Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

BattleCorp

The Bollocks wrote: »

Go and ask my bollocks.Take your head out of the sand.

Might get more sense out of your bollocks than your mouth.

Yes, some landlords are fleecing their tenants. This is true.

But just because you are a landlord, that doesn't mean that you are rolling in cash. If you have no mortgage, good tenants, then yes, you can make good money.

But if have a mortgage on the property, or if the tenants are not paying or do a lot of damage, then it is very, very hard to make money on the property. If it takes a year to get a non-paying tenant out of your house, how in the name of God can you think that the landlord will make money in that situation?

Can you not see that? Seriously?

10pennymixup

The Bollocks wrote: »

Go and ask my bollocks.Take your head out of the sand.

Somebody might ask it...............someday......if you're ever finished playing with it.

Ray Palmer

marieholmfan wrote: »

Should be made illegal anyway. Preemptively.


Not sure how the 7 Labour TDs can do anything about it though.

Any other laws you want to bring in for non existent problems. Unicorn rape law has been absent for too long.

Ray Palmer

10pennymixup wrote: »

Somebody might ask it...............someday......if you're ever finished playing with it.

Don't feed the troll

cordy1969

The sense of entitlement is strong in "The Bollocks"

steddyeddy

There's been several landlords with live in lodgers on Boards who calculate their profit from renting by subtracting the mortgage as a business expense. It's not a business expense, it's the cost of buying one's home. Renting out might not cover the mortgage but that doesn't mean you're not in profit. How many business owners deduct the mortgage of their personal residence from their business expenses? In some cases there seems to be an entitlement where the LL expects all their mortgage covered.

runawaybishop

The Bollocks wrote: »

Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think? They do in their bollocks.Those swines are rolling in the cash and turning the screw on the vulnerable tenants every chance they get.I would love to see how they would like it if the shoe was on the other foot and they had to struggle to make rent.Shower of ****.

The shoe was on the other foot 10 years ago when tenants could rent a property for peanuts. Then prices went up and landlords started to make back some of their losses. Then the government capped rents and added in some daft populist sh1te to make it not worth the hassle and landlords exited the market, which further added to the issue. Landlords aren't really the problem, government policy is.

Ray Palmer

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's been several landlords with live in lodgers on Boards who calculate their profit from renting by subtracting the mortgage as a business expense. It's not a business expense, it's the cost of buying one's home. Renting out might not cover the mortgage but that doesn't mean you're not in profit. How many business owners deduct the mortgage of their personal residence from their business expenses? In some cases there seems to be an entitlement where the LL expects all their mortgage covered.

Firstly they aren't landlords if renting a room in their house and the person staying isn't a tenant but a licencee.

I have been on boards a long time and active in the property section and I have heard some really silly claims but not that one ever.

If you were a business and bought your premises you can claim the mortgage as an expense but as a landlord you aren't. Property rental is not treated the same as business by Revenue.

I am all for more tenant rights and protection but the inequity in the current legislation is way off. Tenants can refuse to pay rent and can stay up to 2 years before being removed. That is a ridiculous risk to put on landlords. Tenant obligations are way below what they should be. Stable rent is what everyone wants but the current situation punishes landlords and makes them NEED to maximise income all the time. For ever €1 euro loss from when rents dropped it require €2.40 in rent increase to get it back due to tax. Think of that when you lost 2 years rent. That happened to people and prices dropped with rent and the government increased taxes. I

handlemaster

The Bollocks wrote: »

Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think? They do in their bollocks.Those swines are rolling in the cash and turning the screw on the vulnerable tenants every chance they get.I would love to see how they would like it if the shoe was on the other foot and they had to struggle to make rent.Shower of ****.

I take it all anyone has to do is become a landlord and sit back never work again. Sound simple. Sign me up to this utopia

KyussB

BattleCorp wrote: »

...
I personally know people renting out houses where the rent is less than the mortgage. Yes, ultimately the landlord will make money when they sell the house but they aren't making any money at the moment. They have to subsidise the mortgage from their own earnings. These people are hardly 'rolling in the cash'.

Jesus this propaganda point again...landlords are building equity/wealth when they are paying down any portion of the mortgage beyond interest, with rents!

