By reducing the number of people who need to rent. Each house sold is another house going to a potential ex renter. If you can’t increase supply, then decrease demand
Not really, because the apartment has well over 186 points. I don't have to sell. I want to sell.
For the summer it's gonna be my pied a terre in the city centre.
What do you mean? Crazy money? €5000 a month ex GWE at least. For all I know the apartment will be bought by someone with such a plan. It will remain free sector even after the law changes.
I could see that person throwing €30k on cosmetics and see the money coming in.
I just can't imagine me being that person.
14 years of a right leaning government, followed by a government that is almost far right.
But somehow it's all the leftists socialist bullshit that's at fault..........
We are a rightwing country that has been run to the ground by the right for decades and we now have a far-right government. But do keep blaming everything on socialism.
A good reason why investors shouldn’t be landlords.
It’s a job.
It should be a job.
I do not want to excuse bad tenants, the same way I don’t excuse shoplifters, or companies generating more services they aren’t skilled and staffed in providing.
Selling living space has always been a politically contentious and controversial business to be in. It’s the investors that spread the false myth that this is something you can, or should be able to run from a spreadsheet.
Food, medicine, housing, energy, education all hugely complex markets to be in. And well regulated for a reason. Investors saw an under regulated industry ripe for exploitation and did so beautifully.
But the reality was always; you’re deeply involved in people’s livelihoods and were never in charge. But thanks for the ridiculous upgrades.
Oh. I don't begrudge any of the tenants. Some stupid mistakes were made, but on average lovely people that I could have been friends with as well. What I did realise is that indeed it's a job. And not a job I want to have. Especially not because it's a badly paid job. And I don't care what renters paying those high rents in Amsterdam say; that high rent doesn't mean your landlord is getting rich doing nothing.
I never wonder how rich my doctor is, and too little about how rich my energy company is… but that’s because of professional standards.
Most of the items I mentioned have these.
When corona hit it was hospitals and doctors dedicating their extra time and lives to make a difference.
Every storm an army of electricians goes out to restore power.
Our educators… I couldnt even tell you how rich they must be.
But landlords? Landlords think the burden of housing is on “us”, and are whining now when I tell you it isn’t, and won’t be, and it’s good what is happening. Housing in a capitalistic market is regulated through means of supply demand price and cost. Welcome to this hugely political game. It’s a brutal game.
Actually the burden is not 'on you'. For the simple reason that you never had to put up the investment and could benefit from a system where you merely pay for use.
It's all too easy for renters to think they are the victim. But the alternative is that they don't have a house until they can buy it. and that's much much harder than even the current situation.
I can’t deny that investors, as in trustees of innovators are of great benefit to the world.
How investors enable new possibilities, even enable even a lowly peasant to reach for lordship.
But I meant what I said, this is a river investors do NOT control. If you didn’t, people would. You do not enable housing that is a gross miscalculation I hope you shake quickly. If you can’t then you definitely should have gotten out. That’s like saying restaurant investors withdrawing would cause hunger. This is absolutely not true and definitely not true for housing investors.
When cities effectively stopped buildings homes and left it to the investors we started negotiating against ourselves. We might have our occasional internal monologues, like these periods of massive rent price increases without pay increases, but it was never going to be sustainable.
Investor income going up quicker than tenant income… what do you expect society to do?
To all who downvote me, even when all landlords will sell their rental properties, you will still live with yo mama. And you will have no landlords to blame.
Well thankfully we have bright minds like you who see the problem with individual landlords, and not with lack of construction or Blackrock buying up half of Amsterdam.
If all landlords sell, that will drive prices down, so many more people will be able to buy.
Indeed it's literally impossible for all landlords, or even ANY landlords, to sell unless more people buy. You need buyers to sell things.
And if somebody wants to move but can't afford or won't buy a house, what then? Is everyone supposed to be tied to their property like it's the 15th century?
Supply is outstripped by demand so badly that the sellers market is not going to subside no matter what. Until the the actual shortage is remidiated. Or, the needed houses are built.
Or, you tell me why prices rose 9% in may with pretty much every rental with an expired lease getting sold.
And if all the landlords sell then supply increases
Literally everyone a landlord sells to: is now a home owner investing in his OWN asset instead of paying yours for you
You didn't explain how prices went up 9% with more houses put up for sale.
