#BLMers now demanding that white people give up our homes!

[J842P]

Keyword here: moderation. What I am proposing is a legal moderation to capitalism re: ownership.

How do you envision that a society without ownership would function? How do you see people interacting? Can you describe some common every-day occurrences like getting food to eat and clothing to wear and a place to shelter?

I believe Jarhyn is proposing a system whereby owning land has various stipulations, not removing ownership from the legal system.

 

[Jarhyn]

Keyword here: moderation. What I am proposing is a legal moderation to capitalism re: ownership.

How do you envision that a society without ownership would function? How do you see people interacting? Can you describe some common every-day occurrences like getting food to eat and clothing to wear and a place to shelter?

I believe Jarhyn is proposing a system whereby owning land has various stipulations, not removing ownership from the legal system.

More, not "without ownership", more "with different axioms that define ownership"

I believe that the axioms by which we, as a society, interact that are then named "ownership" are flawed. The indefinite persistence, and the failure to their "ownership share" towards the actual end user are such flaws.

I don't propose people don't "own" things. I propose we redifine what it means "to own"; at any rate, real objects in the universe do not have an "owner". Ownership is a shorthand by which we decide who not to physically attack for accessing a thing. We can decide what the shape of that calculus is, and as it stands, the shape of the extant calculus is FUCKED

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my town, which is well over 90 percent white, we have chains like Walmart and Starbucks and Family Dollar--and lost a lot of nice local stores, like the hardware store where you could purchase just one screw to replace the one that was missing instead of a whole package.

Having loose screws is a price benefit to the customer who needs only one screw. It's a detriment to the customer who needs many because the price per screw will be higher. Note, also, that selling loose screws means you have to be careful selecting your items because they aren't labeled and there will be some that customers put in the wrong bin. Screws are especially onerous in this regard because of the subtle differences. (As I write this I have a container of 2" 6-32 machine screws and a bag of 2 1/4" 6-32 machine screws sitting here. If you pulled the wrong one out of a bin would you notice??)

No hardware around here sells loose screws so that's pretty much not an issue, but head over to irrigation system parts. Now we do have lots of loose parts, if I'm after such parts I'm routinely pulling wrong parts out of the box. Despite my care I've managed to get home once and discover I had a 3/4" riser instead of a 1/2".

 

[laughing dog]

In my town, which is well over 90 percent white, we have chains like Walmart and Starbucks and Family Dollar--and lost a lot of nice local stores, like the hardware store where you could purchase just one screw to replace the one that was missing instead of a whole package.

Having loose screws is a price benefit to the customer who needs only one screw. It's a detriment to the customer who needs many because the price per screw will be higher. Note, also, that selling loose screws means you have to be careful selecting your items because they aren't labeled and there will be some that customers put in the wrong bin. Screws are especially onerous in this regard because of the subtle differences. (As I write this I have a container of 2" 6-32 machine screws and a bag of 2 1/4" 6-32 machine screws sitting here. If you pulled the wrong one out of a bin would you notice??)

No hardware around here sells loose screws so that's pretty much not an issue, but head over to irrigation system parts. Now we do have lots of loose parts, if I'm after such parts I'm routinely pulling wrong parts out of the box. Despite my care I've managed to get home once and discover I had a 3/4" riser instead of a 1/2".

We have a hardware store that has no problem selling nails, screws or bolts by the box, pound or individually. Apparently it is not that difficult to do at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

We have a hardware store that has no problem selling nails, screws or bolts by the box, pound or individually. Apparently it is not that difficult to do at all.

I was going to say pretty much exactly that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In my town, which is well over 90 percent white, we have chains like Walmart and Starbucks and Family Dollar--and lost a lot of nice local stores, like the hardware store where you could purchase just one screw to replace the one that was missing instead of a whole package.

Having loose screws is a price benefit to the customer who needs only one screw. It's a detriment to the customer who needs many because the price per screw will be higher. Note, also, that selling loose screws means you have to be careful selecting your items because they aren't labeled and there will be some that customers put in the wrong bin. Screws are especially onerous in this regard because of the subtle differences. (As I write this I have a container of 2" 6-32 machine screws and a bag of 2 1/4" 6-32 machine screws sitting here. If you pulled the wrong one out of a bin would you notice??)

