I really disagree with the idea that somebody should be able to own a property in which they have to employ somebody else (an agent) who deals with tenants. I beleive the primary relationship of every person should be the landlord of every person. So as we become adults from
our family and interdependant we actually move into a property owned by our primary relationship and deal with this person directly. In other words, we have created this idea that we need to create extra relationships in order to make society function properly and I think
all we have to do is maintain our relationships with one another the old fashioned way which involves the understanding that all of us are part of a family structure and this is based on a hierarchy of respect. So I should have the option of simply just needing to maintain my relationship with my primary relationship in order to maintain my position in the world.It is my opinion that this very process of tenants and agents is what has caused the many problems people face in the tenancy acts as differing points of view emerge. If I could see one thing change in my lifetime I think it would be this.
What do you guys think?
NO!! Tenants are NOT your family. They are the people who pay your expenses so your business can run. I have enough family and friends without trying to have relationships with strangers. Sure I have to have a relationship with the agent but it's a business relationship. They don't ring me with their personal problems (which tenants can sometimes do if you deal direct). eg My car broke down, I haven't got the rent etc). The agent weeds all this out.
Plus you don't "have to" employ an agent.Not to say it doesn't happen, but have you seen any of those stories on ACA about tenant problems that involve an agent? I haven't. There are people out there that have NEVER paid rent in their life. They go for the privately rented houses where they can go undetected. I'm not saying don't do it. There are advantages and disadvantages.
I privately rent 2 of mine. Agent was hopeless, tenants were good so I suggested direct debit to me. It's working out fine but I feel guilty putting the rent up. One is a single lady, the other a couple saving for their first home. I would not privately rent all of them (maybe if I was retired).
Plus when I recently went to refinance these 2 caused a little problem with the bank. They like agents to run them. And insurance. It's harder to get insurance if you self lease.Are you speaking hypothetically or do you actually self rent properties? I think the former. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think good agents are worth their weight in gold. Besides, with your theory that you should look after all your affairs would mean that if you invested in other states or distance areas, you would have to personally go there for the inspection and etc.
Catalyst wrote:NO!! Tenants are NOT your family. They are the people who pay your expenses so your business can run. I have enough family and friends without trying to have relationships with strangers. Sure I have to have a relationship with the agent but it's a business relationship. They don't ring me with their personal problems (which tenants can sometimes do if you deal direct). eg My car broke down, I haven't got the rent etc). The agent weeds all this out.
Plus you don't "have to" employ an agent.Not to say it doesn't happen, but have you seen any of those stories on ACA about tenant problems that involve an agent? I haven't. There are people out there that have NEVER paid rent in their life. They go for the privately rented houses where they can go undetected. I'm not saying don't do it. There are advantages and disadvantages.
I privately rent 2 of mine. Agent was hopeless, tenants were good so I suggested direct debit to me. It's working out fine but I feel guilty putting the rent up. One is a single lady, the other a couple saving for their first home. I would not privately rent all of them (maybe if I was retired).
Plus when I recently went to refinance these 2 caused a little problem with the bank. They like agents to run them. And insurance. It's harder to get insurance if you self lease.Are you speaking hypothetically or do you actually self rent properties? I think the former. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi Catalyst
I understand your point of view how if you own property in the current world its always going to be much better to use agents to handle the tenants and the problems they may face. They are better at doing this as they are professionals and have a lot of experience and are trained to handle people.
Based on your reply you obviously didnt quite get a full understanding of what im trying to say. What im trying to say is that I disagree with the simple fact that we are allowed to own properties in which to derive rent in which another person or family lives which is not part of our own. This is not to say I dont beleive in capitalism or anything like that. I think capitalism is the most ideal system and I believe strongly in each persons right to own and accumilate wealth in the form of $$$ however they please.
But, by allowing people to own property another person or family which is not part of your own family lives in, we are creating a need to manage extra unnessasary relationships in our life with people who are not really part of the group of people we relate to regardlessly.