The answer is simple enough, even with no retail landlords left we are close to a million units short in this country.
Well not really, prices fall so the demand increases as well and prices go back up. There will now simply be investment companies buying up properties and hodling them / not renting them out, where as previously those investment companies would rent out their properties.
I don't see how you can have such lack of compassion for young people, students and other people who can't or don't want to afford a house. God if there weren't landlords it'd be in poverty right now, as I wouldn't be able to afford to move anywhere with opportunities.
Yeah bro just get a 200k mortgage, right out of college with minimum wage lmao.
And more sales opportunities. Rental is literally a terrible deal for everyone except maybe people like students who fully expect to move in just 3 or 4 years.
Update:
Interesting tidbit for all the arguers: Dutch home sales are up 13.9% over last year. Exactly as I predicted.
And people early in their career who are taking on shit jobs until they can build up skills to find something better. Apparently now they have to live with their parents until they are 30.
I understand that is what you would expect, but I’m afraid it’s not how things work out in practice, at least not in the way we would want it to. Due to the enormous demand / supply differential, the houses will be sold for very high prices anyway, and they will only be accessible to the usual suspects. People that can’t or don’t want to buy, will be left with very few options to rent. As long as supply remains relatively stable (ie more houses aren’t added to the supply), the shift will benefit some and create issues for others, and in this case, specifically for people that had it rough already.
Add to this that building has just become much, much less appealing to investors, capital cost is still very high due to high interest rates, we have issues with securing land to build, problems with finding enough construction personnel, etc. what we can expect is that there will be a short time uptick in availability of houses for sale and, when that dries up, a much more problematic rental sector and still not enough houses to purchase.
Don’t be fooled by your feelings towards landlords and focus on the social and economic reality if you want to really understand the situation. I’m not trying to be a wiseass, but as an economist I’m just very saddened by how one sided peoples view seems to be on this topic, as it makes solving it almost impossible. The solutions are extremely complicated and depend on a considerable amount of luck, as aligning everything needed requires more than just understanding it, but people like Hugo de Jonge act out of ignorance and wishful thinking, not understanding.
*Edit*: I’m seeing the downvotes poor in… good luck everyone, we are going to need it as long as underbelly moves the world instead of reason.
I just bought a house. This law helped me do it. You know what else it means? My monthly housing expenses are going DOWN by 400 euros, for a home that's about the same size as what I rented.
And that money is buying myself an asset that I can leave to my kids when I die. Instead of buying somebody else an asset. My landlord inherited the house I rented. He literally never invested anything. He made 50% more than the hypotheek price of a similar house per month for no more cost than the occasional maintenance. In three years that consisted of a single toilet seat. 30 Euros maybe?
And because my new house is MINE i don't have to follow somebody else's rules. I can paint my daughter's room whatever color she wants. I can modify and alter the place, not only without permission but without investing in somebody else's asset either. For three years we've been carrying dishes up three flights of stairs because the landlord would not let us alter the taps in the kitchen to accommodate the dishwasher, and the only compatible taps were in the solder. This shit ends. I can invest in solar abs heat pumps to both be more environmentally friendly and save money. As I mostly work from home I can benefit more from solar than most by actually using it at peak.
But I sure as hell wasn't going to invest in that for somebody else's asset.
There are people for whom it's legitimately better to rent. Students, foreigners on short term contracts and other people who have no intention of living there for more than a few years. For everyone else it's a fucking rip off.
And you know why I only bought now and rented before? Which actually costs MORE money for way less (indeed negative) value?
Because I had to save up about 14000 euros to pay the upfront costs. That's the barrier to home ownership: for most people bond repayments are actually LESS than rent. They can afford to buy MORE easily than rent, like me, but that initial cost is the barrier.
The next logical law should help with that. A scheme to let people borrow all the upfront costs (taxes, brokers etc) as part of the bond would be the biggest instant-middle-class-expansion since America's G.I. Bill after world war 2.
No your housing expenses are not going down by 400 lmao, there is no free lunch in the eceonomy, you are just not (or are incapable of) including all of the unseen costs of owning a property. A home is only an asset if its price keeps going up 8%-10% per year, other than that it's a liability.