No fucking goalpost shifting into a different topic - landlords are making money and building wealth when the mortgage is paid down with that money, end of story - the minutiae of how they manage the business/mortgage and the other potential difficulties landlords may have despite this (bad tenants etc.), don't change that basic fact: in general (and even though there are exceptional cases), they make money, even if they put that money into the mortgage - and right now they make lots of fucking money.

KyussB

BattleCorp wrote: »

Might get more sense out of your bollocks than your mouth.

Yes, some landlords are fleecing their tenants. This is true.

But just because you are a landlord, that doesn't mean that you are rolling in cash. If you have no mortgage, good tenants, then yes, you can make good money.

But if have a mortgage on the property, or if the tenants are not paying or do a lot of damage, then it is very, very hard to make money on the property. If it takes a year to get a non-paying tenant out of your house, how in the name of God can you think that the landlord will make money in that situation?

Can you not see that? Seriously?

Paying a mortgage is building fucking wealth. Dealing with a non-paying tenant is not like making a bloody mortgage payment...

That (muddying non-paying tenants into the discussion) is the exact shifting of the goalposts I was expecting in my last reply: Non-paying tenants are not the norm - they are an exceptional case - and the case to focus on, is the general case: The general case is that landlords - whether they are paying a mortgage or not (and really, that is their own responsibility to deal with properly - it doesn't saying a fucking thing about whether things are profitable) - is that right now they are rolling in it and bringing in huge sums of money.

Whether they are putting that money into a mortgage or not, is their own business, it doesn't alter the point made: it's still rolling in...


This talking point of muddying in the discussion of mortgages is the no.1 propaganda point in the entire discussion of landlords. It's the way to identify attempts to disrupt critical discussion of landlords.

KyussB

runawaybishop wrote: »

The shoe was on the other foot 10 years ago when tenants could rent a property for peanuts. Then prices went up and landlords started to make back some of their losses. Then the government capped rents and added in some daft populist sh1te to make it not worth the hassle and landlords exited the market, which further added to the issue. Landlords aren't really the problem, government policy is.

Rents are a passive income where - no matter what the market conditions - the majority of landlords renting will be profiting.

Lets start shifting this entire discussion away from sob stories of individual landlords - and onto the the whole market of landlords - because that's what we want to discover: Do landlords in general have it as tough as they think?

Apart from the exceptional cases of incredibly shit tenants, and another number of not-very-high-percentage issues - no - landlords do not have things tough at all, they are raking it in.


Pretty much the primary sob story the remaining landlords can come up with, is that for some landlords their rents don't cover the whole mortgage: THAT is the best sob story some can come up with, when you exclude the minority cases of real issues, like bad/non-paying tenants.

That speaks volumes as to how well they are doing: Landlords are doing so well, that it is a fucking sob story, that some can't pay off the whole mortgage with their rents! (for those that even have a mortgage)

"Well gee, I'm going to end up with a house worth several hundred thousand grand, and I might actually have to pay for some of it myself - us poor landlords..."

KyussB

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...
If you were a business and bought your premises you can claim the mortgage as an expense but as a landlord you aren't. Property rental is not treated the same as business by Revenue.
...

Correct, rents are not treated the same as turnover. Neither should they be. Ever. That is the critical difference between a landlord, and a business.

handlemaster

KyussB wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

...
I personally know people renting out houses where the rent is less than the mortgage. Yes, ultimately the landlord will make money when they sell the house but they aren't making any money at the moment. They have to subsidise the mortgage from their own earnings. These people are hardly 'rolling in the cash'.

Jesus this propaganda point again...landlords are building equity/wealth when they are paying down any portion of the mortgage beyond interest, with rents!

No fucking goalpost shifting into a different topic - landlords are making money and building wealth when the mortgage is paid down with that money, end of story - the minutiae of how they manage the business/mortgage and the other potential difficulties landlords may have despite this (bad tenants etc.), don't change that basic fact: in general (and even though there are exceptional cases), they make money, even if they put that money into the mortgage - and right now they make lots of fucking money.

You can disagree but when your using language like you do the message will be lost. I take it you the think its a simple wealth builder ! On that account are you planning to become a landlord ?

pwurple

Is there something inherently wrong with aiming to make money?

I mean, isn’t that why I go to work everyday? It is why I rent out property, it’s why people run shops, it’s why people have chip vans, it’s why people have coffee shops and make sausages etc etc.

It’s a service, for sale, to the public. Why should it not be a way of earning?