No hardware around here sells loose screws so that's pretty much not an issue, but head over to irrigation system parts. Now we do have lots of loose parts, if I'm after such parts I'm routinely pulling wrong parts out of the box. Despite my care I've managed to get home once and discover I had a 3/4" riser instead of a 1/2".

We have a hardware store that has no problem selling nails, screws or bolts by the box, pound or individually. Apparently it is not that difficult to do at all.

Ace Hardware does that. I needed a wing-nut, and bought one wing-nut. Cashier asked how much it was. I told them. Crazy stuff.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I believe Jarhyn is proposing a system whereby owning land has various stipulations, not removing ownership from the legal system.

More, not "without ownership", more "with different axioms that define ownership"

I believe that the axioms by which we, as a society, interact that are then named "ownership" are flawed. The indefinite persistence, and the failure to their "ownership share" towards the actual end user are such flaws.

I don't propose people don't "own" things. I propose we redifine what it means "to own"; at any rate, real objects in the universe do not have an "owner". Ownership is a shorthand by which we decide who not to physically attack for accessing a thing. We can decide what the shape of that calculus is, and as it stands, the shape of the extant calculus is FUCKED

The problem is that people generally don't take care of products unless they own them. For example: rental homes; rental anything.

 

[Jarhyn]

I believe Jarhyn is proposing a system whereby owning land has various stipulations, not removing ownership from the legal system.

More, not "without ownership", more "with different axioms that define ownership"

I believe that the axioms by which we, as a society, interact that are then named "ownership" are flawed. The indefinite persistence, and the failure to their "ownership share" towards the actual end user are such flaws.

I don't propose people don't "own" things. I propose we redifine what it means "to own"; at any rate, real objects in the universe do not have an "owner". Ownership is a shorthand by which we decide who not to physically attack for accessing a thing. We can decide what the shape of that calculus is, and as it stands, the shape of the extant calculus is FUCKED

The problem is that people generally don't take care of products unless they own them. For example: rental homes; rental anything.

Fewer people take care of things they don't own, but you have a steep burden to prove "generally". Especially for homes, things people have to live with/in long term.

Of course, if they come to own some percentage over time as a function of occupancy and paying rent, that would mean by your logic that they would take better care of the property. Everyone wins!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

These black people, they bring their weird tastes with them. Soon there will be beauty shops and convenience stores as far as the eye can see.

That bigoted imputation reveals more about you than Toni.

What bigoted imputation? Have you interpreted that Metaphor was actually claiming that those black people bring weird tastes, etc. with them?

ETA: I see Derec beat me to it.

Sorry, I got the names swapped. The correct quotation is:

These black people, they bring their weird tastes with them. Soon there will be beauty shops and convenience stores as far as the eye can see.

That bigoted imputation reveals more about you than Toni.

 

[ruby sparks]

I believe Jarhyn is proposing a system whereby owning land has various stipulations, not removing ownership from the legal system.

More, not "without ownership", more "with different axioms that define ownership"

I believe that the axioms by which we, as a society, interact that are then named "ownership" are flawed. The indefinite persistence, and the failure to their "ownership share" towards the actual end user are such flaws.

I don't propose people don't "own" things. I propose we redifine what it means "to own"; at any rate, real objects in the universe do not have an "owner". Ownership is a shorthand by which we decide who not to physically attack for accessing a thing. We can decide what the shape of that calculus is, and as it stands, the shape of the extant calculus is FUCKED

It's an idea that's worth running with in principle.

In free-market-inclined USA I can see how it might be more difficult to bring in, because individual landlords are the ones who would be paying for it. And they are not all parasites. Many landlords here (I can't speak for the USA) need the rent to pay off the mortgage they took out when buying the property. And in fact, many need all the rent, because quite often, by the time the mortgage, the rates, insurances, letting agent fees, repairs, tax and other on-costs are totted up, the rent barely covers them, and sometimes doesn't, and that's true even when the mortgage is interest only (ie when repayments are not reducing the original amount) and in my experience this is generally the case, because a repayment mortgage would cause a loss month on month. But property prices (and rents) generally go up in the long term, and that's what a lot of landlords are betting on, not quick profits. So if rents go up, they can start to repay the original amount.