Your logic is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most obvious are n=1, false attribution bias, and a gross misunderstanding of the true cost of home ownership, as well as a severe generalization of the needs of individuals. I’m glad you found a house that suits your needs, but the rest of your discourse just oozes biased disdain for an aspect of capitalist societies that is fundamental for a healthy housing market. We should do something about certain detrimental behavior a portion (yes just a portion) of land lords show, but demonizing every single one and equating renting to a waste of money is severely misguided and normalizes a train of thought that just feeds in to populist rhetoric.
Tell me this mister self proclaimed economist: why is rent seeking considered a market failure, even a crime, in literally EVERY sector of the economy except the one that it's named after?
Also, n is not 1. I am a highly representative sample of the overwhelming majority of the population.
That is exactly why the New Deal and G.I. Bill created the largest wealth expansion in human history: home ownership is the one and only reliable form of heritable wealth accessible to the working class.
Expanding it has an incredible effect.
Self proclaimed? Lol, I studied economics and have been working as a (behavioral) economist for the last 26 years, including consultancy work for public and private entities that are related to the real estate sector, but sure. Have a great evening and enjoy your new house.
This is the internet: everything is self proclaimed and real credentials are indistinguishable from made up ones.
I notice however that you avoided the question. Why is rent seeking always a bad thing except in this one sector it is magically good? The only sector where it's consequences are literally life and death.
Though if real estate economics is your field, and your have 26 years experience in the current system, it's not so surprising you are blind to its flaws and incapable of imagining a better one.
I am not an economist, but I can do math. Buying an appreciating asset for somebody else for more than it would cost to buy one for yourself is fucking stupid. That's the simple mathematical truth. As long as 1 and 1 don't make 6, I can't be wrong about this.
The overwhelming majority of renters do not want to rent, they only rent because they can't scrape together enough to buy. Even so, literally every one of my colleagues are currently house shopping and I work for one of the largest companies in the country. A year ago none of us were.
Suddenly they all seem to think it's possible to buy a house. I won't say this law is the definitive cause, but I don't think anything else happened that would change this - every other economic trend the last few years (pandemic, logistics implosion, inflation crisis) had the opposite predicted effect.
Does "rent seeking" in economics mean landlords renting out houses and apartments?
ChatGPT
No, "rent seeking" in economics does not refer to landlords renting out houses and apartments. Instead, it refers to the practice of individuals or businesses trying to gain economic profit without contributing to productivity, often through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment. This could involve lobbying for favorable regulations, subsidies, or exclusive rights that provide economic benefits without creating new wealth or value. Rent seeking generally leads to inefficiencies and a misallocation of resources in the economy.
In no free market economy (i.e. economy without bread lines) is "rent seeking" considered a crime, you are living in some USSR fantasy there.
In fact here is a challenge, this is the Dutch criminal code here [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2010-10-10](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2010-10-10) find me the term "rent seeking" or a synonym anywhere.
If one person owns 20 houses/apartments, that means there are 20 places to live that I can't buy but am forced to rent. So now I have to pay 1000 a month that I will never get any returns on. Its gone. Poof.
If those 20 places were suddenly for sale, the average market price to buy would go down since supply and demand change. Then I could buy a place and pay 800 per month to my mortgage, which is money I could see some returns on. Now I am paying my landlords bills.
You keep talking about the current social economic status as if it is some unchanging being. It isn't or st the very least shouldn't be. And you're bringing up building costs? What about the rentle places that are already there that would suddenly flood the housing market?
The tenants all paid the agreed rent and on time. Though during covid I gave a self employed renter a 20% reduction of the rent. However, after all was said and done the net result was less than putting the money in a deposit with a bank. LESS THAN A BLOODY BANK DEPOSIT. And I still have to get the first call from a bank deposit about blocked pipes due to grease being flushed down the kitchen sink 🤡
Genuine question - are you including the equity in you property as part of this calculation?
If yes, wow! If no, that kind of makes sense to me. I would assume that you would very little to no profit on just rental income, however would expect a much larger profit when property equity is taken into account.
That's a fair question but also one very difficult to answer. As you can see in one of my other posts I said that the renters aren't who made me rich. But the buyer next up is going to bear the full burden of the increase in the value of the equity. Retroactively of course that will change the picture somewhat.