I beleive the person who you identify as your primary relationship in you life should also be your landlord. This may be one of the following- A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle,cousin, ect.
I beleive this person should also be your work manager so when you go to work this is the person who tells you what to do.
By doing it like this we are reducing the number of people we need to manage relationships with significantly and making life
a hell of a lot easier.Regardles of if your primary relationship is actually your landlord or not, you will have to maintain a relationship with this person
and if it happens to not be your landlord then you will have additional people to maintain relationships with. Additionally if you own property then you will be required to maintain a relationship with a person who hopefully is good at being a professional and managing tenants and their problems. If not then you have to manage an additional relationship with a tenant and good luck to you!I beleive humans naturally form hirearchies based respect. The objective of every person is to maintain the respect of their primary relationship in order to maintain its position in the world. So as you grow up and reach independance and interdependance from
your parents and particularly your primary relationship. Rather than moving into a house owned by a third party, every person should move into a property own by their primary relationship and at the same time actually be employed by this person in business. Then the primary relationship should have the option of actually deducting your rent directly from your salary before you
are paid so you will be be better able to manage your cashflow.I totally 100% disagree. My tenants pay me rent, which consists of actual money. Considering I need actual money to live- to pay bills, to buy food, and to pay mortgages, then this is a necessary relationship. And considering people need a roof over their head, then having a landlord is a necessary relationship.
I don't get what you are trying to say with all of these interdependent relationship posts. But maybe I am just not intelligent enough to understand.
Hi Luke,
I hold the opinion that you only disagree as you dont understand.
I quote "considering people need a roof over their head, then having a landlord is a necessary relationship".
What I am trying to say is that this person should be your primary relationship which you already have to maintain/manage a relationship with regardlessly.
I also agree with your last quote
"I don't get what you are trying to say with all of these interdependent relationship posts. But maybe I am just not intelligent enough to understand",
If you dont understand and actually want to understand then just read over my posts a few times and think about how it applys to your own life. I dont expect you to understand but please understand I have spent my life thinking about this in order to reach this
point. Everything in life is about relationships!It dosent mean your not intelligient enough but rather perhaps you are just not interested enough!
Remember in my book TFS we actually integrate the family and the business into a single entity. So your primary relationship is your work manager and your landlord as one person. You are actually employed by this person who actually deducts your rent
from your salary before you are paid in order to help you better manage your cashflow.Jins13 wrote:I think good agents are worth their weight in gold. Besides, with your theory that you should look after all your affairs would mean that if you invested in other states or distance areas, you would have to personally go there for the inspection and etc.This is exactly why I dont beleive in the right for us to own property in which people outside of our own family group reside. Your spouse could actually live interstate or even internationally in your property and these days with technology you would be able to form a on-going relationship with them for this purpose. In this case you would definetly have an interdependant relationship with them.
Agents are only nessasary as we have rights to own property in which people who are outside of our own family group reside. As a result they are the better option and are sought after to help us better manage and maintain our relationships.
In TFS, I am suggesting that we simply change the laws so the middle man (agent) is no longer nessasary as we have integrated the business and the family in together. The responsibility comes down to the spouse to maintain its relationship with the landlord (you), the primary relationship.
Additionally every person should be employed by this person so they actually work fulltime for their primary relationship and their primary relationship actually pays them a salary which has already had the rent taken out before they are paid in order to better help them manage their cashflow.
Catalyst wrote:Are you speaking hypothetically or do you actually self rent properties? I think the former. Correct me if I'm wrong.I am speking hypothetically but I am close to somebody who manages a number of properties. I have helped this person with its affairs
for years and I have experience in the game.According to my own theory I would call this person my own primary relationship but I am actually employed by another person outside of my own family which makes my relationship with my primary relationship harder to maintain. Ideally I should also be employed by my primary relationship and things would get much easier. Additionally this person should also be my landlord.
I am very confused. You say that you should have your spouse living in your property even if it is in Alaska, because we should have a person with whom we have a primary relationship with in our properties?? and we can keep in touch by using computers??
