|
On December 13 2020 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
The pandemic made most of their property worthless beacuse the value it holds in the pandemic is nothing. The only way people can pay rent is if they have an economy to function with. Andrew Jackson ignored the constitution centuries ago and no one gave a shit.
Business might be mediocre for a year? The economy would collapse and their property wouldn't be worth paying the taxes on beacuse no one would live there.
I dont think you really grasp what we've been dealing with in 2020. There is this virus called covid 19 that's shut down or mostly slowed down swaths of the economy. That you think business as usual should occur when a once in a hundred year plague is out and out silly. There isnt just a year of mediocre business it's s year of catastrophic business that you want to make worse beacuse you seem to get off on the suffering of others.
What you've said is that you accept that class warfare is good but the 99% are the real villains.
He's from the UK.
Don't they get paid 80% of their regular wage not to go to work during lockdowns over there?
I guess the 'solution' (less worse option) would have been to do that in the USA, nobody cares about the national debt anymore anyway.
Since they're past that I'd say a ban on evictions until the lease expires is better than just kicking people on to the street.And just hope the economy starts growing again fast.
|
LL is resident in the US.
As to your question, yes. The UK furlough scheme does pay parts of the salary.
If you cannot maintain your workforce because your operations have been affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees and apply for a grant to cover a portion of their usual monthly wage costs where you record them as being on furlough.
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme has been extended until 31 March 2021. You can claim 80% of an employee’s usual salary for hours not worked, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month.
[...]
You will need to pay for employer National Insurance contributions and pension costs. Find out more information on employer contributions to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
|
On December 13 2020 19:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Since they're past that I'd say a ban on evictions until the lease expires is better than just kicking people on to the street.And just hope the economy starts growing again fast.
What makes you think that the end of a lease will make squatters leave? If you're already living at the property owner's expense and the government is still shielding you from the consequences, might as well keep doing that.
|
@LegalLord
Do you know about the legality of turning off internet access to squatters? I know utilities are obviously a no-go, but I don't think turning off Internet would constitute breach of contract.
I'm trying to come up with strategies for making squatters leave that aren't illegal, but make living in the house as uncomfortable as possible.
|
On December 14 2020 01:36 Sadistx wrote:
@LegalLord
Do you know about the legality of turning off internet access to squatters? I know utilities are obviously a no-go, but I don't think turning off Internet would constitute breach of contract.
I'm trying to come up with strategies for making squatters leave that aren't illegal, but make living in the house as uncomfortable as possible.
Looks like not. Anything that compromises basic safety is a big no-no for good reason, and in our modern world I suppose internet is the same as utilities in that regard.
Beyond that it really depends on your tenant. If they're the kind of person who is an honest person down on their luck, you have a lot more options. A payment plan if you think they might be capable of getting back on their feet and they try to work with you, is usually a good way to go. If it's not tenable, evictions are of course a tool at your disposal. The way it works in the US, they still owe you every penny they didn't pay you, and the court will still rule as much; only the physical act of kicking them out is deferred. You could tell the tenant, "all this goes away if you're out of here a week from today" and follow through if they do. The honest-but-downtrodden people that the posters here think they're defending are rarely a problem because current protections only help the kind of people who don't care about their credit and eviction record.
The people I refer to as squatters are not really of the above kind, but the type of person who hears that evictions are offline and immediately sees it as an opportunity not to pay and expect someone, anyone else will foot the bill. Sadly these kinds of people end up being protected as if they were the honest-but-downtrodden when they're nothing of the sort, and they don't leave because the consequences don't matter to them. Options here are more limited because the only consequence those kinds of people care about is being physically forced to leave by law enforcement. You should still try the court route and get an eviction ruling, of course, but due to the moratorium they'll get kicked out merely eventually. It's possible to try some sort of "cash for keys" arrangement if you think it'd work, where you give them some amount of money for the keys to the house in hand. All this is just the standard stuff that landlords can do; no unique suggestions from me really.
If it's a squatter in the sense of "never had a lease, they just broke into your house and live there" I assume those can still be kicked out.
|
This is currently a pure hypothetical situation for me. Maybe I should disentangle Internet from the rest of my utilities in the lease agreement. That way they'd have to pay half of the internet bill, or risk having it shut down.
My last tenant was really great (co-worker), and moved out in August because he bought his own place.