One way to get the ball rolling on it would be for the government authorities to fund or subsidise it, at least in the short term. If potential landlords knew in advance that such funding was temporary, it might then lower the price of new properties they might be seeking to buy, and so the landlords could better afford to give the tenants something.

Here in NI, quite a lot of housing was social (public) housing, and about 30 or so years ago, it was decided (for various political reasons, some dubious others not) to let tenants buy the home if they wanted to, and if they did, they got it at a reduced rate, the reduction depending on how long they had been tenants. So in effect, they were being given equity in return for their rent, and many took the opportunity, because if they had been in the property for decades, the reductions were significant and substantial, in some cases (I think) as much as 50% of the valuation price. But that equity is/was effectively being given out of public money, so in effect society (in the form of the taxpayer) was paying.

Now, a lot of renters are short term tenants (students for example, who typically sign up for one-year leases only) and that's a slightly different situation.

Jarhyn, how would you envisage your suggestion working in the simpler and common situation where the tenant stays in the property for an extended period of years, for example? Where would the accumulating equity be? Could they access it (to spend on holidays for example) rather than save it up to one day be able to use it as a deposit to buy a house? Perhaps it might be treated a bit like a pension, where it's not easily spent at short notice, or available after a period of time? Otherwise, it's not 'building up ownership' in quite the way I think you are advocating, it's a rent reduction. I'm not saying rent reductions (or indeed rent controls) are a bad thing. And I'm not necessarily saying that being able to spend your accumulating equity as you go along is wrong or bad in principle either. People who gain equity through ownership in the current situation can freely do it. I suppose if I were to guess, you'd say so should a renter in the situation you are proposing?

Away from that type of example, perhaps short-term renters' equity could be made portable for them (perhaps cashed in at the end of any tenancy, or kept in their name and transferred with them).

 

[ruby sparks]

... the shape of the extant calculus is FUCKED

One thing I agree is fucked is that property prices are now too high for many would-be entrants to the home ownership option to afford them. I don't know about the USA but it's the case here. I understand the market forces, I really do, but I think it's gone askew when teachers, nurses, the police and other (hardworking and important to society) young professionals can't afford to buy a small starter property, even if they were willing to burden themselves with a giant mortgage.

 

[Bomb#20]

We used to price people out of their own homes that they'd lived in all their lives in California too, but we stopped doing that: we passed Proposition 13. Now our property taxes are based on purchase price. If you have referendums in your state, you need to pass a Proposition 13 of your own. If you don't have referendums in your state, you need to get referendums.

Purchase price without any inflationary compensation doesn't seem fair either?

Well, that seems to be the dilemma -- with assessments, poor people are effectively ordered to sell whenever rich people want to buy, their property rights be damned. On the other hand, without assessments, two neighbors have identical homes and one is charged five times what the other is charged. But of course that's a false dilemma. Government funding itself with property taxes isn't a law of nature either. There's a trivial way to be fairer to the long-term resident and the new guy on the block at the same time: fund government with income tax.

In a generally increasing property market, it would discourage buying and selling lest a higher tax base is established. What's the specific mechanism?

In California we actually have an inflationary compensation; but the compensation rate is fixed by law and it's close to the general inflation rate, which has historically been a lot lower than the real estate inflation rate. And yes, people do hang onto properties longer to keep their low tax rates. That reduces economic efficiency no doubt; but the situation we had before Prop. 13 was godawful. Government officials' appetite for taxes is insatiable; the voters crying foul and taking matters into their own hands is sometimes necessary. Representative democracy has the same problem joint stock companies have -- when the owners delegate control, the executives they hire pursue their own interests instead of the interests of the people who delegated power to them.

Prop 13 is a bad thing as it limits property taxes too much. The reality is inflation exists, values go up. 13 decrees a rate below the inflation rate.

That's a feature, not a bug.

What I would like to see is when dealing with owner-occupied or business-owner-occupied (the owner actively runs a business in the property) one may elect to freeze one's property tax payment. The property tax itself is based on market values, if you pay less than what you "owe" the shortfall becomes a high-priority lien on the property that charges interest at the federal funds rate. This is not a delinquency, it can't be seized for a tax sale, it just builds up the lien. When the property transfers other than to a spouse the lien must be settled.

That's not a bad idea in general, regardless of whether one thinks the tax rate is too low. A lot of people are land-rich and cash-poor. But governments don't seem to go for that, apparently because they want your money now! Of course if they want the money now and all they have is a lien there should be no difficulty setting up a secondary market for investors willing to give the government money now in return for a share of the future sales price of a property in arrears.

