being so critical here and accusing me of being 'lazy', may I ask what you're offering? What's your opinion?

I really do need to snatch a few hours of sleep now but look forwards to "jousting" further on the morrow.

 

[editor]

I really do need to snatch a few hours of sleep now but look forwards to "jousting" further on the morrow.

I've no interest in 'jousting', but I can't say I like the tone of what you've written. I do what I can and think I put in a pretty good effort. How about you?

 

[editor]

e2a - apologies on the names front - didn't realise that the policy had categorically changed but will respond in due course accordingly.

The policy on posting up real names has been in place for over a decade!

 

[kabbes]

I 've not found that wear and tear in a property costs more than a normal the tax allowance.

I didn't say it does. I just said that 10% of rent is the HMRC figure, not reality.

In reality, it will depend on age and build quality. It could be a lot more than 10%, it could be a lot less. That's why I left it separate.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Wow.

That is the most stupid comment that I have seen on urban in many a year.

When you entered into an agreement to rent or take on a mortgage to buy your property, did you consider the wider, local social implications because, if not (and certainly you were not nor should have been an under obligation to do so), you fell foul of your own tentative rule? Is that what you suggest?

Truly ludicrous.

The fuck are you wittering on about?

Both sets of people mentioned in the article, were buying additional properties. One a buy to let, the other a weekend home in London for theatre trips ffs.

How does that not have an effect on those simply wanting to be able to afford a place to live?

 

[sim667]

The fuck are you wittering on about?

Both sets of people mentioned in the article, were buying additional properties. One a buy to let, the other a weekend home in London for theatre trips ffs.

How does that not have an effect on those simply wanting to be able to afford a place to live?

Is there any evidence to suggest (apart from the article) that none of the flats have been bought by first time buyers?

At the cost they were being sold at I doubt there was, but without knowing, it does undermine the discussion a little bit.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

The discussion used the article as a starting point though.

How many people have a spare 400K to drop on a second house? Or even a first house?

 

[maomao]

400k is not going to be a first time buy unless the household salaries are 90k+ or the buyer has some serious capital (savings/parental help) in place so even if they are 'first time' buyers we're not talking about your average families.

 

[sim667]

400k is not going to be a first time buy unless the household salaries are 90k+ or the buyer has some serious capital (savings/parental help) in place so even if they are 'first time' buyers we're not talking about your average families.

I don't think many "average" families could afford to live in some of the surrounding counties of london, let alone london itself.

 

[maomao]

I don't think many "average" families could afford to live in some of the surrounding counties of london, let alone london itself.

Exactly. So the presence of first time buyers or otherwise is a red-herring.

 

[killer b]

I think talk of cackling BTL landlords is a bit of red herring as well tbh. The problem isn't caused by evil bastards trying to squeeze every possible penny out of hard-working families (although there's certainly some of that involved) - The problem is caused by homes in London (and to a lesser degree elsewhere) being a high yeild but safe investment vehicle.

Getting outraged about the people who're buying these flats & the people building them is pointless and misses the target - they may be soulless scum, but they're just soulless scum who've seen a low risk, legal opportunity to make a shitload of money, and taken it. These people will always be with us, until the market changes - through economics or law - to make it less attractive to them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wow.

That is the most stupid comment that I have seen on urban in many a year.

Ah, so you never review your own posts. Fair enough.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think talk of cackling BTL landlords is a bit of red herring as well tbh. The problem isn't caused by evil bastards trying to squeeze every possible penny out of hard-working families (although there's certainly some of that involved) - The problem is caused by homes in London (and to a lesser degree elsewhere) being a high yeild but safe investment vehicle.

Perceived as safe, anyway.

Getting outraged about the people who're buying these flats & the people building them is pointless and misses the target - they may be soulless scum, but they're just soulless scum who've seen a low risk, legal opportunity to make a shitload of money, and taken it. These people will always be with us, until the market changes - through economics or law - to make it less attractive to them.

So effectively they'll always be with us, 'cos none of the contesting parties will do more than tinker around the edges when in power.

 

[killer b]

This side of the revolution, at least.

 

[Diamond]

I've no interest in 'jousting', but I can't say I like the tone of what you've written. I do what I can and think I put in a pretty good effort. How about you?

Yes, I also do what I can and that amounts to a pretty damn substantial amount of pro bono housing law work in Lambeth FYI, with some, although not nearly enough, successes for tenants.