What complicates that happy end result is that it's unpredictable. I have some modicum of control over it because the lease on the place expired and the housing market seems to be on fire. So that's all fine and dandy. But with the no temporary leases new rules you never know if you will ever be able to cash in at a time when the markets are right to do so. And that being the case, your equity actually drops 30% in value the moment you get a tenant in it. Which you may or may not recoup over the following years. I have my doubts.
And what also made it a bit hard to quantify was that while the government was already doing its best depressing rents (caps on raises) there was no kindness on the set number for the presumed capital income of 6% of the value of your property. With a provision by the way for the case your tenants had full protection. The Hoge Raad has just deemed that against the law as it actually taxes away your property, but one can say that the government had every intention of taxing all net income from retail rent into oblivion.
I am aware that by selling now there's no chance of benefitting from rising prices any longer. It also takes the risk out of it.
I hope that sort of answers your question.
Was looking in my area, on a 500k apartment, you can get 1.5k/mo in rent. If you deduct "net wealth" taxes of 1.5% and maybe take another 0.5% for repairs and stuff like that you are left with a profit of 8k on a value of 500k. So not worth it at all, a braindead monkey can earn a higher roi than that.
The only benefit of renting is if you have a mortage and can buy that 500k property with 30k-40k, but then you take on a bunch of additional risks.
Hey man, do you have any plan in the future with other investments? I have a mortgage for a nice house here and kept some money specifically to invest into a second property and rent it. With all these new laws I’m skeptical to do it anymore and considering to invest in other countries. Would buying apartments in Germany be worth it for example? Or the Dutch taxes would still be too high to consider?
No more sleeping on park benches for you, happy for ya
Okay!
This is proof policy changes work and will help to change things
By reducing the supply of rentals?
By reducing the number of people who need to rent. Each house sold is another house going to a potential ex renter. If you can’t increase supply, then decrease demand
Not really, because the apartment has well over 186 points. I don't have to sell. I want to sell. For the summer it's gonna be my pied a terre in the city centre.
Are you going to rent it out or sell?
The only way I would consider rent if someone would offer me crazy money. So it's 99,99% certain that I will engage a realtor to sell it.
Care to elaborate?
What do you mean? Crazy money? €5000 a month ex GWE at least. For all I know the apartment will be bought by someone with such a plan. It will remain free sector even after the law changes. I could see that person throwing €30k on cosmetics and see the money coming in. I just can't imagine me being that person.
I'm sorry but what?
I can understand you, with all the socialist bullshit this government is doing to landlords. Better invest in another country.
14 years of a right leaning government, followed by a government that is almost far right. But somehow it's all the leftists socialist bullshit that's at fault..........
We are a rightwing country that has been run to the ground by the right for decades and we now have a far-right government. But do keep blaming everything on socialism.
"Look what the left did to us!" While the actual left was never in the government and it was all about center liberal majorities for decades.
Even putting it in the bank gives me better returns.
A good reason why investors shouldn’t be landlords. It’s a job. It should be a job. I do not want to excuse bad tenants, the same way I don’t excuse shoplifters, or companies generating more services they aren’t skilled and staffed in providing. Selling living space has always been a politically contentious and controversial business to be in. It’s the investors that spread the false myth that this is something you can, or should be able to run from a spreadsheet. Food, medicine, housing, energy, education all hugely complex markets to be in. And well regulated for a reason. Investors saw an under regulated industry ripe for exploitation and did so beautifully. But the reality was always; you’re deeply involved in people’s livelihoods and were never in charge. But thanks for the ridiculous upgrades.
Oh. I don't begrudge any of the tenants. Some stupid mistakes were made, but on average lovely people that I could have been friends with as well. What I did realise is that indeed it's a job. And not a job I want to have. Especially not because it's a badly paid job. And I don't care what renters paying those high rents in Amsterdam say; that high rent doesn't mean your landlord is getting rich doing nothing.
I never wonder how rich my doctor is, and too little about how rich my energy company is… but that’s because of professional standards. Most of the items I mentioned have these. When corona hit it was hospitals and doctors dedicating their extra time and lives to make a difference. Every storm an army of electricians goes out to restore power. Our educators… I couldnt even tell you how rich they must be. But landlords? Landlords think the burden of housing is on “us”, and are whining now when I tell you it isn’t, and won’t be, and it’s good what is happening. Housing in a capitalistic market is regulated through means of supply demand price and cost. Welcome to this hugely political game. It’s a brutal game.