After that, because of the moratorium, I've been enjoying living alone (I rent the upper floor in my house), mostly due to the risks associated with the eviction moratorium postponement. I really value my privacy, so risking a non-paying stranger moving into my house is really not an option, without an extensive background/financial check.
I have dealt with an eviction before (pre-covid), and even with the most expedient way of doing things, from the time of filing a court motion to an eviction date took 3 months. I'd hate to think how long it might take now.
Imagine thinking a private landlord with a single house has to wait 6+ months it kick out a stranger out of their own house, where they sleep and work, while letting them use everything to their heart's content. Yikes. Makes me super hesitant to rent at all actually or be super picky while screening and ask for a 2 months security deposit.
|
On December 14 2020 02:40 Sadistx wrote:
Imagine thinking a private landlord with a single house has to wait 6+ months it kick out a stranger out of their own house, where they sleep and work, while letting them use everything to their heart's content. Yikes. Makes me super hesitant to rent at all actually or be super picky while screening and ask for a 2 months security deposit.
That's how it eventually ends - that or with many of these properties being sold off to the bigger companies that can eat short term costs but will price the very poor people that people are allegedly trying to protect out of the market.
Providing the service that is rent is seen as scummy business - so say the people who maintain their accumulated wealth in the stock market instead. This unfortunately tends to go far beyond the standard, legitimate concerns of keeping renters safe from abusive landlords with basic legislative protections.
|
On December 14 2020 01:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2020 19:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Since they're past that I'd say a ban on evictions until the lease expires is better than just kicking people on to the street.And just hope the economy starts growing again fast.
What makes you think that the end of a lease will make squatters leave? If you're already living at the property owner's expense and the government is still shielding you from the consequences, might as well keep doing that.
I dunno, laws? Pursue it through legal means after the lease expires.
Here the government did exactly that.Banned rent rises for everybody, banned evictions from people affected due to COVID until their lease expired.Worked fine, although we're not as affected as the USA.
There is no perfect solution but the government should do more in this case since they caused the economic issues currently harming people via lockdown policy.
|
On December 14 2020 06:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2020 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 13 2020 19:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Since they're past that I'd say a ban on evictions until the lease expires is better than just kicking people on to the street.And just hope the economy starts growing again fast.
What makes you think that the end of a lease will make squatters leave? If you're already living at the property owner's expense and the government is still shielding you from the consequences, might as well keep doing that. I dunno, laws? Pursue it through legal means after the lease expires. Here the government did exactly that.Banned rent rises for everybody, banned evictions from people affected due to COVID until their lease expired.Worked fine, although we're not as affected as the USA. There is no perfect solution but the government should do more in this case since they caused the economic issues currently harming people via lockdown policy.
There’s usually this legal means called “eviction” which is currently suspended. Nonpayment before lease end, nonpayment after lease end, it’s all the same really. Many people have been not paying their rent for nine months now, not because they can’t pay but because they can’t be kicked out for failing to do so.
The government should do more, on that we agree.
|
I'm surprised LL's perspective got so much hate here, because for most part I agree, and I don't rent out property to people either.
I'm fine with preventing evictions during crisis times, because damage of creating homeless people will probably be worse than then having free rent. But come on, this money cannot be coming out of the landowners pocket. All it does is raises prices of rent for everyone else because of the risk premium of the landlord. How about if the tenant isn't on EI for example (or somebody in household), usual eviction is fine. And if it's a government received cheque, syphoning a percentage seems reasonable to me.
Kwark mentioned oh, you have 2 houses and this other person won't have any, look at how selfish you are. Not regarding that maybe the guy with the 2nd house takes no vacation, eats ramen 3x per day, and makes significant compromises on work life balance... While the other guy spends it on "partying" and a 80k truck on a 60k salary. I make it no secret that I'm a minimalist working an average income job in my city and live like a peasant because knowledge is more meaningful than experiences to me. It's an active choice so I don't need to do work in ways that end up hurting other people - "honest work for honest pay mentality", and can still retire when I'm 35.
So all in all, if for example Canada has no problem taking debt to pay everyone not working 2k/month right now, the money for subsidizing peoples inability to pay for housing should come out of taxpayer pocket, not the individual business owner.
|
On December 15 2020 09:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Kwark mentioned oh, you have 2 houses and this other person won't have any, look at how selfish you are. Not regarding that maybe the guy with the 2nd house takes no vacation, eats ramen 3x per day, and makes significant compromises on work life balance... While the other guy spends it on "partying" and a 80k truck on a 60k salary. I make it no secret that I'm a minimalist working an average income job in my city and live like a peasant because knowledge is more meaningful that experiences to me. It's an active choice so I don't need to do work in ways that end up hurting other people - "honest work for honest pay mentality", and can still retire when I'm 35.