Is it literally just envy? Like people have for anyone they think has #more# than them? My neighbor has a bigger Telly or a bigger car than me, he must be the devil and should be punished immediately.

runawaybishop

KyussB wrote: »

Rents are a passive income where - no matter what the market conditions - the majority of landlords renting will be profiting.

Lets start shifting this entire discussion away from sob stories of individual landlords - and onto the the whole market of landlords - because that's what we want to discover: Do landlords in general have it as tough as they think?

Apart from the exceptional cases of incredibly shit tenants, and another number of not-very-high-percentage issues - no - landlords do not have things tough at all, they are raking it in.


Pretty much the primary sob story the remaining landlords can come up with, is that for some landlords their rents don't cover the whole mortgage: THAT is the best sob story some can come up with, when you exclude the minority cases of real issues, like bad/non-paying tenants.

That speaks volumes as to how well they are doing: Landlords are doing so well, that it is a fucking sob story, that some can't pay off the whole mortgage with their rents! (for those that even have a mortgage)

"Well gee, I'm going to end up with a house worth several hundred thousand grand, and I might actually have to pay for some of it myself - us poor landlords..."

If landlords have it so good (and I do not think they do) then why are they exiting the market?

Ray Palmer

KyussB wrote: »

Correct, rents are not treated the same as turnover. Neither should they be. Ever. That is the critical difference between a landlord, and a business.

Yet people call it a business and are claiming profits are done like other businesses when they are not.

KyussB wrote: »

Rents are a passive income where - no matter what the market conditions - the majority of landlords renting will be profiting.

Lets start shifting this entire discussion away from sob stories of individual landlords - and onto the the whole market of landlords - because that's what we want to discover: Do landlords in general have it as tough as they think?

Apart from the exceptional cases of incredibly shit tenants, and another number of not-very-high-percentage issues - no - landlords do not have things tough at all, they are raking it in.


Pretty much the primary sob story the remaining landlords can come up with, is that for some landlords their rents don't cover the whole mortgage: THAT is the best sob story some can come up with, when you exclude the minority cases of real issues, like bad/non-paying tenants.

That speaks volumes as to how well they are doing: Landlords are doing so well, that it is a fucking sob story, that some can't pay off the whole mortgage with their rents! (for those that even have a mortgage)

"Well gee, I'm going to end up with a house worth several hundred thousand grand, and I might actually have to pay for some of it myself - us poor landlords..."

You are completely ignoring reality and making false claims. There are next to no individual landlords who have bought buy to lets in the last 10 years. That means the landlords have been operating at a massive lost for a decade.

Tenants not paying rent at the cost of providing the service for a decade didn't bother people and they enjoyed the extra expenses added to landlords. It was always going to come back to the tenants to pay for these expenses. Due to the revenue rules in require more than double the expense in a rent increase to return to a basic profit or in most cases just a sustainable top up they can afford. That is without recouping earlier losses.

You haven't been paying attention if you think people have only brought up non-payment by tenants as people have repeatedly brought up tax.

You must tell all the people involved in property management that they are doing nothing as it is all passive income requiring no effort according to you.

Landlords are leaving the market in droves making rentals property more scarce . Anybody with any intelligence can figure out that isn't going to make rents cheaper. By all means desire more punishment for landlord providing a service and ignore how that makes things worse for supply. I am sure the government will run in and provide property with less tax income as landlords leave the market.

Imagine all the landlords not wanting to subsidise tenants for the huge pay day where they are taxed again for capital gains. Makes so much business sense to take a risk on the property market and run the risk of non-payment of rent that could mean they lose their own home. Sure they can take all that risk with no expectation of making money because people wan cheaper rent. Seems completely reasonable to whom?

The reality is people are blinded by their desires for cheap rent and don't care who else pays for it once it isn't them. People claim rents are unsustainable but they don't care it is unsustainable for landlords to do so at a loss. They are not rolling in it and propped up the states lack of building.

KyussB

The only people trying to put out studies showing landlords leaving the market, are property lobby groups - it's an argument lacking credible data. Such arguments also tactfully count switching to AirBnB as 'leaving the market'. A landlord isn't just going to pack up their property and fly it off to another country - a home sold on and rented by someone else, or bought to live in proper, is still part of the housing stock.

If people are comparing rents to turnover like in a business, they are not comparing like with like - and your entire set of arguments is based on the propaganda point, of counting mortgage servicing, in profit vs loss calculations.