 

[Jarhyn]

... the shape of the extant calculus is FUCKED

One thing I agree is fucked is that property prices are now too high for many would-be entrants to the home ownership option to afford them. I don't know about the USA but it's the case here. I understand the market forces, I really do, but I think it's gone askew when teachers, nurses, the police and other (hardworking and important to society) young professionals can't afford to buy a small starter property, even if they were willing to burden themselves with a giant mortgage.

Which is another benefit I see to retooling ownership. It makes nonresident real estate ownership+rent seeking less appealing, since you couldn't keep ownership from slipping.

Landlords would quit the field left and right and real estate prices would correct to sane values again. It would really suck for anyone who owns a lot of real estate. But seriously, why does anyone need one person (or few persons) to own all the real estate in the first place?

Homes are the sort of resource where you absolutely need one, and you generally absolutely do not need two; the investment is going to exist at someone else's expense needlessly.

 

[ruby sparks]

But seriously, why does anyone need one person (or few persons) to own all the real estate in the first place?

Homes are the sort of resource where you absolutely need one, and you generally absolutely do not need two; the investment is going to exist at someone else's expense needlessly.

I agree with you partly and up to a point on those statements.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it's not. Nostalgia is not a reason to be against gentrification.

It may not be a reason of which you approve. That does not make it a case.

What's the difference, except "white people are bad m'kay!"?

It was a dishonest parapharse.

Wrong. The parapharse[sic] is right on the money.

It is about as right on the money as the following paraphrase of your rationale "Because the inferiority the blacks scare me, I make up shit about those who are not afraid of the blacks".

 

[James Madison]

... the shape of the extant calculus is FUCKED

One thing I agree is fucked is that property prices are now too high for many would-be entrants to the home ownership option to afford them. I don't know about the USA but it's the case here. I understand the market forces, I really do, but I think it's gone askew when teachers, nurses, the police and other (hardworking and important to society) young professionals can't afford to buy a small starter property, even if they were willing to burden themselves with a giant mortgage.

Which is another benefit I see to retooling ownership. It makes nonresident real estate ownership+rent seeking less appealing, since you couldn't keep ownership from slipping.

Landlords would quit the field left and right and real estate prices would correct to sane values again. It would really suck for anyone who owns a lot of real estate.

Homes are the sort of resource where you absolutely need one, and you generally absolutely do not need two; the investment is going to exist at someone else's expense needlessly.

What “expense” do you mean? The “expense” they can no longer own that plot of land and the house on the land? That there’s one less piece of land to own and build a house on?

Landlords would quit the field left and right and real estate prices would correct to sane values again.

Is that the cause for an insane level of real estate prices?

But seriously, why does anyone need one person (or few persons) to own all the real estate in the first place?

Your notion of “need” and your notion of whether someone, anyone, has a “need” is the basis for making these determinations? Sounds a bit like a controlled state, where people’s need for real estate, and how much of it, is determined by some entity other than the individual.

It fits the sentiment of some today, and in this thread. By some’s personal se sensibilities, John makes too much money in relation James. By some’s sensibilities, James makes too little money in relation to John. Somehow, my some esoteric metric apparently, the amount of money the CEO of McDonald’s makes is too much in relation to the person who labors to pull the frozen patties out of storage, thaw them, and flip them, then throw em in a bun. You, my some means, insinuate generally, owning more than one home is too much, says you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jarhyn]

Which is another benefit I see to retooling ownership. It makes nonresident real estate ownership+rent seeking less appealing, since you couldn't keep ownership from slipping.

Landlords would quit the field left and right and real estate prices would correct to sane values again. It would really suck for anyone who owns a lot of real estate.

Homes are the sort of resource where you absolutely need one, and you generally absolutely do not need two; the investment is going to exist at someone else's expense needlessly.

What “expense” do you mean? The “expense” they can no longer own that plot of land and the house on the land? That there’s one less piece of land to own and build a house on?

Landlords would quit the field left and right and real estate prices would correct to sane values again.

Is that the cause for an insane level of real estate prices?

But seriously, why does anyone need one person (or few persons) to own all the real estate in the first place?