But the idea that you should restrict the market economy because you don't like who gets what - that direct interference is the way forwards because someone might want to buy something who you don't particurlarly you like, which you don't particularly approve of and which doesn't sit right with your broader prejudices is tyranically dumb, especially when you show zero appetite for proving your arguments, such as they are, in practice.

 

[Diamond]

"People queue to buy something" should have been the thread title.

The fact that it was not demonstrates how lacking in analysis the OP was.

 

[editor]

But the idea that you should restrict the market economy because you don't like who gets what - that direct interference is the way forwards because someone might want to buy something who you don't particurlarly you like, which you don't particularly approve of and which doesn't sit right with your broader prejudices is tyranically dumb, especially when you show zero appetite for proving your arguments, such as they are, in practice.

My 'arguments' can be seen every single day presented on two hugely popular, non-profit websites which I set up. My political opinions and beliefs and underlined by the absence of adverts on those websites, and what money that does come in (via the beer we make and distribute for no profit) goes towards local good causes.

And you call me lazy?

 

[editor]

"People queue to buy something" should have been the thread title.

The fact that it was not demonstrates how lacking in analysis the OP was.

It was a quick post on a thread not a fucking dissertation.

But greedy? Yes.

K Chiu, 37, a restaurant owner from Hong Kong, told the Evening Standard that he hoped house prices and rents would skyrocket even further in London so he could make more money.

“I’m buying this as an investment in London, a buy-to-let. It will be amazing after it’s completed and I think the area around it will have developed really nicely.

 

[Diamond]

My 'arguments' can be seen every single day presented on two hugely popular, non-profit websites which I set up. My political opinions and beliefs and underlined by the absence of adverts on those websites, and what money that does come in (via the beer we make and distribute for no profit) goes towards local good causes.

And you call me lazy?

But they are not concise enough to be summarised on this thread in a sentence or two?

Generally, arguments that require greater exposition or that rely simply on reference are poor ones...

 

[editor]

But they are not concise enough to be summarised on this thread in a sentence or two?

Generally, arguments that require greater exposition or that rely simply on reference are poor ones...

I'll be sure to check through all your previous posts to see if they match up to the gold standard for posts you've just unilaterally declared for the forum.

Sometimes a post is just there to serve as a spark for debate. To get the conversation going. To share a piece of news that needs discussion.

 

[Diamond]

It was a quick post on a thread not a fucking dissertation.

But greedy? Yes.

How is that greed?

Is every investment a manifestation of greed and why the preoccupation with such moral judgements anyway?

What higher principles do you advance that trump his interest in making a livelihood for himself?

 

[Diamond]

I'll be sure to check through all your previous posts to see if they match up to the gold standard for posts you've just unilaterally declared for the forum.

Sometimes a post is just there to serve as a spark for debate. To get the conversation going. To share a piece of news that needs discussion.

Sure, it's sparked a debate and to that extent, it was highly efficient.

The problem was that it also implied, although notably declined to develop, an argument which I am now calling you on - hence the developments.

 

[editor]

How is that greed?

Is every investment a manifestation of greed and why the preoccupation with such moral judgements anyway?

What higher principles do you advance that trump his interest in making a livelihood for himself?

He's wishing "skyrocketing rents" on everyone else so he can make more lots more lovely lolly for himself. I'd call that greed.

 

[killer b]

Is every investment a manifestation of greed?

bingo.

 

[Diamond]

He's wishing "skyrocketing rents" on everyone else so he can make more lots more lovely lolly for himself. I'd call that greed.

What he actually said was this - "hopefully the rental and selling price will go up quite a bit"

So he's expecting a return on his investment.

What is wrong with that?

 

[editor]

bingo.

How do you feel about someone wishing for rents to 'skyrocket' so he can make more money on his buy to let investment?

Is that the kind of thing you endorse?

 

[editor]

What he actually said was this - "hopefully the rental and selling price will go up quite a bit"

So he's expecting a return on his investment.

What is wrong with that?

He... "told the Evening Standard that he hoped house prices and rents would skyrocket even further in London so he could make more money."

 

[killer b]

How do you feel about someone wishing for rents to 'skyrocket' so he can make more money on his buy to let investment?

Is that the kind of thing you endorse?

How did you come to the conclusion that I might do? Have you read any of my posts on this thread?