Milking the poor to make the rich.. richer.

[FACEBOOK 10]

/////////////////////////

Edited January 13, 2013 by FACEBOOK

[Ms Macbeth 76]

Don't you just love the little people on this website?

 

I certainly don't dislike them. I just think its sad there is so much bitterness around. Equality has been tried under different names and different regimes, but human nature always rears its head, and so inequalities develop. It usually just means another group are in power. Is that what the people who clamour loudest for change really want?

 

Perhaps think about what's happened in China since the communists took power: China's Communist Party came to power promising to end the country's traditional class structure. As it turned out, it turned the class structure on its head. Scholars, landowners and merchants, the former privileged classes, were stripped of their rights, and sometimes of their lives. Villagers and workers were, for a time, elevated, in status and opportunity.

 

More than 60 years on, farmers and workers are again at the bottom of the heap, and while there's a growing middle class, China has one of the world's biggest and fastest-growing rates of income disparity.

 

China's national anthem may exhort the downtrodden, "arise, those who refuse to be slaves," but these days, those who want to get rich join the Party, and the Party wants the rich to join it. That way, wealth stays concentrated in the hands of its members, who have little incentive to change the system.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18120921

[neepsendlane 11]

I've known some incredibly wealthy people and I've known some incredibly poor people, and there is an interesting difference.

 

Every wealthy person I've EVER known spends the majority of their day operating a business they own and they LOVE what they do. Their work isn't a chore.

 

Every poor person I've EVER known spends the majority of their day going through the motions, like a robot, employed doing a job they mostly HATE to do.

 

The reason why the lottery winners isn't a good example is when someone poor wins a lot of money without knowing what it is they love to do, they usually blow it all trying to find out what that something is.

 

Spend the majority of your day doing what you love = RICH.

Spend the majority of your day doing what you hate = POOR.

 

If you don't know what you love to do, it might be a good idea to invest some time and find out.

 

 

and then

 

 

build a HUGE BTL portfolio

As a bricklayer I spent my working days creating walls , stone work, pavings, and furnaces etc.

I loved that work and when I walk around Sheffield and see some Thing I helped create I feel proud .

At the end of all this I got arthritic joints in wrists Knees, and back. I never considered my self a robot and neither did the majority of building workers who I had the pleasure to meet on my journey through life even though many are today skint.

No the people I feel sorry for are the silver spoon brigade who do not and never will know what life is really like, when ones back is against the wall[pun].

They must go through life thinking that they are some kind of Superior beings when in fact they have never experienced life as it is in the real World.

[Mister M 1,626]

Many people in all professions say that they love their jobs, but they don't actually "love" their jobs, it's just what they do, probably can't imagine doing anything else. Love doesn't come into it. Maybe like at best. You can't have a mediocre return if you operate a business you love.

 

If people are poor and unhappy, they are just simply spending their days doing the wrong things. It's as simple as that.

 

There are lots of people in professions which have a vocational calling (medicine, nursing, social work) which sometimes transcend the 9-5 drudgery that some people complain about, I doubt whether some very talented people who work in these fields would continue to do so, if they did not 'love' (perhaps not the right word), but certainly feel some affinity for their clients/patients.

But then lots of people who work do so as a means to an end i.e. money, which enables them to pursue what ever it is gives meaning to their life (family, money for holidays etc.)

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2012 at 17:26 ----------

 

Take for example someone that's unemployed. Those that really want to work probably feel frustration, anger, sadness, lots of negative emotions. But really, they are actually in a better position than someone in an average job. The person in an average job probably wouldn't dare quit to start a business of their own, that god forbid, they actually loved getting up in the morning to do, lots of reasons why this would be such a "stupid" idea. No way the wife or husband would allow it, bills to pay, kids to feed all that stuff. Locking the average person into a job for "life" if they're "lucky" enough to keep it for that long, maybe a nice pension too, that could be reduced to nothing like has happened to so many.

 

The able bodied unemployed person has already had this decision taken away from them. No years of procrastination then regret for this guy, he's already at home able to work 18 hours a day on a business he loves if he CHOOSES to. Instead of earning the LEAST amount possible an employer can get away with paying him, he now gets to keep ALL THE PROFIT his company can generate.

 

Rarely do I say this to unemployed people because then starts the excuses...

 

"you're not allowed to start a business while your on jobseekers"

"I've got no money to start a business"

"I don't have the skill to start a business"

the list of excuses is endless.

 

Some of the biggest companies on the planet were started with less than $500 and a telephone. Imagine being out of work when you have access to billions of consumers at the click of a button.

 

The rich are not milking the poor. In most cases, the poor just don't want to work or improve themselves unless it's handed to them on a plate for free, which of course is never going to happen. You hear the phrase that companies that go under don't move with the times, same for people, if you don't move with the times, improve your understanding of the vast and constant shift of opportunities that surround us all regardless of class, you go under.