Luke86 – I dont think you are not intelligent enough to understand. I think you are not confused enough to understand. I read this 12 times and I do not understand.
goldies wrote:I am very confused. You say that you should have your spouse living in your property even if it is in Alaska, because we should have a person with whom we have a primary relationship with in our properties?? and we can keep in touch by using computers??
Luke86 – I dont think you are not intelligent enough to understand. I think you are not confused enough to understand. I read this 12 times and I do not understand.
No, I am suggesting the laws be changed so we are unable to own property in the way that people who are not part of our own
family group are able to live in a property owned by you in order to make our relationships easier manage and to maintain. I think we should be able to own property like we can already but not houses in this sense as it implies a requirement to manage relationships with people who are not even part of our family groups. The people who live in the houses which we buy obviously have families themselves which they will need to maintain relationships with as well as your agent once you start renting to them.In this instance, you could have a property in Alaska if your spouse was living in it. Otherwise you would be unable to own a property in Alaska as the landlord of whoever lives in that property should be the primary relationship of that person. In this case
this person would likley be a relative of the person living in that property in Alaska and should also be the landlord and primary relationship of this person.I used that as a example to demonstate the simple fact that if you had a spouse living in your property overseas, then you would most definetely have a interdependant relationship as you live in separate countries and territories.
Interdependant relationships are easier to form and maintain in the new age with technology and computers which enable us to interact frequently even when we are miles away from each other.
If you dont understand any of my terms then ask me and I will explain to help you do so.
For example just to name a couple
The primary relationship, Spouse, ect.
Also to answer your actual question:
"You say that you should have your spouse living in your property even if it is in Alaska, because we should have a person with whom we have a primary relationship with in our properties??"
Remember as described above, the primary relationship should be the landlord. So if you are grown up enough to be a landlord then I beleive you should also be someones primary relationship. In which case if you have spouses who are adults and interdependant from you then they should live in a property owned by you. The objective of the spouse is to maintain your
respect in order to maintain its position in the world. So you dont have a primary relationship with your spouse, you are the primary relationship of your spouse. The spouse is just your spouse, nothing more.Offcourse ideally you would want your spouse living locally from you as you probably want to see each other regularly. Your spouse would still be able to be in an interdependant relationship with you even if it lived in a property owned by you across the road. But not if the spouse lived with you in your house. In which case your relationship would be either co-dependant or independant but not interdependant.
This is because in order to be in an interdependant relationship people need to actually live in their own separate territories with their own rules.
Istvan051 wrote:Jins13 wrote:I think good agents are worth their weight in gold. Besides, with your theory that you should look after all your affairs would mean that if you invested in other states or distance areas, you would have to personally go there for the inspection and etc.This is exactly why I dont beleive in the right for us to own property in which people outside of our own family group reside. Your spouse could actually live interstate or even internationally in your property and these days with technology you would be able to form a on-going relationship with them for this purpose. In this case you would definetly have an interdependant relationship with them.
Agents are only nessasary as we have rights to own property in which people who are outside of our own family group reside. As a result they are the better option and are sought after to help us better manage and maintain our relationships.
In TFS, I am suggesting that we simply change the laws so the middle man (agent) is no longer nessasary as we have integrated the business and the family in together. The responsibility comes down to the spouse to maintain its relationship with the landlord (you), the primary relationship.
Additionally every person should be employed by this person so they actually work fulltime for their primary relationship and their primary relationship actually pays them a salary which has already had the rent taken out before they are paid in order to better help them manage their cashflow.
Also one more thing to add to this reply. This is that I also beleive the role of the primary relationship is to do the inspection. Hense the requirement for the spouse to maintain the respect of the primary relationship in order to maintain its position in the family. I believe we should be able to invest overseas like we do, but not in terms of properties anywere in the world as this implies a requirement to manage a relationship with a tenant weither it be done by an agent on our behalf or ourselves. I beleive strongly that all our relationships
should exist inside the family unit. Hense my reasoning for integrating the family and business into a single entity as in my book TFS. Additionally I also beleive that the primary relationship should also be your one and only employer.Nope that didnt help.