Your notion of “need” and your notion of whether someone, anyone, has a “need” is the basis for making these determinations? Sounds a bit like a controlled state, where people’s need for real estate, and how much of it, is determined by some entity other than the individual.

It fits the sentiment of some today, and in this thread. By some’s personal se sensibilities, John makes too much money in relation James. By some’s sensibilities, James makes too little money in relation to John. Somehow, my some esoteric metric apparently, the amount of money the CEO of McDonald’s makes is too much in relation to the person who labors to pull the frozen patties out of storage, thaw them, and flip them, then throw em in a bun. You, my some means, insinuate generally, owning more than one home is too much, says you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, some people's needs for certain things ought very much be regulated and controlled by some party because SOME PEOPLE ARE FUCKING HOARDERS, and sometimes THEY HOARD LIMITED RESOURCES.

In the face of a fixed resource, it is absolutely the purview of the social contract to determine how much of that resource any one person can possibly be entitled to, which often is not much.

The rest of your post is full of bullshit Straw Manning. Money, unlike real estate, is not a fixed quantity.

Now whether any one person's individual contributions justify six orders of magnitude more of the margins more than the contributions of others, that's a whole different discussion; I think the adjustments to ownership could easily accomplish a correction there, too. If every stock dividend or transfer resulted in a margin of share being returned to the workers, people would both be able to own stock and get a return on investment, while being unable to hold the marginal value of the work of the workers in perpituity. Investors would get their pound of flesh, but workers would come to own the company.

The idea of legislating away the ability to own in perpituity is absolutely an appealing one to anyone who isn't already in "fuck you, I've got mine" mode.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think it's bad idea, actually, and yes, the sort of thing you are suggesting for the housing sector could equally be applied to the employment and business/finance sector. I might not go as far as you with it, or come at it from where you're coming from*, but I think the general ideas have merit.

I would say that there are some advantages to not owning (either a home or a business) and that many don't want to, so I'm not sure if ownership specifically (or legislating it away) is the best goal. I'm more agreeing that profits, or if not those then the social benefits of those, should be shared a bit more equitably.



*I can see how the idea of legislating away the ability to own in perpituity is absolutely an appealing one to anyone who is in "fuck you, I haven't got mine" mode.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think it's bad idea, actually, and yes, the sort of thing you are suggesting for the housing sector could equally be applied to the employment and business/finance sector. I might not go as far as you with it, or come at it from where you're coming from*, but I think the general ideas have merit.

I would say that there are some advantages to not owning (either a home or a business) and that many don't want to, so I'm not sure if ownership specifically (or legislating it away) is the best goal. I'm more agreeing that profits, or if not those then the social benefits of those, should be shared a bit more equitably.



*I can see how the idea of legislating away the ability to own in perpituity is absolutely an appealing one to anyone who is in "fuck you, I haven't got mine" mode.

That's the thing though; I think that two things need to happen, ultimately, to make home ownership accessible, and I think one of those things is actually a capitalistic niche: a mechanism to leak ownership from entrenched parties, and home maintenance services.

If I pay a landlord ~1500 a month for no equity on a property with a 1000/month mortgage behind it, I should be able to pay < 500 a month on top of my 1000 a month mortgage to hire a property management service who will maintain my property. It would effectively be a form of insurance. It would be a form of insurance that would have to fill the gap between homeowners insurance and all the things home owners frequently need: tree removal, occasional landscaping services, HVAC replacement, plumbing maintenance, roof replacement, etc..

or society could fill this issue in a different way, perhaps, by essentially what amounts to building two general funds into real estate properties. One fund would be a repair fund, and the second an improvement fund. Ownership would come to mean vote control over the disposition of the elective improvement fund, and some more legally controlled authority over the maintenance fund (like SNAP restrictions). Once the funds are mature, (essentially, once the property itself is 'mature'), this could very easily then become a mechanism that pushes overage as a percent function to current owners, like a dividend. For fully owner occupied dwellings, this mechanism wouldn't be strictly necessary, though as an owner of my own home I wouldn't mind still having a strict mechanism to escrow those expenses.

Or, people could do one of either of these things. It is the difference between copay insurance and HSA, something we are all already legally required to pay for if it is not already provided for us through our employers (with partwise burdens, no less; ownership could be the needle which decides whether I am paying my money towards the landlord for rent + legally mandated ownership stake, or less rent because I am a % owner after some years and then towards maturing the property).

