|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 13:43:54 GMT
Profitable - most people would agree with. Maximise profits by all means - many would argue this is where ethics come in. If you don't understand this basic fact and how some of your statements seem to support the 'maximise profits by all means' mentalitity then there is no help for you. Is this your ethics, my ethics, of the ethics of the woman down the road? How can the government possibly make laws based on this hotchpotch of moral possibility? Let's stick to your ethics then. Ethically, how much profit should someone make?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 13:40:48 GMT
It's a fact that competition, the drive for maximum profit is the essence of capitalism that has led to billions of people across the world becoming much more wealthy. No nation has ever developed with any other system in place. I suspect that Ianali has taken my statement 'maximum profit' literally. That every price charged has to be the highest possible, and every price paid the lowest possible. This isn't the case. A business can gain value via loyalty, perhaps by paying staff more than their competitors. It might drive for new business by offering a lower price. Just for example, there are countless other possibilities. In all cases though, the business ownership judge that such decisions are good for the business overall. Good for the business, for which the objective is to continue, and to be profitable. Lol. Carry on. No need for much length, thanks. I've yet to meet a business owner who did anything to knowingly jeopardise their business. They all, each and every one of them, made all their decisions in what they believed was the best interests of their business.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 13:37:30 GMT
one of the biggest made in the market was when the Blair Government paid housing benefit to tenants (1) who did not then pay their rent. They also paid out to tenants who claimed more than their rent. Tenants who did this, and who also made invalid claims could work the system and remain in properties for the duration of a lengthy legal process, and in the event of fraudulent claoms, it was the landlord who had to repay the amount. (2) (1) If this was a bad idea, why does it continue today after 14 years of Con rules?
(2) Would be interested to hear some examples of this.
My understanding is that Universal Credit, which includes the old housing benefit is paid direct to the tenant. The idea being that it gives people responsibility, to sort their own matters. It used to be the case that after a number of months of rental arrears had been built up (2?), a landlord could apply to have the housing benefit paid directly to them. I recall the proposal being that this would not be the case with Universal Credit. This was of great concern to landlords. Understandably. Discussions were being held about the possibility about having the housing benefit element paid direct to landlords. This is 4/5 years ago, so probably out of date.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 13:30:27 GMT
Of course there will be examples where this is not the case. The general need to maximise profits drives innovation and efficiency. If one firm doesn't do it, another one will. This formula is what has led to the development of the world, to consumerism (for better or for worse) to swathes of the planet moving on from being subsistance farmers. It's the very essence of capitalism. this is the trouble with trying to have a discussion with you, you present an extreme view,claim it is the only way, then when others bring facts to the discussion, you cave in and agree there are other ways. π It's a fact that competition, the drive for maximum profit is the essence of capitalism that has led to billions of people across the world becoming much more wealthy. No nation has ever developed with any other system in place. I suspect that Ianali has taken my statement 'maximum profit' literally. That every price charged has to be the highest possible, and every price paid the lowest possible. This isn't the case. A business can gain value via loyalty, perhaps by paying staff more than their competitors. It might drive for new business by offering a lower price. Just for example, there are countless other possibilities. In all cases though, the business ownership judge that such decisions are good for the business overall. Good for the business, for which the objective is to continue, and to be profitable.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 12:41:42 GMT
It doesn't matter what I think. I can tell you that the primary ethic of virtually every business is to maximise their profits in any legal way possible. This will always be the case, in a market based system. If a business doesn't maximise its profits, it will fail. Many business are run successfully without Feelin the need to maximise profits. I ran mine for 25 years on this basis. Your wrong. Of course there will be examples where this is not the case. The general need to maximise profits drives innovation and efficiency. If one firm doesn't do it, another one will. This formula is what has led to the development of the world, to consumerism (for better or for worse) to swathes of the planet moving on from being subsistance farmers. It's the very essence of capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 7:41:57 GMT
There's legal business and illegal business. The system we operate under doesn't require ethics. If money can be made from being ethical, via additional marketing opportunities perhaps, businesses will operate in such a way. Otherwise they won't. In any case, there isn't a predetermined set of ethics. What's ethical (or not) is very much a matter of opinion. placing priority on profits over people isnβt ethical no matter what you tell yourself. If your own moral code doesnβt tell you this then there really is no hope for you. It doesn't matter what I think. I can tell you that the primary ethic of virtually every business is to maximise their profits in any legal way possible. This will always be the case, in a market based system. If a business doesn't maximise its profits, it will fail.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 7:25:49 GMT
Caring successful investors don't. They still have a portfolio of properties providing people with decent homes. Almost like thereβs such a thing as ethical business. You can make a fair profit, without squeezing people for every penny. Something some people seem to have forgot. There's legal business and illegal business. The system we operate under doesn't require ethics. If money can be made from being ethical, via additional marketing opportunities perhaps, businesses will operate in such a way. Otherwise they won't. In any case, there isn't a predetermined set of ethics. What's ethical (or not) is very much a matter of opinion. Hence the need for laws.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 16, 2024 7:22:46 GMT