I dont need definitions of words, thanks.
Wont be reading your book either.
Nope that didnt help.
I dont need definitions of words, thanks.
Wont be reading your book either.
Istvan051 wrote:Hi Catalyst
I understand your point of view how if you own property in the current world its always going to be much better to use agents to handle the tenants and the problems they may face. They are better at doing this as they are professionals and have a lot of experience and are trained to handle people.
Based on your reply you obviously didnt quite get a full understanding of what im trying to say. What im trying to say is that I disagree with the simple fact that we are allowed to own properties in which to derive rent in which another person or family lives which is not part of our own. This is not to say I dont beleive in capitalism or anything like that. I think capitalism is the most ideal system and I believe strongly in each persons right to own and accumilate wealth in the form of $$$ however they please.
But, by allowing people to own property another person or family which is not part of your own family lives in, we are creating a need to manage extra unnessasary relationships in our life with people who are not really part of the group of people we relate to regardlessly.
I beleive the person who you identify as your primary relationship in you life should also be your landlord. This may be one of the following- A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle,cousin, ect.
I beleive this person should also be your work manager so when you go to work this is the person who tells you what to do.
By doing it like this we are reducing the number of people we need to manage relationships with significantly and making life
a hell of a lot easier.Regardles of if your primary relationship is actually your landlord or not, you will have to maintain a relationship with this person
and if it happens to not be your landlord then you will have additional people to maintain relationships with. Additionally if you own property then you will be required to maintain a relationship with a person who hopefully is good at being a professional and managing tenants and their problems. If not then you have to manage an additional relationship with a tenant and good luck to you!I beleive humans naturally form hirearchies based respect. The objective of every person is to maintain the respect of their primary relationship in order to maintain its position in the world. So as you grow up and reach independance and interdependance from
your parents and particularly your primary relationship. Rather than moving into a house owned by a third party, every person should move into a property own by their primary relationship and at the same time actually be employed by this person in business. Then the primary relationship should have the option of actually deducting your rent directly from your salary before you
are paid so you will be be better able to manage your cashflow.I dont need to go into extensive detail about how wrong this is. Socially .. financially and morally. Whatever you do .. dont write a book explaining about relationships.
Human relationships exist on two levels .. co-operative .. and dominant. Usually when they are co-operative they are actually seeking common goals .. no matter how simple they are. The sheer idea that just because its a more personal relationship than a landlord its going to be any better is lunacy and actually dangerous. DO YOU REALISE HOW MANY FAILED RELATIONSHIPS THERE ARE ?The agent i employ as a property manager acts as a go-between. He's the 3rd person I refer to as the manager of my property .. the collector of the rents and the condition reporter of what goes on with my property. He's vital in all 3 aspects. I dont want to be there managing my property all the time .. i want people who are there competant doing that for me. I dont want people I have to chase up for rent .. property manager steps in and does all the growling when necessary. I dont want to shuttle up to a property every time the tenants marriage is in crisis. Thats not my problem and nor should it be. Thats what a property manager is there for.
From the tenants perspective .. he's getting the use of a substantially more expensive property at a budget rate for his general usage as long as he doesnt abuse it. On most propertys thats 5% of the property value OR LESS. Thats using a 5 cent coin to purchase a dollars worth of goods !!!! Can you think of any aspect of life where thats possible? (actually for your real interest .. the normal level of rent to property value is historically 10%. So for now its HALF as cheap)
Rent is expensive? Rent is unnecessary? Good. Then you'll be ok moving out a couple of suburbs where the rent is more affordable .. the facilities are a little less .. and the convenience is not a good. WHAT? YOU DONT WANT TO DO THAT?
I as a landlord .. provide a service that the government is unwilling to provide at a reasonable rate .. simply because it would cost them money. And governments dont spend money on necessities .. easily. You currently get that at a budget rate .. so you can afford those large screen TVs and computers i see in your places when i go for 6 month inspections. What .. you didnt think i notice?
