Demand and desirability drives the rental price.

A quick rant about slum landlords and their model:

Unchecked immigration: they have to live somewhere (demand). Slum landlords buy a s***hole and do nothing to it. They then pile it full of immigrants charging them peanuts by the head (although the gross will be huge) knowing they can't complain. These landlords are scum and they undermine our entire economic system whilst exploiting the poor into the bargain.

If we hadn't just flooded the market with cheap European labour society would be better off, it's all about the knock on effect. An unskilled worker will never get up the ladder. There's more of them then jobs, so wages remain low(as does tax revenue, yet health care and social services remain open to all). They are not ever going to get on the property ladder as a consequence so remain trapped at the bottom, so they send money home rather than spend it here (money not going back into our economy). Meanwhile, the indigenous poor cannot rent because a desirable dwelling is that much more expensive as a result and if they do they cannot save because buying requires large deposits (this is what the elites want).

Open immigration is a mechanism to keep the poor poor and wages low. The price per head model makes living costs attractive. "How can they do it for that price?" cries the undercut skilled workman. This is how. Their cost of existence is pennies. The real beauty is the trick that has been played in that to challenge this system of oppression leads to vilification as a 'racist'. Unchecked immigration hurts the economy, the native population and the immigrants themselves. A sustainable skilled immigration on merit would benefit all parties and destroy the predatory slum landlords, but enough of that.

We pitch to rental demand which is more in line with what renting should be about:

Young professionals using our property as a stepping stone. In greater Manchester the rent represents great value given the wages locally whilst giving a good yield to us (everyone a winner). In the south, being close to train stations into London demands a higher rent (and purchase price) but the tenant gets the benefit of accessing the high London wages without living costs (everyone a winner).

There are risks involved but they can mostly be mitigated by using a reputable letting agent and having zero contact with the inhabitants. Upkeep as properties become older is inevitable, but should be factored from the beginning. On the buy to let for example, bathrooms need refreshing, redecorating every third year throughout, boiler replaced every ten years etc, but these cost go up as mortgage costs go down over time so its all relative.

'All property is theft'

The worst landlords are those seeking to seeking to justify their financial gain on the backs of ordinary people's need for a home.

Nausea.

How's life over in the south of France treating you? Or do I have you confused with another champagne socialist?

Correct. Until the mortgages are gone or the house sold off in 20 years, there is no profiteering to be had (unless you're running a slum, and even then I don't think they make much money unless they've got hundreds of occupants over tens of properties due to the pitfalls).

it is if it's at someone elses expense

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Too much trickle up when there should be more trickle down

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah