Covid payments for Landlords

utmbuilder

You know landlords chose a hap payment of 1900 or a private Tennant sustaining 2100+

Those rents where never sustainable by a single private house hold.

The Student

Gumbo wrote: »

That will make it a Good Friday then.
But you’ve posted this before and still came back posting nonsense so it remains to be seen if you really will “leave it at that”.

Anyway, let us know how you get on.

Don't say that this is entertaining.

The Student

utmbuilder wrote: »

You know landlords chose a hap payment of 1900 or a private Tennant sustaining 2100+

Those rents where never sustainable by a single private house hold.

Well then why is it illegal to discriminate if it's so in demand?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Donald Trump wrote: »

Renting out property is a business. If you have a business you need to have sufficient contingency plans. If you don't or if your business receives an extremely large shock and goes under, then you have to move on. It's quite simple really.

There is no point patting yourself on the back during the good times and thinking you are a genius if ya can't cope when the shit hits the fan temporarily.

Thems the risks ya were taking on from the start! If you didn't realise it, well it's an important lesson for you now

So no bailout for any business, preiod?

JimmyVik

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So no bailout for any business, preiod?

I would say there will be absolutely no bailout for landlords, unless its for REITs, going on current form and treatment from the government. In fact i think more likely there will be a special extra tax just for landlords coming.

Samuel T. Cogley

JimmyVik wrote: »

I would say there will be absolutely no bailout for landlords, unless its for REITs, going on current form and treatment from the government. In fact i think more likely there will be a special extra tax just for landlords coming.

I can see tax relief on mortgages being rolled back for sure.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JimmyVik wrote: »

I would say there will be absolutely no bailout for landlords, unless its for REITs, going on current form and treatment from the government. In fact i think more likely there will be a special extra tax just for landlords coming.

If you bring in laws blocking people from their legal income - as has been the case - they you choose to either compensate them or not. If legally block landflords from charging rent - then they fall into this category. Of course, it also means the tenant is aboslved of paying rent for the duration. If you decide not to compensate, then you can't really block said landlord from charging rent - and the tenant is put under pressure as well.

The question so is not should ladkords get payments; the question is should the state pay the tenant's rent?

If you see landlords as business owners, then you either bail them out as such, or you leave busiensses to flounder and fend for themselves. Donald Trump (the poster)'s point is: they knew the risk (although how you could say that a necessitated several-week-long state-ordered shutdown is a predictable risk is beyond me). Same with sole traders or the self-employed: they either knew the risk, or should be open to complensation.

The_Conductor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I can see tax relief on mortgages being rolled back for sure.

Recent tax discussions have featured proposals to reduce and eventually remove tax relief on the cost of debt as an allowable cost for tax purposes. The Economist did a write-up on it at some stage last Autumn (can't access it from here- but they did a full writeup on it).

I, for one, think that allowing any business offset the cost of debt as an allowable cost- is retrograde in the extreme. Aside from any other factor- it removes the incentive from a business to pay back its debts- which just doesn't make sense. Surely there shouldn't be a perverse incentive to load up on debt?

JimmyVik

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you bring in laws blocking people from their legal income - as has been the case - they you choose to either compensate them or not. If legally block landflords from charging rent - then they fall into this category. Of course, it also means the tenant is aboslved of paying rent for the duration. If you decide not to compensate, then you can't really block said landlord from charging rent - and the tenant is put under pressure as well.

The question so is not should ladkords get payments; the question is should the state pay the tenant's rent?

If you see landlords as business owners, then you either bail them out as such, or you leave busiensses to flounder and fend for themselves. Donald Trump (the poster)'s point is: they knew the risk (although how you could say that a necessitated several-week-long state-ordered shutdown is a predictable risk is beyond me). Same with sole traders or the self-employed: they either knew the risk, or should be open to complensation.

Well they seem to do what they like over the last few yeras with new legislation every 5 minutes.


I think landlords should be classed as a business.
I think tenants should have the ptrotection of long leases, but at the moment its plain to see that tenants have all the protection and landlords have none.
If a landlord and a tenant sign a lease for 10 years the landlord is stuck with it. The tenant just moves on if they feel like it.
Its totally one sided. That makes for rent supply shrinking leading to rising rent prices. Now im not a landlord, or a tenant at the moment, but will be one again soon, but I can see what all the legislation has done to market conditions and that the whole rental market is screwed in the medium to long term.
There will be nothing but REITs the way things are going. And I think that a bas thing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JimmyVik wrote: »

Well they seem to do what they like over the last few yeras with new legislation every 5 minutes.


I think landlords should be classed as a business.
I think tenants should have the ptrotection of long leases, but at the moment its plain to see that tenants have all the protection and landlords have none.
If a landlord and a tenant sign a lease for 10 years the landlord is stuck with it. The tenant just moves on if they feel like it.
Its totally one sided. That makes for rent supply shrinking leading to rising rent prices. Now im not a landlord, or a tenant at the moment, but will be one again soon, but I can see what all the legislation has done to market conditions and that the whole rental market is screwed in the medium to long term.
There will be nothing but REITs the way things are going. And I think that a bas thing.

Be that is it may, none of it counters my point.

JimmyVik

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Be that is it may, none of it counters my point.

They have been blocking landlord from charging rent for years now.
Also preventing landlords getting access to their property when rent isnt paid.

And preventing landlord getting their properties back when they want them, or drawing up mutalluy agreed a contract that is equal to both sides.

They will do as they please and nothing will change.

But when REITs own the entire market they will then take in the government. They only reason REITs have such favourable tax terms is that they are not going against the government on the leglislation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JimmyVik wrote: »

They have been blocking landlord from charging rent for years now.
Also preventing landlords getting access to their property when rent isnt paid.

And preventing landlord getting their properties back when they want them, or drawing up mutalluy agreed a contract that is equal to both sides.

They will do as they please and nothing will change.

But when REITs own the entire market they will then take in the government. They only reason REITs have such favourable tax terms is that they are not going against the government on the leglislation.

Again - nothing to do with my post. Or Covid-19.

JimmyVik

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again - nothing to do with my post. Or Covid-19.

Honestly i dont know what you are talking about so.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JimmyVik wrote: »

Honestly i dont know what you are talking about so.

I'm talking about covid payments for landlords. It's in the thread title...?

Going on rants and complaing about rules that may well be unfair but have been in place for ages are completely different issues and best rasied in more relevant threads.

JimmyVik

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm talking about covid payments for landlords. It's in the thread title...?

Going on rants and complaing about rules that may well be unfair but have been in place for ages are completely different issues and best rasied in more relevant threads.

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are on about.


Never mind though. Not a problem. Being nice to each other never hurts.

The_Conductor

Guys- behave.......

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sorry,but am I out of line here? Merely trying to stay on topic or have I missed something?

The_Conductor

Disagree with one another- to your heart's content- but remain civil about it.

Ideally- remain on topic- and if you want to discuss something beyond the remit of the thread you're currently posting in- please start a new thread (keeping within the charter of the forum, of course). Going entirely offtopic- is not appropriate.

Its nice that we have an outlet to discuss and debate things, often with people who hold diametrically opposed views to us (and esp. in the current climate)- but the core rules of remaining civil towards other forum users, and posting within the charter that governs the forum, remains.