As a landlord i am held to the covenants and laws that bind me to a responsibility to keep the place in reasonable working order. The tenant should have rights to stay in the property .. and the right to not feel harassed or bled on the rental rate. He also should get regular maintainence. Outside of that .. he's got his world to live. And I have mine.
I'm tired of listening to the stereotype of the greedy landlord .. or the property manager who cant possibly be of any use. Its repeated in the media over and over again. I remain a landlord who has a significant responsibility to a large group of people who depend on me for the purposes of cheap and effective rental provision. Government wont provide that. The tenant either cant or wont provide that for himself. I make sure all that happens. And i'm tired of getting a stereotype that is innacurate rammed up my ass every time i would be seen to mention it.
I'll be reading your book. I'll be seeing what insights you can provide to improve what is a very workable situation. A very difficult relationship at the best of times .. but a workable situation.
If you are going to change the world, make sure the world needs changing.
xdrew wrote:Istvan051 wrote:Hi Catalyst
I understand your point of view how if you own property in the current world its always going to be much better to use agents to handle the tenants and the problems they may face. They are better at doing this as they are professionals and have a lot of experience and are trained to handle people.
Based on your reply you obviously didnt quite get a full understanding of what im trying to say. What im trying to say is that I disagree with the simple fact that we are allowed to own properties in which to derive rent in which another person or family lives which is not part of our own. This is not to say I dont beleive in capitalism or anything like that. I think capitalism is the most ideal system and I believe strongly in each persons right to own and accumilate wealth in the form of $$$ however they please.
But, by allowing people to own property another person or family which is not part of your own family lives in, we are creating a need to manage extra unnessasary relationships in our life with people who are not really part of the group of people we relate to regardlessly.
I beleive the person who you identify as your primary relationship in you life should also be your landlord. This may be one of the following- A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle,cousin, ect.
I beleive this person should also be your work manager so when you go to work this is the person who tells you what to do.
By doing it like this we are reducing the number of people we need to manage relationships with significantly and making life
a hell of a lot easier.Regardles of if your primary relationship is actually your landlord or not, you will have to maintain a relationship with this person
and if it happens to not be your landlord then you will have additional people to maintain relationships with. Additionally if you own property then you will be required to maintain a relationship with a person who hopefully is good at being a professional and managing tenants and their problems. If not then you have to manage an additional relationship with a tenant and good luck to you!I beleive humans naturally form hirearchies based respect. The objective of every person is to maintain the respect of their primary relationship in order to maintain its position in the world. So as you grow up and reach independance and interdependance from
your parents and particularly your primary relationship. Rather than moving into a house owned by a third party, every person should move into a property own by their primary relationship and at the same time actually be employed by this person in business. Then the primary relationship should have the option of actually deducting your rent directly from your salary before you
are paid so you will be be better able to manage your cashflow.I dont need to go into extensive detail about how wrong this is. Socially .. financially and morally. Whatever you do .. dont write a book explaining about relationships.
Human relationships exist on two levels .. co-operative .. and dominant. Usually when they are co-operative they are actually seeking common goals .. no matter how simple they are. The sheer idea that just because its a more personal relationship than a landlord its going to be any better is lunacy and actually dangerous. DO YOU REALISE HOW MANY FAILED RELATIONSHIPS THERE ARE ?The agent i employ as a property manager acts as a go-between. He's the 3rd person I refer to as the manager of my property .. the collector of the rents and the condition reporter of what goes on with my property. He's vital in all 3 aspects. I dont want to be there managing my property all the time .. i want people who are there competant doing that for me. I dont want people I have to chase up for rent .. property manager steps in and does all the growling when necessary. I dont want to shuttle up to a property every time the tenants marriage is in crisis. Thats not my problem and nor should it be. Thats what a property manager is there for.
