• WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Based.

    Here’s your reminder that owning things isn’t a real job - you’re leeching off actual workers, you parasites.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you pay those workers significantly less than the value they contribute to the business? What would you call that?

        Independent of that, you may work in the shop, or managing it - that’s a job.

        • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Surely that depends on the individual business? Like it depends on the individual landlord? Some might be good, some might be bad. Pay is often linked to the risk you have invested in your business. A worker in a shop hasn’t taken on thousands of pounds of business loans for example have they? They don’t have to do accounting admin generally. A renter hasn’t taken on hundreds of thousands of pounds of a mortgage have they? They’re not liable for upkeep of the rental property.

          All I’m saying is that they’re good examples of landlords and bad ones. Good examples of shop owners and bad ones. Skewing the perspective to claim there are only bad is deliberately misleading.

          • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Pay is often linked to the risk you have invested in your business.

            This line is routinely trotted out by people who do not understand the very basic facts of limited liability.

            It is trivally simple to establish your business as limited by guarantee, and when done so the risk is literally £1.

            If anyone establishes a business where they are personally liable for any debts, or losses acrued, by that business then they need to seriously reconsider if business management is for them.

            Now, people may well choose to invest personal savings to start a business, rather than take out a loan, but again, rule number 1 of investing is not to invest more than you can afford to lose, so, again, the actual risk is £1.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not how it works everywhere. Also - bullshit on the actual risk being so low after investing all you can afford to lose - you just lost all you could afford to lose which could be thousands.

              The reality of it is - you rent out an apartment and need to keep it up. I had landlords come in with powerbanks and extension cords in the middle of the night when the breakers failed. I had them loaning me an AC units. They would renovate regularly.

              And I could’ve been a shitty tennant that messed their modern flat, didn’t pay them rent and refused to move out. They would lose a place they lived in for years to some rando off the street.

              • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re clearly American, why are you commenting on a thread about UK landlords, and UK company law, using examples not from the UK?

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sure the money you make for doing nothing will be more consolation than I can give you.

        Remember folks - we can’t possibly establish strong social safety nets - ensuring people have humane living conditions would be giving them money for doing nothing. Money for simply owning something though? That’s worthwhile.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They were never free.

          They were funded by student grants and housing benifit if you go back far enouth. But the uni def made money from owning them and always have.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Rental homes should be confiscated from private landlords who repeatedly break the rules and exploit tenants, the head of the Commons housing committee has told the Guardian.

    Clive Betts, the chair of the levelling up, housing and communities select committee, said handing courts the power would create a “significant deterrent” to landlords who treated fines for letting out squalid, unsafe and overcrowded homes as simply a cost of doing business.

    In its Living Hell series, the Guardian is shining a light on issues in the private rented sector, including the case of Mohammed Ali Abbas Rasool, a rogue landlord in London who caused misery for tenants for more than 10 years despite repeated fines, prohibition notices and bans.

    One housing official involved in investigating Rasool’s case thinks he and other landlords built the expectation of fines into their business model “and take the hit”.

    Labour has said if it wins the general election it will ensure all existing funding available for affordable housing is spent and it will assess the inherited situation to create a robust plan.

    A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: “The small minority of criminal landlords who exploit their tenants can already be banned by councils and rightly should be.


    The original article contains 792 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!