As an even simpler take than that, housing is just another place to store accumulated wealth. Stocks are a common place to keep such wealth, but real estate is another. And providing housing to others at a market price is certainly a respectable enough line of business - there are many reasons people would rather rent than buy, and providing rentals is a service that people definitely need. Sure, you expect to make a profit and to accumulate value from such an investment, but it's not like having a house for rent somehow makes it impossible for someone else to get their own house. It really does come off as hypocritical to have large holdings in stocks in order to make money off such investments, while at the same time decrying someone for having the same kind of investment in providing people with housing for profit.
You'll of course have your GH types that think that all forms of wealth accumulation are theft, and there might be some truth to that, but until we transition to the post-revolutionary communist utopia we live in a world where using money to make more money is just the way things work, for better and worse.
|
What are your takes on Jan 15th. moratorium expiration?
Is it going to be easier/harder to find tenants? Doing more diligence? What are going to be some selling points for a property?
Actually, more COVID-related questions: is it OK to let potential tenants tour the property alone, with myself being outside? Or should I aim for virtual tours and just answer questions?
|
A few years ago when I was looking for my current place i visited four or five different properties and only one of those had a landlord/manager present. All the rest gave me a code to enter and were available for questions over the phone. Don't see why you would need to be there, especially given current virus conditions.
I know some people do virtual tours/video tours but personally if I was spending money on application to live somewhere I'd want to physically inspect the property first.
|
On December 14 2020 10:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2020 06:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 14 2020 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 13 2020 19:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Since they're past that I'd say a ban on evictions until the lease expires is better than just kicking people on to the street.And just hope the economy starts growing again fast.
What makes you think that the end of a lease will make squatters leave? If you're already living at the property owner's expense and the government is still shielding you from the consequences, might as well keep doing that. I dunno, laws? Pursue it through legal means after the lease expires. Here the government did exactly that.Banned rent rises for everybody, banned evictions from people affected due to COVID until their lease expired.Worked fine, although we're not as affected as the USA. There is no perfect solution but the government should do more in this case since they caused the economic issues currently harming people via lockdown policy. There’s usually this legal means called “eviction” which is currently suspended. Nonpayment before lease end, nonpayment after lease end, it’s all the same really. Many people have been not paying their rent for nine months now, not because they can’t pay but because they can’t be kicked out for failing to do so. The government should do more, on that we agree.
How about "well, if you're behind on rent, your landlord gets your covid aid cheque... or at least half of it" law? That sounds like an OK compromise for both homeowners and the government.
|
On December 28 2020 23:46 Djagulingu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2020 10:05 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2020 06:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 14 2020 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 13 2020 19:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Since they're past that I'd say a ban on evictions until the lease expires is better than just kicking people on to the street.And just hope the economy starts growing again fast.
What makes you think that the end of a lease will make squatters leave? If you're already living at the property owner's expense and the government is still shielding you from the consequences, might as well keep doing that. I dunno, laws? Pursue it through legal means after the lease expires. Here the government did exactly that.Banned rent rises for everybody, banned evictions from people affected due to COVID until their lease expired.Worked fine, although we're not as affected as the USA. There is no perfect solution but the government should do more in this case since they caused the economic issues currently harming people via lockdown policy. There’s usually this legal means called “eviction” which is currently suspended. Nonpayment before lease end, nonpayment after lease end, it’s all the same really. Many people have been not paying their rent for nine months now, not because they can’t pay but because they can’t be kicked out for failing to do so. The government should do more, on that we agree. How about "well, if you're behind on rent, your landlord gets your covid aid cheque... or at least half of it" law? That sounds like an OK compromise for both homeowners and the government.
That’s exactly what should be happening, but it’s not how the US went about it up until now.