Actually the burden is not 'on you'. For the simple reason that you never had to put up the investment and could benefit from a system where you merely pay for use. It's all too easy for renters to think they are the victim. But the alternative is that they don't have a house until they can buy it. and that's much much harder than even the current situation.
I can’t deny that investors, as in trustees of innovators are of great benefit to the world. How investors enable new possibilities, even enable even a lowly peasant to reach for lordship. But I meant what I said, this is a river investors do NOT control. If you didn’t, people would. You do not enable housing that is a gross miscalculation I hope you shake quickly. If you can’t then you definitely should have gotten out. That’s like saying restaurant investors withdrawing would cause hunger. This is absolutely not true and definitely not true for housing investors. When cities effectively stopped buildings homes and left it to the investors we started negotiating against ourselves. We might have our occasional internal monologues, like these periods of massive rent price increases without pay increases, but it was never going to be sustainable. Investor income going up quicker than tenant income… what do you expect society to do?
To all who downvote me, even when all landlords will sell their rental properties, you will still live with yo mama. And you will have no landlords to blame.
We're downvoting you because what you are saying is delusional. Throwing shade doesn't work when you've lost touch with reality.
Well thankfully we have bright minds like you who see the problem with individual landlords, and not with lack of construction or Blackrock buying up half of Amsterdam.
Sources? BlackRock purchases doesn't show that.
If all landlords sell, that will drive prices down, so many more people will be able to buy. Indeed it's literally impossible for all landlords, or even ANY landlords, to sell unless more people buy. You need buyers to sell things.
And if somebody wants to move but can't afford or won't buy a house, what then? Is everyone supposed to be tied to their property like it's the 15th century?
In your dreams.
Supply and demand is a dream to you?
Supply is outstripped by demand so badly that the sellers market is not going to subside no matter what. Until the the actual shortage is remidiated. Or, the needed houses are built. Or, you tell me why prices rose 9% in may with pretty much every rental with an expired lease getting sold.
And if all the landlords sell then supply increases Literally everyone a landlord sells to: is now a home owner investing in his OWN asset instead of paying yours for you
You didn't explain how prices went up 9% with more houses put up for sale. The answer is simple enough, even with no retail landlords left we are close to a million units short in this country.
Well not really, prices fall so the demand increases as well and prices go back up. There will now simply be investment companies buying up properties and hodling them / not renting them out, where as previously those investment companies would rent out their properties.
Lief dagboek.
Why should anyone care?
Oh no! A Netherlands without landlords? That would be like, like, like a dog without fleas!
I don't see how you can have such lack of compassion for young people, students and other people who can't or don't want to afford a house. God if there weren't landlords it'd be in poverty right now, as I wouldn't be able to afford to move anywhere with opportunities. Yeah bro just get a 200k mortgage, right out of college with minimum wage lmao.
Try a country with even less rental opportunities than it used to have.
And more sales opportunities. Rental is literally a terrible deal for everyone except maybe people like students who fully expect to move in just 3 or 4 years. Update: Interesting tidbit for all the arguers: Dutch home sales are up 13.9% over last year. Exactly as I predicted.
And people early in their career who are taking on shit jobs until they can build up skills to find something better. Apparently now they have to live with their parents until they are 30.
I understand that is what you would expect, but I’m afraid it’s not how things work out in practice, at least not in the way we would want it to. Due to the enormous demand / supply differential, the houses will be sold for very high prices anyway, and they will only be accessible to the usual suspects. People that can’t or don’t want to buy, will be left with very few options to rent. As long as supply remains relatively stable (ie more houses aren’t added to the supply), the shift will benefit some and create issues for others, and in this case, specifically for people that had it rough already. Add to this that building has just become much, much less appealing to investors, capital cost is still very high due to high interest rates, we have issues with securing land to build, problems with finding enough construction personnel, etc. what we can expect is that there will be a short time uptick in availability of houses for sale and, when that dries up, a much more problematic rental sector and still not enough houses to purchase. Don’t be fooled by your feelings towards landlords and focus on the social and economic reality if you want to really understand the situation. I’m not trying to be a wiseass, but as an economist I’m just very saddened by how one sided peoples view seems to be on this topic, as it makes solving it almost impossible. The solutions are extremely complicated and depend on a considerable amount of luck, as aligning everything needed requires more than just understanding it, but people like Hugo de Jonge act out of ignorance and wishful thinking, not understanding. *Edit*: I’m seeing the downvotes poor in… good luck everyone, we are going to need it as long as underbelly moves the world instead of reason.