When it comes to burdens of ownership, this mostly resolves the heavy lifting that makes people "not want to own" when it comes to property.

When it comes to businesses, "not wanting to own" makes no sense, especially in a world where owners have no liability. It is pure equity. I have and never will have any financial burden, for instance, for the stock I am to receive as a function of my new position. It is, from my perspective, merely difficult-to-spend money. For most employees, nothing would change except that they would start to have an entitlement to dividends, and power IFF they chose to execute it. And at some point, the employees would have enough influence to decide who to place on the board.

The only reason to date, in fact, that I have not wanted to "own" business interest is because I utterly refuse to be one of those assholes out there taking value I did not work to produce. I will have to resolve how I dispose of my stock options at some point, and I have no idea how that will go, probably through selling those stocks back to the employees (or just giving a share randomly away to a current employee every time I collect dividends), so that I may be the change I wish to see in the world. I do have another person renting a room in my house, too, but I also charge well below market rate for them to live here, essentially buying away their equity share through foregone rent.

Eventually more of us "rabble" would get experience and exposure in that world, and we would bring what amounts to oversight to that universe which is currently immune to such.

This may be a more appropriate subject for JH's ridiculous socioeconomic equality thread. But it would certainly go a LONG way towards making a more equitable world and bleeding socioeconomic influence uniformly towards those currently without leverage without resorting to communism and eating the rich. I see this as the correction capitalism desperately needs.

 

[ruby sparks]

If I pay a landlord ~1500 a month for no equity on a property with a 1000/month mortgage behind it, I should be able to pay < 500 a month on top of my 1000 a month mortgage to hire a property management service who will maintain my property. It would effectively be a form of insurance. It would be a form of insurance that would have to fill the gap between homeowners insurance and all the things home owners frequently need: tree removal, occasional landscaping services, HVAC replacement, plumbing maintenance, roof replacement, etc..

Just on this. I hope to respond to the rest later.

Example:

Property purchase £125,000.00. 3-bed residential (in a mainly student/short term city centre let area, as it happens, so usually let to 3 students). Mortgage: £100,000, taken out on an interest-only basis. £25,000.00 paid as deposit. Also borrowed. Slightly unusual, and adds to monthly costs, but purchaser did not have their own funds.

Rental income:
£675.00 per month, when let (fully furnished). Allowing slightly less than 1 month vacancy per annum (not unrealistic on average) gives £625.00 per month

Monthly costs:

Mortgage payments: £245.00 (special time-limited deal, will likely rise). Note that original sum borrowed is not being reduced (interest-only deal). To compare, a 10-year repayment mortgage would cost £1200.00 per month. 10 (or possibly 15) years is normal for buy to lets and longer mortgages are not usually available.

Repayments on borrowed deposit: £100.00
Rates: £115.00
Building insurance: £35.00
Letting agent: £65.00
Average repairs and replacements (eg new fridge, washing machine, lights or furniture) etc: £65.00

Monthly profit in theory (ie if nothing major goes wrong and property is generally let out, which it hasn't been this year due to Covid19): £0.00. Probably a loss after the discount period ends on mortgage (unless rents go up). Certainly a loss this year because of covid.

So how much do you think the owner should give the tenant in that situation?

I have not included the initial costs of £5000.00 for purchase and set up (solicitor, initial small repairs, purchase tax, furnishings, furniture and electrical appliances etc). Nor have I included for owner's own time (of which there is always some, even if a letting agent is used).

The other factor is the value of the property. This can rise, but it can fall. The previous owners of this property lost £125,000.00 on it (also over a 10 year period). So, if tenants are to be given a share of the equity if the value increases (not unreasonable in principle) do they also take a similar share of the loss if the value goes down?

So you might say, why did that person even buy the property? Well, like I said, they are hoping that rents and property prices will go up over the 10 years. So far, so good (property bought 2 years ago) 5% increase per annum in the house value (equates to £12,000.00 profit on paper, minus £5000.00 initial costs = £7000, minus £40000.00 sale costs, solicitor and estate agent, if sold now = £3000.00 net profit as it stands), rents stable but not yet rising.

But a big recession is now looming........partly due to the way Brexit is going, mostly due to Covid19....