From the tenants perspective .. he's getting the use of a substantially more expensive property at a budget rate for his general usage as long as he doesnt abuse it. On most propertys thats 5% of the property value OR LESS. Thats using a 5 cent coin to purchase a dollars worth of goods !!!! Can you think of any aspect of life where thats possible? (actually for your real interest .. the normal level of rent to property value is historically 10%. So for now its HALF as cheap)
Rent is expensive? Rent is unnecessary? Good. Then you'll be ok moving out a couple of suburbs where the rent is more affordable .. the facilities are a little less .. and the convenience is not a good. WHAT? YOU DONT WANT TO DO THAT?
I as a landlord .. provide a service that the government is unwilling to provide at a reasonable rate .. simply because it would cost them money. And governments dont spend money on necessities .. easily. You currently get that at a budget rate .. so you can afford those large screen TVs and computers i see in your places when i go for 6 month inspections. What .. you didnt think i notice?
As a landlord i am held to the covenants and laws that bind me to a responsibility to keep the place in reasonable working order. The tenant should have rights to stay in the property .. and the right to not feel harassed or bled on the rental rate. He also should get regular maintainence. Outside of that .. he's got his world to live. And I have mine.
I'm tired of listening to the stereotype of the greedy landlord .. or the property manager who cant possibly be of any use. Its repeated in the media over and over again. I remain a landlord who has a significant responsibility to a large group of people who depend on me for the purposes of cheap and effective rental provision. Government wont provide that. The tenant either cant or wont provide that for himself. I make sure all that happens. And i'm tired of getting a stereotype that is innacurate rammed up my ass every time i would be seen to mention it.
I'll be reading your book. I'll be seeing what insights you can provide to improve what is a very workable situation. A very difficult relationship at the best of times .. but a workable situation.
If you are going to change the world, make sure the world needs changing.
Hi Xdrew,
First of all, thankyou for your detailed reply. I really value opinions as they help me tremendously with my own work.
I havent heard of the terms co-operative and dominant. I have studied relationships and I hope you understand the difference
betweeen the terms co-dependant, independant and interdependant. If not, please read about them a little online before you reply again.I do realise there are a lot of failed relationships in Australia and the world for that matter, hense my interest in relationships
and studying them in order to try and make a difference to this. If you get married in this country then there is a good chance you
will be divorced in around 10-15 years, its actually around the 50% mark. I beleive this to be mostly due to the tendancy for us to
form co-dependant relationships with one another but that is another story I can explain later if you are interested.I understand the role of your agent, like any agent he is the middle man who reports the condiiton of properties and manages the cashflow between you and the tenants. Thats what they do and some are better than others while some make you think you should just do it yourself. Those stories you see on ACA in my opinion are mostly due to people who when renting out propeties
to people are not smart how they conduct themselves. They often dont use an agent while having no real relationship to the people in their house who take them for a ride. These people know in most cases they will be able to get away with it for some time as the
rest of the world dosent really care.In my experience, people who live in a property owned by their family generally are not subject to the same level of rent increases
that the rest of society seems to be constantly bombarded with. A lot of the older generatioin who have one of their children living
in one of their investment properties or houses charge their child the same amount of rent regardless of what the rest of the world
is doing. I speak from experience. My father has paid and still does, $120 per week rent to my grandfather for the past 35 years, this is for a four bedroom house and it never changed. He could easily be getting 400-500pw on the same place with other tenants.
My grandfather never seemd interested in capitalising on his own son, to him it never seemd like the right thing to do. Once he was satisfied in his relationship he tended not to want to interfear by doing things like asking for more money, it just didnt seem right.On the other end of the scale sometimes if we know our tenant or even worse if we know them and they know were we live we can
get in a lot of trouble as they may well just take us for a ride. Thats if they are not part of our family group but are trying to become
close friends as they either dont want to pay rent or be subject to rent increases.Not all landlords are greedy but im guessing some may actually think they can bleed tenants of every penny, every rate increase oppurtunity arises. Some are quite honest im sure, you will get all types.
I am going to be honest with you in saying I really dont understand why you think my theory is unappropriate or socially wrong as you say and I also dont think you have had the chance to properly express your view as to why.
I still hold the view that integrating your business and your family into a single entity as in my book TFS is a more ideal way of conducting your life and business relationships.