Posters reading the thread, should take careful note of this: These guys actually give landlords a bad name - because they think landlords are entitled to have their mortgage paid off by rent alone. Most landlords don't think that way.

Watch out for that propaganda - it's the no.1 sign of deliberate disruption of critical discussion regarding landlords - it's not an honest line of debate, it's wilful propaganda - and it's easy to identify because of the persistence in pushing it, because without it, there are almost no talking points left.

4ensic15

KyussB wrote: »

The only people trying to put out studies showing landlords leaving the market, are property lobby groups - it's an argument lacking credible data. Such arguments also tactfully count switching to AirBnB as 'leaving the market'. A landlord isn't just going to pack up their property and fly it off to another country - a home sold on and rented by someone else, or bought to live in proper, is still part of the housing stock.

.

The figures that have been produced of sales with more landlords selling than buying. If you add leaving idle and changing to Air BnB it is even more extreme. When a property is put on the market, it is almost invariably empty with no one living in it and won't have anyone in it until the new owner closes the deal and occupies it. If this happens with 4 properties per year and each is vacant for an average of 3 months that is the equivalent of the permanent removal of 1 property from the housing stock. Multiply that by the actual numbers of such sales divide by 4.
When properties are sold from buy to let to owner occupier the number of occupants often goes down. A couple might rent a one bed apartment but buy a 3 bed house which previously had 4 tenants. It takes two 1 bed apartments to replace the 3 bed house. A small number of landlords might be affected by bad tenants but the knowledge that this can happen has a chilling effect on other landlords and potential landlords.
Some landlords who acquired their properties years ago, don't have large or any borrowings are doing fine and making money. Others are in a Kafkaesque nightmare.

Ray Palmer

KyussB wrote: »

The only people trying to put out studies showing landlords leaving the market, are property lobby groups - it's an argument lacking credible data. Such arguments also tactfully count switching to AirBnB as 'leaving the market'. A landlord isn't just going to pack up their property and fly it off to another country - a home sold on and rented by someone else, or bought to live in proper, is still part of the housing stock.etc...

Pop over to the property section here and you can read all the people who are being given notices because their landlords are selling up. There are tons of accidental landlords that were in negative equity that are also selling up. There are less places to rent while a greater demand.

The idea of property rental is to get to a situation where rent after tax covers the mortgage completely. That is the model and part of the financial planning. The whole calculation of risk is based on it. There is a known time of subsidising the rent. What happened was through a financial crash and most importantly government changes that period of subsiding was made longer. This also meant that rents had to rise to offset the increases in cost like any other economic model for good or services.

On top of which the government capped rent increases prolonging further the period of subsidising the rent. This increases cost on the investment plan further.

This is not propaganda but standard economics and the interference by the state destabilising the market and investment. If your job suddenly started paying you less and told you your promised pay rise would be 19 years away rather than 4 would you be happy? Would you stay in that job if you could get your originally salary back elsewhere?

You aren't looking at this clearly and are taking misconceptions about what is being said from simplified explanations of more complex situations.

Really simple a shop sells x for €1 and it costs 50c
New tax comes in and the price falls to 80c and costs 50c+tax of 40c=90c
The shop doesn't want to keep selling the product but they have lots in stock and while losing 10c on each sale is bad they need the money to keep running.

They sell 100 at a loss of €10 (10c*100) where as before they made €50
Demand goes up and people are willing to pay €1.20 but it costs 90c so profit 30c still less than they got before and they still have the previous loss

Sells another 100 with the profit of €30 still €20 short of original financial plan.

He looks at the books because the business isn't making as much money as he needed for wages. Sold 300 in total with plan saying €150 profit but reality is it's just €70.

Demand increase again and he can now sell at €1.40 back to the original 50c profit. The customer complain about the pay rise and how the shop is price gouging because demand is high and the price has risen by 60c when taxes only went up 40c.

People still need it and he sells another 100 with €50 profit four year forecast was €200 actual profit €120

Politicians are giving out and the public go crazy talking about all measures to increase taxes and restrict prices.

Shop owner worries that he could have an increase in taxes or a price drop could happen again making him lose money so decides better put up the price as I am still behind the financial plan which would be further hit by any of the things being discussed.

Price now us €1.50 with a 60c profit.