 

That's what the papers encourage us to believe, experience tells me that lots of people are desperate to change their situation but life, personal circumstances get in the way. We very rarely hear about those people and their circumstances - things are often presented in a very simplistic black/white - good/bad way. Life as the majority of people live it is shades of grey. It is for me & my peer group anyway.

[FACEBOOK 10]

/////////////////////////

Edited January 13, 2013 by FACEBOOK

[Mister M 1,626]

Ok, take the life's work of a doctor, a GP, most people would consider that to be a great achievement, a wonderful job / career, well paid and worthwhile. But is that the reality for the doctor? Most of these poor saps are stuck in pretty grim hum drum tiny offices in tired buildings, and like "robots" they spend the day working their conveyor belt of patients, doing their best to appear caring whilst having to do their utmost to get the patient in and out within 10 minutes to meet whatever the guidelines are.

 

Imagine having to do that day in day out, mostly the same minor ailments, mostly the same patients and remember, these are gp's, "general" practitioners, nobody ever achieved anything "great" by being general at anything. Anything that's remotely interesting which comes their way, they have to refer out. And so it follows that nobody could ever "love" doing a general job, because general means, "nothing special" ordinary.

 

They may start out believing it's their vocation, but after a few months of the same drudgery, I wouldn't believe anyone in those professions really "loved" what they do. Jobs by their very nature are repetitive so will be boring. It's not possible to love a job longterm. Because jobs are the same every day, you're paid to do a specific task. Airline pilot, heart surgeon, you name it, I bet they're all bored out of their minds long term.

 

With a mindset of 'glass half empty', you could even make the job of a great actor sound humdrum!

Sure the daily grind can wear people down, but one of the joys of general practice (I would of thought) is building relationships with people, to put into practice your particular area of interest, and see people at their worst times of their lives - but come through the other side.

[FACEBOOK 10]

/////////////////////////

Edited January 13, 2013 by FACEBOOK
unknown

[I1L2T3 10]

I did explain this in the post.

 

You offered an explanation of why it seem that way in the current housing market. The current housing market is totally broken.

 

If renting was cheaper than buying, then no rental property would exist as no one could make a profit (since the income from letting is less than it cost them to buy).

 

You're confusing sale prices with construction costs. There is nothing to say that once a housing unit is built it has to be sold. It could be retained and rented out.

 

Inflated or otherwise, if you had to buy it and the return was less than you had to pay then no one would be a landlord.

 

If you had to buy it. I'm talking about constructing new housing stock then renting it out, not buying existing houses

 

You will always have to cover maintenance costs and pay tax.

Those things would still be true if someone bought the house to live in.

 

Of course

 

The cost of renting is related to the cost of housing yes. But even if there was no bubble then a landlord would always expect a profit and so renting would have to cost more than buying so that the landlord could make that profit.

 

If he constructed the houses himself, the asset price becomes less important.

 

 

But given that the person who might rent has the same options of building (maybe in a group to get economies of scale) or buying from a builder who definitely gets the economies of scale, the rent will be higher than the equivalent purchase price.

 

They are buying, they will pay more in the short term. Less in the long-term.

 

If it wasn't then there would be no demand for renting and no landlord would build anything.

 

Of course there will be demand. Not everybody wants to buy.

 

So you buy from an investor who built 10 in order to sell them. Or you club together with other people who wish to build.

 

Nice idea.

 

Your entire argument rests on BTL landlords being able to build many units and make a profit due to economies of scale...

 

No, anybody could do it. It doesn't have to be current BTL landlords.

 

I don't think it works.

 

It would with the right incentives. The incentives are perverse at the moment.

 

That is exactly what renting does. Two people cannot rent the same property, so it is taken out of use when it is rented. Economically it is identical.

 

It's not identical. Not at all. A rental property can often change hands more easily. It's more economically useful in that respect.

 

Is there really any evidence that the housing market is still inflated? Has it not yet reached the long term average as it's been static for nearly 5 years now.

 

Loads of evidence. Just look on the net

[andygardener 10]

Don't see how a whole load of new taxes are going to help make the cost of living cheaper myself.

[neepsendlane 11]

Ok, take the life's work of a doctor, a GP, most people would consider that to be a great achievement, a wonderful job / career, well paid and worthwhile. But is that the reality for the doctor? Most of these poor saps are stuck in pretty grim hum drum tiny offices in tired buildings, and like "robots" they spend the day working their conveyor belt of patients, doing their best to appear caring whilst having to do their utmost to get the patient in and out within 10 minutes to meet whatever the guidelines are.

 

Imagine having to do that day in day out, mostly the same minor ailments, mostly the same patients and remember, these are gp's, "general" practitioners, nobody ever achieved anything "great" by being general at anything. Anything that's remotely interesting which comes their way, they have to refer out. And so it follows that nobody could ever "love" doing a general job, because general means, "nothing special" ordinary.

