Because hating landlords is present on lemmy everywhere with people using completely irrellevant arguments. You also voiced an opinion that’s completely bullcrap - where losing “all the money you can spare” is somehow equal to losing nothing, when one could have worked for that for years.
I never said it was the same as losing nothing. It’s clearly not the same. I said the cost of losing is £1, if you have structured your business properly. If you then choose to put extra money in, well, you should only invest money you can afford to lose.
If you can’t afford to lose it, you shouldn’t be spending the money in that way. Money you can afford to lose has considerably less risk than money you cannot afford to lose. By definition, if you can afford to lose it, then harm to you is insignificant.
So the financial cost is £1, and the risk to you is tiny.
For example, I don’t go to the pub and complain about the risk of buying liquid commodities I intend to drink and make no return on. I can afford to lose my money in that way, if you can’t, then don’t go out drinking. The same thing applies here.
If you can’t own a property without someone else paying the mortgage for you, then don’t.
The risk of losing is thousands - it’s absolutely not “nothing”, as I said, it could be years of someone’s life.
You have a really weird way of looking at business. It’s not free to have someone renting property from you and “paying the mortgage”. It’s not risk free.
The risk is losing something you can afford to lose.
It may be undesirable, sure, but if you can’t afford to lose it then you shouldn’t be investing it.
Landlords provide no service, they simply increase the cost of housing. A landlord does not fix your boiler, a plumber does. A landlord does not pay for furniture, you do through your rent. A landlord does not provide housing, they take existing housing off the market and lease it at a premium above the equilvent mortgage rate.
Landlords are one of the many factors which restrict access to housing. The sheer complexity of purchase is another major factor.
But again, if you can afford to lose the money then you’re probably not the problem. The main problem, in the UK, is landlords on buy-to-let mortgages who cannot afford to lose.
If the bank is already willing to loan money on the property, and rent must be higher than the mortgage payment as a condition on that loan, then all that happens is housing becomes more expensive.
You’re clearly American, why are you commenting on a thread about UK landlords, and UK company law, using examples not from the UK?
I’m European. Stop assuming shit about people.
My apologies, but same question.
Because hating landlords is present on lemmy everywhere with people using completely irrellevant arguments. You also voiced an opinion that’s completely bullcrap - where losing “all the money you can spare” is somehow equal to losing nothing, when one could have worked for that for years.
I never said it was the same as losing nothing. It’s clearly not the same. I said the cost of losing is £1, if you have structured your business properly. If you then choose to put extra money in, well, you should only invest money you can afford to lose.
If you can’t afford to lose it, you shouldn’t be spending the money in that way. Money you can afford to lose has considerably less risk than money you cannot afford to lose. By definition, if you can afford to lose it, then harm to you is insignificant.
So the financial cost is £1, and the risk to you is tiny.
For example, I don’t go to the pub and complain about the risk of buying liquid commodities I intend to drink and make no return on. I can afford to lose my money in that way, if you can’t, then don’t go out drinking. The same thing applies here.
If you can’t own a property without someone else paying the mortgage for you, then don’t.
The risk of losing is thousands - it’s absolutely not “nothing”, as I said, it could be years of someone’s life.
You have a really weird way of looking at business. It’s not free to have someone renting property from you and “paying the mortgage”. It’s not risk free.
The risk is losing something you can afford to lose.
It may be undesirable, sure, but if you can’t afford to lose it then you shouldn’t be investing it.
Landlords provide no service, they simply increase the cost of housing. A landlord does not fix your boiler, a plumber does. A landlord does not pay for furniture, you do through your rent. A landlord does not provide housing, they take existing housing off the market and lease it at a premium above the equilvent mortgage rate.
Ah, you should have started with “landlord bad landlord not work”, would’ve saved me a lot of wasted time in replying to you.
And let me guess - no landlords means no homelessness and no housing crisis anywhere
Landlords are one of the many factors which restrict access to housing. The sheer complexity of purchase is another major factor.
But again, if you can afford to lose the money then you’re probably not the problem. The main problem, in the UK, is landlords on buy-to-let mortgages who cannot afford to lose.
If the bank is already willing to loan money on the property, and rent must be higher than the mortgage payment as a condition on that loan, then all that happens is housing becomes more expensive.
this seems like a circular argument
most of the value you seem to be proposing could be lost comes from the fact you can rent out a house for profit