Sells a 100 again €60 profit excellent more than planned

Does accounts projection was €250 actual €180 after 5 years

keep going with no sales increase or price change

year 6 projected €300 actual €240
Year 7 projected €350 actual €300
Year 8 projected €400 actual €360
Year 9 projected €450 actual €420
Year 10 projected €500 actual €480
Year 11 projected €550 actual €540
Year 12 projected €600 actual €600

That is a long time get back on track. You can argue that the 50c profit is too large but the amount doesn't really matter the same applies on a smaller amount. People go into property investment with a plan and accept risks but adding risk from sudden government increases is very disconcerting. If the shop keeper didn't raise their prices as much it takes much longer to get back on track. Argue that they should just accept the loss or their predictions on profit were all wrong all you like but the same applies to anybody renting at a profit rate you find acceptable.

KyussB

Big claims regarding landlords selling up, with only anecdotes and no figures/reports. Lets see some non-lobbyist figures, which also properly consider AirBnB.

The idea of property rental is definitely not to allow full mortgage payment from rents - if that is ever possible, then the government isn't taxing rents anywhere near hard enough - nobody should ever be able to service a mortgage through rents alone, that indicates excessive ability to extract rents from the economy.

Standard economics isn't Chicago School economics - think you'll find there's plenty of economists supporting a capitalist system, who view taxing the living fuck out of all forms of 'economic rent', to be a heavily desirable thing. You'll also find many who want strict firewalls between Finance, Insurance and Real Estate - who view homes as places to live in, not as commodities/investments to be used and distorted for profit maximization.

You can fuck off trying to plug a mortgage into your profit vs loss calculations, and comparing rent to a shops turnover - that's total propaganda that's not going to fly, among a very large section of posters, here.

Sultan_of_Ping

4ensic15 wrote: »

The figures that have been produced of sales with more landlords selling than buying. If you add leaving idle and changing to Air BnB it is even more extreme. When a property is put on the market, it is almost invariably empty with no one living in it and won't have anyone in it until the new owner closes the deal and occupies it. If this happens with 4 properties per year and each is vacant for an average of 3 months that is the equivalent of the permanent removal of 1 property from the housing stock. Multiply that by the actual numbers of such sales divide by 4.
When properties are sold from buy to let to owner occupier the number of occupants often goes down. A couple might rent a one bed apartment but buy a 3 bed house which previously had 4 tenants. It takes two 1 bed apartments to replace the 3 bed house. A small number of landlords might be affected by bad tenants but the knowledge that this can happen has a chilling effect on other landlords and potential landlords.
Some landlords who acquired their properties years ago, don't have large or any borrowings are doing fine and making money. Others are in a Kafkaesque nightmare.

This x 1000.......rationally, I know the chances of us getting another bad tenant are very slim, and even our own experience would tell us that there are many more good apples than bad apples in the barrel.

Saying that, we're not willing to gamble €20k on that rationalisation.

Ray Palmer

KyussB wrote: »

Big claims regarding landlords selling up, with only anecdotes and no figures/reports. Lets see some non-lobbyist figures, which also properly consider AirBnB.

The idea of property rental is definitely not to allow full mortgage payment from rents - if that is ever possible, then the government isn't taxing rents anywhere near hard enough - nobody should ever be able to service a mortgage through rents alone, that indicates excessive ability to extract rents from the economy.

Standard economics isn't Chicago School economics - think you'll find there's plenty of economists supporting a capitalist system, who view taxing the living fuck out of all forms of 'economic rent', to be a heavily desirable thing. You'll also find many who want strict firewalls between Finance, Insurance and Real Estate - who view homes as places to live in, not as commodities/investments to be used and distorted for profit maximization.

You can fuck off trying to plug a mortgage into your profit vs loss calculations, and comparing rent to a shops turnover - that's total propaganda that's not going to fly, among a very large section of posters, here.

You can't refute any of the logic so you call it all propaganda.

You are ignoring reality for theory. This the reality of landlords needing to increase rent and not making money. Property is and has always been a commodity.

steddyeddy

I think the point still stands that LLs as a demographic have it remarkabley easier than tenants on middle to low income wages. They have an asset, most do not rent and they can work as well as make money from their asset. I won't dispute it doesn't cover the mortgage in its entirety but compared to the renters they're in a much better position. No rent (dead money), they have an asset that can generate revenue and they can work. How many non-landlords can supplement their income and pay off most or some of their mortgage with an asset?