I think you should go into detail as you say about how socially wrong integrating the family into the business actually is. I would be
happy to give you an honest reply.If you want me to to read any specific part of your reply and try to answer you then let me know. Alterntively just read over some of my previous posts or go into my post on integrating business and family into a single entity and reply there.
Cheers
This is crazy, you mean that people should not have investment properties, do you? Then this forum is not really for you.
I think this thread is confusing for everyone because Istvan has not explained the concept clearly from the begining
I gave up after the second post.
What dribble!!!
Personally I don't have enough family to fill all my properties. Oh that's right I shouldn't be allowed to own that many. So I'll just tell my tenants who are not fortunate enough to have a cousin with enough money to buy a house for all heir relatives to live in, to live on the street.
Move on to the relationship forum. This is a "property" forum.
Mosqui wrote:This is crazy, you mean that people should not have investment properties, do you? Then this forum is not really for you. I think this thread is confusing for everyone because Istvan has not explained the concept clearly from the beginingThat’s a great observation. This says to me that you understand what im saying. At-least to a degree. My theory does not imply that I believe we should not be able to own investment properties. But rather not own them and be responsible for forming relationships with people in order to manage them in the way that we do.
For example I could own a property which is managed by people I have nothing to do with and if they dont pay me rent on time, then I may simply be able to sue them. They would not need to know anyone who knows anyone who knows me or anything like that. The tenant would never need to know who may sue them for not paying the rent, only that if they don’t pay their rent then someone will. Even if I took them to court, they would never need to know my full name or address as it doesn’t matter.
This way there are no relationships associated with the investment property in which I own and derive rent from and there is no need to manage relationships with extra people just because I own a property someone lives in. The property is just numbers on a piece of paper with no relationships attached just like having money in the bank.The Tenant who lives in my house has a primary relationship who needs to be respected by the tenant in order for the tenant to maintain its position in the world. The role of each persons primary relationship would be to report information about their spouses to the government who holds information about everyone in a confidential manner. It doesn’t matter who owns what property were, only that those who do so get paid the right returns on their investment. This way, If I own a investment property in Sydney and I want to move in, rather than contacting the agent to ask the tenants to leave, I would contact the NSW government who would make contact with the primary relationship of the tenant in that house who would make arrangements for the person to go elsewhere. The person who I rang at the gov office may also be a primary relationship to someone unknown elsewhere. Or may also be a spouse to one. Also there may be multiple primary relationships inside a family structure of a number of generations.
My primary relationship may also have a primary relationship with the oldest member of the family structure reporting information about everyone back to the government.Remember, in TFS, every person is actually employed by their own primary relationship. Using myself as an example, my primary relationship would make the arrangement to deduct the required rent for the house I reside in (in NSW) from my income before I am paid each fortnight. This way I am actually paid only the remainder of my income every fortnight which already has had the rent taken out. This would go directly to the NSW government and paid back to the actual home owner of my house every fortnight as income. Your cash flow is much easier to manage like this when you dont have to think about managing to pay rent from your income, but rather know your rent is already paid and you will be paid what’s leftover. I could own 200 properties across Australia and the primary relationship of the person paying the rent for each would deduct this from the salary from each person before they are paid every fortnight. Using this alternative method it is no longer nessasary for me to form relationships with an agent and/ or a number of agents who manages my 200 properties. All the deductions are done automatically as the primary relationship of each person has already taken the required amount for rent from each persons salary before they are paid. So as long as each person continues to maintain their relationship with their primary relationship (also employer), then the rent will continue to hit the homeowners bank account (me) every fortnight in this way. If a single fortnights worth of rent was not present one pay period I should simply contact the NSW gov and give the details of the house who may contact the primary relationship of the tenant who may report the problem back. This is the role of the primary relationship. They frequently do things like this on behalf of their spouses.
In summary, I don’t think we should not be able to own multiple properties by any means. I believe we should be able to buy properties and know we will never have to be involved in the relationships needed to derive rent from them full stop. This includes agents. I believe my reasoning for this to be explained above including the details of how investment property owners would get paid in the previous paragraph.