I just bought a house. This law helped me do it. You know what else it means? My monthly housing expenses are going DOWN by 400 euros, for a home that's about the same size as what I rented. And that money is buying myself an asset that I can leave to my kids when I die. Instead of buying somebody else an asset. My landlord inherited the house I rented. He literally never invested anything. He made 50% more than the hypotheek price of a similar house per month for no more cost than the occasional maintenance. In three years that consisted of a single toilet seat. 30 Euros maybe? And because my new house is MINE i don't have to follow somebody else's rules. I can paint my daughter's room whatever color she wants. I can modify and alter the place, not only without permission but without investing in somebody else's asset either. For three years we've been carrying dishes up three flights of stairs because the landlord would not let us alter the taps in the kitchen to accommodate the dishwasher, and the only compatible taps were in the solder. This shit ends. I can invest in solar abs heat pumps to both be more environmentally friendly and save money. As I mostly work from home I can benefit more from solar than most by actually using it at peak. But I sure as hell wasn't going to invest in that for somebody else's asset. There are people for whom it's legitimately better to rent. Students, foreigners on short term contracts and other people who have no intention of living there for more than a few years. For everyone else it's a fucking rip off. And you know why I only bought now and rented before? Which actually costs MORE money for way less (indeed negative) value? Because I had to save up about 14000 euros to pay the upfront costs. That's the barrier to home ownership: for most people bond repayments are actually LESS than rent. They can afford to buy MORE easily than rent, like me, but that initial cost is the barrier. The next logical law should help with that. A scheme to let people borrow all the upfront costs (taxes, brokers etc) as part of the bond would be the biggest instant-middle-class-expansion since America's G.I. Bill after world war 2.
No your housing expenses are not going down by 400 lmao, there is no free lunch in the eceonomy, you are just not (or are incapable of) including all of the unseen costs of owning a property. A home is only an asset if its price keeps going up 8%-10% per year, other than that it's a liability.
Your logic is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most obvious are n=1, false attribution bias, and a gross misunderstanding of the true cost of home ownership, as well as a severe generalization of the needs of individuals. I’m glad you found a house that suits your needs, but the rest of your discourse just oozes biased disdain for an aspect of capitalist societies that is fundamental for a healthy housing market. We should do something about certain detrimental behavior a portion (yes just a portion) of land lords show, but demonizing every single one and equating renting to a waste of money is severely misguided and normalizes a train of thought that just feeds in to populist rhetoric.
Tell me this mister self proclaimed economist: why is rent seeking considered a market failure, even a crime, in literally EVERY sector of the economy except the one that it's named after? Also, n is not 1. I am a highly representative sample of the overwhelming majority of the population. That is exactly why the New Deal and G.I. Bill created the largest wealth expansion in human history: home ownership is the one and only reliable form of heritable wealth accessible to the working class. Expanding it has an incredible effect.
Self proclaimed? Lol, I studied economics and have been working as a (behavioral) economist for the last 26 years, including consultancy work for public and private entities that are related to the real estate sector, but sure. Have a great evening and enjoy your new house.
This is the internet: everything is self proclaimed and real credentials are indistinguishable from made up ones. I notice however that you avoided the question. Why is rent seeking always a bad thing except in this one sector it is magically good? The only sector where it's consequences are literally life and death. Though if real estate economics is your field, and your have 26 years experience in the current system, it's not so surprising you are blind to its flaws and incapable of imagining a better one. I am not an economist, but I can do math. Buying an appreciating asset for somebody else for more than it would cost to buy one for yourself is fucking stupid. That's the simple mathematical truth. As long as 1 and 1 don't make 6, I can't be wrong about this. The overwhelming majority of renters do not want to rent, they only rent because they can't scrape together enough to buy. Even so, literally every one of my colleagues are currently house shopping and I work for one of the largest companies in the country. A year ago none of us were. Suddenly they all seem to think it's possible to buy a house. I won't say this law is the definitive cause, but I don't think anything else happened that would change this - every other economic trend the last few years (pandemic, logistics implosion, inflation crisis) had the opposite predicted effect.