The recent relief bill includes rent assistance which might just be helpful for this kind of thing. I don’t know how it works, but at least in principle it pays out unpaid rent.
|
On December 15 2020 09:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2020 09:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Kwark mentioned oh, you have 2 houses and this other person won't have any, look at how selfish you are. Not regarding that maybe the guy with the 2nd house takes no vacation, eats ramen 3x per day, and makes significant compromises on work life balance... While the other guy spends it on "partying" and a 80k truck on a 60k salary. I make it no secret that I'm a minimalist working an average income job in my city and live like a peasant because knowledge is more meaningful that experiences to me. It's an active choice so I don't need to do work in ways that end up hurting other people - "honest work for honest pay mentality", and can still retire when I'm 35. As an even simpler take than that, housing is just another place to store accumulated wealth. Stocks are a common place to keep such wealth, but real estate is another. And providing housing to others at a market price is certainly a respectable enough line of business - there are many reasons people would rather rent than buy, and providing rentals is a service that people definitely need. Sure, you expect to make a profit and to accumulate value from such an investment, but it's not like having a house for rent somehow makes it impossible for someone else to get their own house. It really does come off as hypocritical to have large holdings in stocks in order to make money off such investments, while at the same time decrying someone for having the same kind of investment in providing people with housing for profit. You'll of course have your GH types that think that all forms of wealth accumulation are theft, and there might be some truth to that, but until we transition to the post-revolutionary communist utopia we live in a world where using money to make more money is just the way things work, for better and worse.
This take makes sense; but it's also a good thing that there is a stigma associated to making money off of owning stuff rather than working, that's going to be helpful to rely on if we ever get to win.
|
On December 29 2020 00:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2020 09:50 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2020 09:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Kwark mentioned oh, you have 2 houses and this other person won't have any, look at how selfish you are. Not regarding that maybe the guy with the 2nd house takes no vacation, eats ramen 3x per day, and makes significant compromises on work life balance... While the other guy spends it on "partying" and a 80k truck on a 60k salary. I make it no secret that I'm a minimalist working an average income job in my city and live like a peasant because knowledge is more meaningful that experiences to me. It's an active choice so I don't need to do work in ways that end up hurting other people - "honest work for honest pay mentality", and can still retire when I'm 35. As an even simpler take than that, housing is just another place to store accumulated wealth. Stocks are a common place to keep such wealth, but real estate is another. And providing housing to others at a market price is certainly a respectable enough line of business - there are many reasons people would rather rent than buy, and providing rentals is a service that people definitely need. Sure, you expect to make a profit and to accumulate value from such an investment, but it's not like having a house for rent somehow makes it impossible for someone else to get their own house. It really does come off as hypocritical to have large holdings in stocks in order to make money off such investments, while at the same time decrying someone for having the same kind of investment in providing people with housing for profit. You'll of course have your GH types that think that all forms of wealth accumulation are theft, and there might be some truth to that, but until we transition to the post-revolutionary communist utopia we live in a world where using money to make more money is just the way things work, for better and worse. This take makes sense; but it's also a good thing that there is a stigma associated to making money off of owning stuff rather than working, that's going to be helpful to rely on if we ever get to win.
Whenever the revolution comes, you can feel free to start seizing wealth-generating private property to your heart’s content. Doing all that is straight out of Marx’s writings, after all. Though if I may, I recommend seizing corporate assets (and incidentally stocks) before ever touching commercial real estate, before someone can flee abroad with those. It’s a bit more relevant to our modern world, after all.
On December 28 2020 14:32 Sadistx wrote:
What are your takes on Jan 15th. moratorium expiration?
Is it going to be easier/harder to find tenants? Doing more diligence? What are going to be some selling points for a property?
Actually, more COVID-related questions: is it OK to let potential tenants tour the property alone, with myself being outside? Or should I aim for virtual tours and just answer questions?
Hopefully rent assistance will actually help.
Do whatever works for you for tenants. I’d personally make sure that only people with good credit scores and proof of gainful employment are even considered as tenants - they have an incentive beyond just eviction to pay, after all. In normal times you can get away with renting to some of the spottier prospects because usually people will pay to have a roof over their heads, but sadly we live in a time where freeloading at the landlord’s expense is encouraged and treated as a good thing. You could also raise the rent price and require a very large (2x monthly rent) security deposit to take a chance on the non-spotless credit scores. Ultimately it’s a matter of price more than anything else (that’s your only meaningful “selling point” for a property of any given type, size, and location), so you either find a risk profile and price at which you can feel comfortable renting, or you leave it vacant. And while vacancies are rough, the only thing worse is a squatter you can’t get rid of.