 

They may start out believing it's their vocation, but after a few months of the same drudgery, I wouldn't believe anyone in those professions really "loved" what they do. Jobs by their very nature are repetitive so will be boring. It's not possible to love a job longterm. Because jobs are the same every day, you're paid to do a specific task. Airline pilot, heart surgeon, you name it, I bet they're all bored out of their minds long term.

Have you never experienced the feeling of a job well done .

The time when you stand back and survey that glowing 30 ton ingot just out of the melting shop.

The time when the top field you have just plowed is looking the same as Constable painted a hundred years ago.

Or laid the last brick on a 90ft high chimney stack just as the sun is going down.

Then on the way home by bus, car, or shanks pony that feeling you get no matter how long you have been doing the job, That feeling that means even though you are completely knackered you will be back tomorrow and do it all again because it is what makes you tick.

[I1L2T3 10]

You are of cause entitled to think what you like but thinking it doesn't make it true.

 

I'm not claiming to be the source of all knowledge, just discussing some ideas

 

No idea what that’s supposed to mean.

 

See below

 

Is something is better for the 65 million individual in a society it’s likely to be good for society as a whole.

 

That could be a fallacy of composition, depending on what the 'something' was.

 

I don't see why, I had more desposable income than someone renting because my house is paid for and they still pay rent.

 

In the long-term you're better off. Good. That's what we want.

 

Someone as to own the house so whether it’s owned by the person living in it or someone else Economic resources are still tied up.

 

The owner could rent it out. The economic resource is still in use but it's more flexible. It can more easily be vacated and rented to somebody else.

 

Yes they can if they are affordable and the red tape is cut.

 

I'm all for cutting red tape when required.

 

No it doesn't I owned a house and worked all over the country, it gave me a central base in which to call home. i could have sold it each time I moved but then my kids would have suffered.

 

Good for you. Some may choose to do that. Not everybody can.

 

Renting is no different to debt other than you will always have it to pay instead of one day paying it off and someone would have to own the house so the debt will still exist.

 

It is very different. The only similarity is it's a financial obligation that needs be met.

 

 

Houses shouldn't be the focus of speculative bubbles, and the most recent one was caused by Buy to let which I would ban.

 

I wouldn't ban it. I would force every BTL to become a fully regulated business.

 

People spend more of their disposable income on rent than home ownership, there's no way round that because who would buy an house and rent it out at a loss.

 

They do spend more in the long-term. You don't have to buy the house to let out. You build it.

 

How do you get the land? You buy it with a subsidy from the government.

 

How does the does the government fund the subsidy? With punative taxes on individuals and companies who under-utilise or fail to utilise land. Maybe eventually compulsory purchases would be needed.

 

The country need both, affordable housing to buy and affordable housing to rent, renting though will inevitably be more expensive than buying in the long term.

 

Yep. Of course. My whole focus is on the short-term costs of renting. Delivering a vast quantity of housing units on freed-up land in the right locations will drive down rents. These units would not be for sale, but for rent.

 

It's a perfectly viable business plan to build housing units to retain to rent out for the long term. I would like to give more people the opportunity to do it.

[maxmaximus 10]

 

The owner could rent it out. The economic resource is still in use but it's more flexible. It can more easily be vacated and rented to somebody else.

My daughter is just about to rent a flat, once she signs she is tied into it for six months minimum, she could vacate and move but paying rent on two properties would prevent this. So it’s not as flexible is it may appear, most workers tend to stay in one area so although there is a need for rental units owner occupation is the best option for most people.

 

Good for you. Some may choose to do that. Not everybody can.

That’s why we need choice, affordable housing both owner occupation and rental units, but buy to let shouldn't be in competition with first time buyers, it should be built to let which you appear to want.

 

It is very different. The only similarity is it's a financial obligation that needs be met.

 

From an housing point of few they are the same, monthly payment that need to be paid or you lose your home, the big difference is that the debt will one day be paid off whilst the rent continues until the day you die.

 

I wouldn't ban it. I would force every BTL to become a fully regulated business.

That still leaves them competing for the same houses that first time buyers can afford, which was the main driver for house price inflation over the past decade.

 

 

They do spend more in the long-term. You don't have to buy the house to let out. You build it.

 

How do you get the land? You buy it with a subsidy from the government.

 

How does the does the government fund the subsidy? With punative taxes on individuals and companies who under-utilise or fail to utilise land. Maybe eventually compulsory purchases would be needed.

 

I'm sure the current land owner would build the houses before having the land taken from them but how would the government force them to rent out at below market rent and cheaper than buying.

 

 

 

Yep. Of course. My whole focus is on the short-term costs of renting. Delivering a vast quantity of housing units on freed-up land in the right locations will drive down rents. These units would not be for sale, but for rent.

The problem is that builders like liquidity and to build houses just for rent leaves them with lots of money tied up for a long time, there are some affordable housing schemes that allow builder to sell most of the units as long as some are sold below market value or rented.

 

 

It's a perfectly viable business plan to build housing units to retain to rent out for the long term. I would like to give more people the opportunity to do it.

I agree but it can't replace building houses for sale.