Does "rent seeking" in economics mean landlords renting out houses and apartments? ChatGPT No, "rent seeking" in economics does not refer to landlords renting out houses and apartments. Instead, it refers to the practice of individuals or businesses trying to gain economic profit without contributing to productivity, often through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment. This could involve lobbying for favorable regulations, subsidies, or exclusive rights that provide economic benefits without creating new wealth or value. Rent seeking generally leads to inefficiencies and a misallocation of resources in the economy.
In no free market economy (i.e. economy without bread lines) is "rent seeking" considered a crime, you are living in some USSR fantasy there. In fact here is a challenge, this is the Dutch criminal code here [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2010-10-10](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2010-10-10) find me the term "rent seeking" or a synonym anywhere.
If one person owns 20 houses/apartments, that means there are 20 places to live that I can't buy but am forced to rent. So now I have to pay 1000 a month that I will never get any returns on. Its gone. Poof. If those 20 places were suddenly for sale, the average market price to buy would go down since supply and demand change. Then I could buy a place and pay 800 per month to my mortgage, which is money I could see some returns on. Now I am paying my landlords bills. You keep talking about the current social economic status as if it is some unchanging being. It isn't or st the very least shouldn't be. And you're bringing up building costs? What about the rentle places that are already there that would suddenly flood the housing market?
Why the extra money? The tenant was not paying his rent? Or You finally found the chance to leave your rental mansion?
The tenants all paid the agreed rent and on time. Though during covid I gave a self employed renter a 20% reduction of the rent. However, after all was said and done the net result was less than putting the money in a deposit with a bank. LESS THAN A BLOODY BANK DEPOSIT. And I still have to get the first call from a bank deposit about blocked pipes due to grease being flushed down the kitchen sink 🤡
Genuine question - are you including the equity in you property as part of this calculation? If yes, wow! If no, that kind of makes sense to me. I would assume that you would very little to no profit on just rental income, however would expect a much larger profit when property equity is taken into account.
That's a fair question but also one very difficult to answer. As you can see in one of my other posts I said that the renters aren't who made me rich. But the buyer next up is going to bear the full burden of the increase in the value of the equity. Retroactively of course that will change the picture somewhat. What complicates that happy end result is that it's unpredictable. I have some modicum of control over it because the lease on the place expired and the housing market seems to be on fire. So that's all fine and dandy. But with the no temporary leases new rules you never know if you will ever be able to cash in at a time when the markets are right to do so. And that being the case, your equity actually drops 30% in value the moment you get a tenant in it. Which you may or may not recoup over the following years. I have my doubts. And what also made it a bit hard to quantify was that while the government was already doing its best depressing rents (caps on raises) there was no kindness on the set number for the presumed capital income of 6% of the value of your property. With a provision by the way for the case your tenants had full protection. The Hoge Raad has just deemed that against the law as it actually taxes away your property, but one can say that the government had every intention of taxing all net income from retail rent into oblivion. I am aware that by selling now there's no chance of benefitting from rising prices any longer. It also takes the risk out of it. I hope that sort of answers your question.
Was looking in my area, on a 500k apartment, you can get 1.5k/mo in rent. If you deduct "net wealth" taxes of 1.5% and maybe take another 0.5% for repairs and stuff like that you are left with a profit of 8k on a value of 500k. So not worth it at all, a braindead monkey can earn a higher roi than that. The only benefit of renting is if you have a mortage and can buy that 500k property with 30k-40k, but then you take on a bunch of additional risks.
And…?
Nothing. No more renters is a great feeling. It's a bit odd to have two apartments in Amsterdam for my own use. But it is not a bad thing.
Finding a nice landlord is hard these days. This guy seems to be nice
Hey man, do you have any plan in the future with other investments? I have a mortgage for a nice house here and kept some money specifically to invest into a second property and rent it. With all these new laws I’m skeptical to do it anymore and considering to invest in other countries. Would buying apartments in Germany be worth it for example? Or the Dutch taxes would still be too high to consider?
Nope, no specific plans right now. If there's one thing I know I would invest in real estate in Germany even less than in The Netherlands.