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the point still stands that LLs as a demographic have it remarkabley easier than tenants on middle to low income wages. They have an asset, most do not rent and they can work as well as make money from their asset. I won't dispute it doesn't cover the mortgage in its entirety but compared to the renters they're in a much better position. No rent (dead money), they have an asset that can generate revenue and they can work. How many non-landlords can supplement their income and pay off most or some of their mortgage with an asset?

Would to have said that ten years ago? I don't remember anyone calling for rental floors when the market went to hell.

An asset that costs you money and won't realise a profit for 15-20 years isn't great. People seem awful hung up on the fact that the house is an asset, of course it is- who would rent if they couldn't make money off it? Hence the current market being exited

KyussB

Once again, the con of counting mortgage payments as a loss. Apparently if you only barely cover the mortgage of a house through rents for 15-20 years, then you only start profiting once the mortgage ends - when you've already achieved full ownership of an asset worth hundreds of thousands.

Apparently none of the hundreds of thousands in asset value of the house, is a profit. Those poor landlords.

Sultan_of_Ping

KyussB wrote: »

Once again, the con of counting mortgage payments as a loss. Apparently if you only barely cover the mortgage of a house through rents for 15-20 years, then you only start profiting once the mortgage ends - when you've already achieved full ownership of an asset worth hundreds of thousands.

Apparently none of the hundreds of thousands in asset value of the house, is a profit. Those poor landlords.

You've not factored in the cost of the debt. I reckon very few houses, even in this market and especially with low inflation, will be worth more than the original mortgage plus the cost of the debt. Especially if the mortgage is anything longer than 20 years.

runawaybishop

KyussB wrote: »

Once again, the con of counting mortgage payments as a loss. Apparently if you only barely cover the mortgage of a house through rents for 15-20 years, then you only start profiting once the mortgage ends - when you've already achieved full ownership of an asset worth hundreds of thousands.

Apparently none of the hundreds of thousands in asset value of the house, is a profit. Those poor landlords.

Have a bit of cop on. If landlords won't see profit until they sell the house what do you think will happen?

KyussB

The tactic seems to be, to distract/muddy valid points made, through appeals to the minutiae of landlord finances and mortgages.

In the case I provided in my previous post, the entire mortgage (including the interest payments) paid off through rent alone - this still gets these guys trying to say that no profit has been achieved in that case, even when a landlord ends up with an asset worth hundreds of thousands, that he did not own before.

It's one of the clearest and best examples of propaganda, that anyone will ever see openly displayed on Boards (which is saying something, as there is quite a lot of blatant/not-subtle shit spouted here at times...).

Ray Palmer

KyussB wrote: »

Once again, the con of counting mortgage payments as a loss. Apparently if you only barely cover the mortgage of a house through rents for 15-20 years, then you only start profiting once the mortgage ends - when you've already achieved full ownership of an asset worth hundreds of thousands.

Apparently none of the hundreds of thousands in asset value of the house, is a profit. Those poor landlords.

If you can't understand that is not what is being said it doesn't mean people are saying that. I just spelt out how it takes 12 years to get to return to rent yield planned for. It doesn't matter what the rate is you can make it a rate of additional amount to be exactly as you think is fair. If that means paying a 100% of the mortgage and rent over covering expenses it is still 12 years to return to what is planned.

If you think nobody should make money renting that is fine but it doesn't change the economics of now. Nobody is going to provide property without profit.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the point still stands that LLs as a demographic have it remarkabley easier than tenants on middle to low income wages. They have an asset, most do not rent and they can work as well as make money from their asset. I won't dispute it doesn't cover the mortgage in its entirety but compared to the renters they're in a much better position. No rent (dead money), they have an asset that can generate revenue and they can work. How many non-landlords can supplement their income and pay off most or some of their mortgage with an asset?

There are lots of people better off than others that is life. What has that got to with anything? Are you suggesting everyone should be made equal by taking things off them?

Most landlords will have much larger debit than the tenant and paying much more tax. Landlords aren't generally making any money from renting if they bought in the last 15 years. They are still paying into the properties they are renting so aren't generating revenue. Many have an extra 10+ years of additional payments into the property before any revenue due to what happened. So a tenant that gets rent allowance and state payments while working and never have the same debt nor obligation to work for another 20 years. So remarkably better of is relative considering one can need to work 60hours a week with huge debt while somebody work no hours without debt.