Catalyst, if you read this post then you will see I have just also comprehensively explained your previous reply about owning lots of properties and not having enough family to fill them.
Your values laid out here step back to a period of a village mentality.
A tenant wants the ability to rent .. the ability to pickup and vacate if and when he chooses. The landlord wants the ability to have his property let out to anyone who stakes up the right amount of money per month to justify his letting.
They dont want to know each other. They dont need to know each other. Outside of the provision by the landlord and the occupation by the tenant .. there is no other need for a further extension of that relationship.
And as far as family occupancy of properties providing lower rents .. you are actively trading on the goodwill of relatives to provide lower cost accomodation. Thats socialism, which requires a generous landlord relation .. and a fool who assumes that a cheap rental is actually helping him. In other words .. the fact that you have a slavish tenancy who just happens to be family .. is actually impoverishing the landlord. It may not stop him from being enriched in the short term, but it leaves him vulnerable to higher expenses and rates that the slavish tenant has no interest in helping out on. As I stated in my previous post .. it forms a dangerous relationship.
The worst part about people owning multiple properties is it not only enriches the owner .. the trickle down spread enriches the whole community that the individual resides in. Think of the greek .. the italian .. the vietnamese communities that came from overseas with pennies. Real property wealth .. enriched not only themselves .. but with the excess being redistributed into the community .. made everyone in the community a little wealthier.
There is a little part which is never mentioned when people romanticise about the village mentality being a 'better way of life'. They tend to forget that food was scarce .. people had more kids because they didnt expect them all to live. The village bully tended to burn your shop and home down if he didnt get his way. And the law was in the hands of the municipality only.
Property not only parlays wealth .. it promotes individualism and rights. It provides a ladder for any member of any class or group to make a success of himself. Its a great equaliser .. and therefore .. the primary format of attack by people who believe that those sort of rights are 'against human rights'. Its like the black leaders in America who seek further enrichment of their own pockets by keeping a black/white hate framework in constant perspective. Its a means of division and enrichment.
xdrew wrote:Your values laid out here step back to a period of a village mentality.
A tenant wants the ability to rent .. the ability to pickup and vacate if and when he chooses. The landlord wants the ability to have his property let out to anyone who stakes up the right amount of money per month to justify his letting.
They dont want to know each other. They dont need to know each other. Outside of the provision by the landlord and the occupation by the tenant .. there is no other need for a further extension of that relationship.
In TFS they don’t know each other. From the spouses (Also the tenant) point of view he/she is to maintain the respect of his/her primary relationship in order to maintain its position in the world. The primary relationship is actually doing a job on behalf of the government who gives the rental income back to the actual property owner in the form of an automatic deduction from the spouses income before it is paid every fortnight.
The actual property owner would never need to know or manage a relationship with any of the following people-
-The Tenant (spouse of the primary relationship)
-Any agents or other kind of property manager.
The person who owns the property actually does all its dealing with the primary relationship that does the inspections and payment management on behalf of the owner. So the property owner can access information including contact details about each of the primary relationships for each tenant in a government database (perhaps online) about each of the primary relationships for each of its tenants in each of his/her properties.
The primary relationship subtracts the rental income from the spouses income before it is paid in order to help it manage its cash flow better. It can do this as the primary relationship of every person is also the employer of every person and actually pays the spouse its salary.
In TFS, this type of social structure is exactly what is meant by Integrating your family and Business into a single entity. The system reduces the number of people you have to manage relationships with, significantly making life easier. So instead of having a set of relationships for work, a relationship for your rental house and personal relationships to manage, you only have one for work and accomodation. This is your primary relationship. Additionally if you get married then you have a personal relationship but this one will actually end up being interdependant and actually exist inside a third entity were married partners actually work side by side in the workpalce while living in separate territories.I believe at this point I have explained myself and my alternate theory of how we could manage relationships associated with our investment properties better.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