You probably want to let people tour the property. Virtual is insufficient and even in these times people do look at housing. Letting them in alone is fine; you have their ID if they choose to start trashing the place, after all.
|
On December 29 2020 00:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2020 00:09 Nebuchad wrote:On December 15 2020 09:50 LegalLord wrote:On December 15 2020 09:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Kwark mentioned oh, you have 2 houses and this other person won't have any, look at how selfish you are. Not regarding that maybe the guy with the 2nd house takes no vacation, eats ramen 3x per day, and makes significant compromises on work life balance... While the other guy spends it on "partying" and a 80k truck on a 60k salary. I make it no secret that I'm a minimalist working an average income job in my city and live like a peasant because knowledge is more meaningful that experiences to me. It's an active choice so I don't need to do work in ways that end up hurting other people - "honest work for honest pay mentality", and can still retire when I'm 35. As an even simpler take than that, housing is just another place to store accumulated wealth. Stocks are a common place to keep such wealth, but real estate is another. And providing housing to others at a market price is certainly a respectable enough line of business - there are many reasons people would rather rent than buy, and providing rentals is a service that people definitely need. Sure, you expect to make a profit and to accumulate value from such an investment, but it's not like having a house for rent somehow makes it impossible for someone else to get their own house. It really does come off as hypocritical to have large holdings in stocks in order to make money off such investments, while at the same time decrying someone for having the same kind of investment in providing people with housing for profit. You'll of course have your GH types that think that all forms of wealth accumulation are theft, and there might be some truth to that, but until we transition to the post-revolutionary communist utopia we live in a world where using money to make more money is just the way things work, for better and worse. This take makes sense; but it's also a good thing that there is a stigma associated to making money off of owning stuff rather than working, that's going to be helpful to rely on if we ever get to win. Whenever the revolution comes, you can feel free to start seizing wealth-generating private property to your heart’s content. Doing all that is straight out of Marx’s writings, after all. Though if I may, I recommend seizing corporate assets (and incidentally stocks) before ever touching commercial real estate, before someone can flee abroad with those. It’s a bit more relevant to our modern world, after all. Show nested quote +On December 28 2020 14:32 Sadistx wrote:
What are your takes on Jan 15th. moratorium expiration?
Is it going to be easier/harder to find tenants? Doing more diligence? What are going to be some selling points for a property?
Actually, more COVID-related questions: is it OK to let potential tenants tour the property alone, with myself being outside? Or should I aim for virtual tours and just answer questions? Hopefully rent assistance will actually help. Do whatever works for you for tenants. I’d personally make sure that only people with good credit scores and proof of gainful employment are even considered as tenants - they have an incentive beyond just eviction to pay, after all. In normal times you can get away with renting to some of the spottier prospects because usually people will pay to have a roof over their heads, but sadly we live in a time where freeloading at the landlord’s expense is encouraged and treated as a good thing. You could also raise the rent price and require a very large (2x monthly rent) security deposit to take a chance on the non-spotless credit scores. Ultimately it’s a matter of price more than anything else (that’s your only meaningful “selling point” for a property of any given type, size, and location), so you either find a risk profile and price at which you can feel comfortable renting, or you leave it vacant. And while vacancies are rough, the only thing worse is a squatter you can’t get rid of. You probably want to let people tour the property. Virtual is insufficient and even in these times people do look at housing. Letting them in alone is fine; you have their ID if they choose to start trashing the place, after all.
Leniency on squatters/freeloaders over home owners is EXACTLY why I opt for owning stocks and other investments instead of housing; I'm sure I'm not the only that feels and acts this way. Funny enough, my attitude benefits current home owners the most and hurts future renters (because it reduces housing supply long term)
|
Just do your due diligence and you won't have a problem.
You guys make it sound like every tenant is out for innocent landlords which, in all honesty, sounds both ridiculous and out of touch with reality.
|
There’s no doubt that stocks are easier than real estate as a source of income. But yeah, unless you’re dealing with a higher risk (and incidentally more lucrative) business like lower cost apartments or get stuck with a government that wants you to keep squatters housed at your own expense during a pandemic, it’s usually pretty uneventful business. Get good tenants, do basic maintenance, collect rent, get rid of bad tenants as they slip through the cracks.
It’s not a bad business for the kind of people who can make smart rudimentary business decisions. A sensible investment in normal times. Some nice advantages over stocks if you know how to use real estate, but of course comes with more risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