What I'm saying is that demand is equal to supply in the determination of the reason/s for a shortage. Only the rental value and the purchase price are required for the calculation of gross yield. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word 'gross'. You might view that last scenario as profitable but a wise investor would calculate their yield based on the current value of the property. This scenario would represent a significant loss of potential profit so not profitable at all. You focussed on the demand side, rather than seeing that it is in the interests of society to influence supply, contributing to the welfare of our fellow citizens. One can't spend the gross yield. There may be unexpectedly high finance costs sprung upon one by a crazy madwoman tory. It is sufficiently profitable to buy cheap for cash or a low portion of finance with a fixed rate, then at the end of the term pay off if a new fixed deal is too expensive. I'd suggest that landlords are selling up because they cant afford increased maintenance and finance costs, thereby realising the capital gain on the property while potentially making a family homeless. I've focussed on demand being as important as supply in all circumstances of shortage, counter to your obsession with supply. Your suggestion regarding why landlords are selling up proves how little you know about the big wide world of investment.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 20:35:08 GMT
There not my thoughts. The system is up and running in Gateshead. 25% of uks housing is on old mining sites. Itβs all in the link if you want to read it. However what they are doing is pumping heat out of the ground. This makes the ground cooler. Obviously the local ground has quite a large heat capacity but eventually the ground in the vicinity of the heat exchanger pipes is going to cool down, and that coolness will make the system progressively less efficient. So it will be great for a few years, after that perhaps less so. But in the mean time the businessmen setting it up will be long gone on their bonuses. Not to mention the tax payer money which, naturally, will flow, along with the luke warm water.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 19:31:20 GMT
Let me try to follow this and order it in my own mind. If I have money to spare/invest and I buy a house to let, then I would measure my investment against more convential methods of investment. If I purchase a buy to let with a mortgage, then I measure my investment against my repayments, plus a consideration for the increasing value of the property as I pay for it. If I have to register, then any costs of that would impact my returns, so I need to charge more. Likewise, if I have to anticipate controls on rents, then I'm going to look to cover that 'up front' with a higher rent. If I also have to bear the consequences of any tenancy control, them again I'm going to have to build consideration for that into my rents from the outset, so higher again. If I decide that the whole business is too insecure, I sell my house, but the people who want to buy houses probably won't want to buy it if it is in an area with similar rented properties and 'tenants'. From experience, (yes I'm that old and can remember Rachman) I can see that these houses would be bought up by unscrupulous people who would rent them out under the radar. There are always people who will enter into such agreements and unscrupulous/illegal 'landlords. This is one of the uncomfortable discoveries from the Grenfell fire which showed just how useless the responsible public bodies and their employees are incapable of controlling such situations. The proposed controls will do nothing to enhance social cohesion and levelling up. Meddling with markets has, and never will be, effective and the victims will be the very people they are supposed to help. That's more or less my view. We can see the theory being enacted in real life: From the moment government took a heightened interest in buy to let rents have accelerated, well in excess of inflation, while supply has diminished. The former being an effect of the latter, of course. It's interesting that in Scotland, where rent controls exist, two bedroom flats, on average, stay on the market for 15 days compared to the average in England of 25 days. It seems that the rent control system in Scotland has made it more difficult for people to secure tenancies on 2 bedroom flats.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 16:35:27 GMT
Gotcha! And aegumentative too. Is that all you've got?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 16:24:55 GMT
Experienced investors seek to maximise their profits. That isn't what you said though, you just came out with some gobshite to support your politicle version of things. It's political. An experienced investor seeks to maximise their returns. Any downturn from the potential maximum represents a notional loss to him or her, upon which they will act. Hence the reduction in the supply of buy to let properties. It's good for the country that we have stalwarts like Jim around. People who don't understand investment and will merrily carry on with buy to let while government chip away at their margins whilst public opinion, bolstered by continuing government anti-landlord legislation and noisy leftie pressure groups, considers him the devil incarnate. The supply situation would be in a far worse state, if we didn't have folk like Jim around.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 15:53:08 GMT
What I'm saying is that demand is equal to supply in the determination of the reason/s for a shortage. Only the rental value and the purchase price are required for the calculation of gross yield. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word 'gross'. You might view that last scenario as profitable but a wise investor would calculate their yield based on the current value of the property. This scenario would represent a significant loss of potential profit so not profitable at all. Since when is a loss of potential profit not profitable at all? Experienced investors seek to maximise their profits.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 15:28:12 GMT
I heard you were banned for being an extremely argumentative, political gobshite. Nowt to do with Israel. Folk are only political gobshites when their political reasoning is shite. Not because they fail to comply with the political groupthink of the location. Go ahead, reason why my reasoning is shite. My reasoning in this thread will do nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 15, 2024 15:02:58 GMT
The exact details are unimportant. Actually gobshite, they are. It might suit the agenda of some to equate a dislike of hyperbolic language used by some to describe the actions of Israel; to be 'pro-Israel', but they would be mistaken.
|
|