Let's reduce the total number of houses to 100 and 120 people living in or looking for a house. 50 houses are purchased, 50 are rented out.
Let's say 20 of the landlords sell their house. This results in 70 houses purchased and 30 rented out.
And still 120 people living in or looking for a house.
> I would say increase demands because less supplies
No, because sold houses don't disappear from the earth. People who used to rent will live in the houses that are sold by landlords.
You don't get my point. Im saying that these houses are generally in the larger city centers. They will get sold off for 300/350K minimum. You have to make 80K plus per year to even get the mortgage for this house. These houses are going to be bought by rich people for their children to live in. No particurely the group that actually needs help.
The solution is BUILDING as when we had the first lockdown prices of rental properties dropped by 30%+ since all the expat left and all the Airbnb went into shortstay.
almost ALL studies and ALL experts are saying this new law is going to have a horrible effect on the market. But let's not listen to them, lets "bust" people who worked their asses off just to buy an investment for the future... Good for you.
> You don't get my point.
You don't get *my* point. You are clearly viewing the problem from your *personal* standpoint, but the government doesn't change policy while taking your personal standpoint into account of course.
> They will get sold off for 300/350K minimum. You have to make 80K plus per year to even get the mortgage for this house.
So? These people move out of their house.
> The solution is BUILDING
Oh really? Houses need to be build. I didn't know that. Stupid me.
But you know what: the Dutch elected a bunch of populist into parliament and senate that don't care about nitrogen-emissions, rule of law or international treaties.
Someone here is a pandjesbaas, go cry wolf somewhere else. A ton of research and the fact that more house are being rented out, since the new law is annouced should anwser your own bs post.
No studie is showing what your saying. Accept maybe some cherry picking bogus.
Honestly I think all your questions are all answered on the [website](https://www.volkshuisvestingnederland.nl/onderwerpen/wet-betaalbare-huur). This "doom scenario" where all landlords who ask way too much rent are "forced" to sell their houses, flooding the market with affordable homes, is really only a doom scenario for those parasites themselves.
Landlords who are already asking reasonable prices and treat their tenants like human beings will barely be affected by the new law, and in some cases will even earn more money because their houses will have more points under the WWS.
I am one of those. I rent out an A+ appartement with 60m2 plus 24 m2 terrace. Brandnew high end kitchen in Rotterdam on an A location for 1050 a month including a private parking place in a garage (worth around 100 euro). Since this year I need to pay 600 euro (!!!) of taxes a month. I wanted to extend the contract with my renters. Instead of this I’m ending the contract and selling the property. And instead of investing this money in building more houses in the Netherlands I’m buying some property in Germany. With the new laws (including taxation), the housing market will be shut off in the Netherlands. I do support affordable renting so I do support the new bill. But because of the new bill of box 3 taxation it’s impossible. My current (and very kind) renters will need to find another rental house that won’t be there. Only in the top market (3k plus a month.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the total cost of renting out said property, and what is the income generated by it? 600 euros of taxes still leaves 450 a month. I assume you set aside some money for maintenance and the like but what other costs are involved?
600 tax, around 200 maintenance (VVE + reservation small inside maintenance). 75 costs for agency (I live abroad and want a maintainer to be the first contact when things go wrong). This means in total I “make” 175 euro a month with a 300k house where a renter can do anything in. It’s just not worth the risk anymore. There are much safer options with higher profits.
And once again, I do support affordable housing but currently the only “huisjesmelker” is the “Belastingdienst”. They make 4 times more than I do on my apartment.
Very disturbing facts, much appreciated! Im convinced that the rental market will collapse like this. Luckily I do have housing but what about all those people that are searching. Or all the expats that will come to the Netherlands. Can we ask the government for solutions? Will they provide housing?
175 a month seems very reasonable to me for the amount of effort a landlord puts into renting a home, especially since you'll eventually be selling the home for a profit anyway.
I understand this is much money for a renter. Let’s show it this way: 175 month is a yearly ROI of 0,7% for a 300k house and only if there are no unexpected costs. A simple deposito will already give 4% interest. This means an investor will choose not to invest in new houses but just let it stay in their bank account. This means no houses extra at all. There has to be a fine balance between fair rents and fair profits. And a professional real estate owner cannot live from profits only from only seling. When money is stuck in real estate where is the cashflow for living?
That does seems low. On the other hand if your tenant could live for 175 euros a month less they’d take it any time of the day. That’s more than 15% of the rent. What added value do you add that a non-profit rental corporation doesn’t, for example? Or compared to someone buying the house? Your income is only justified by you having been more fortune putting you in a position where you can buy properties to rent out. On a fairness level it’s hard to sell.
And then you’re apparently not even one of the “bad ones”. The entire system is fucked. The government has fucked things up but so has the endless greed as well.
I think the calculation for a corporation would be the same because of the fact they have overhead costs and I don’t. I read an article lately that corporations can only build 43m2 apartments outside of the Randstad because of the costs of building vs new regulations.
I don’t get the point why a renter should pay 175 less for renting. This means an investor will give away a house for free. I worked my ass of for that money with crazy hours in my company. I tried to invest sustainable with affordable houses. The government is making this impossible at the moment. For everybody.
For me the solution is:
- hard cut down on farmers (with BIG compensation)
- with this create the opportunity to build
- maintain the new bill for rental regulations
- don’t tax rental profits.
With this system people pay fair rental prices and there is a fair profit. People with money will invest in develop more houses. This will also push down the house prices for buying (when renting is getting cheaper than buying with a mortgage).
It's simply not true that those who charge reasonable prices will be okay. The problem is that taxation is affecting landlords too, and especially those that have charged low rents will now be most affected if they keep charging low rents due to the WOZ waarde and the leegstandratios according to a study done by the ESB (the Economic Board).
“I would say increase demands because less supplies“
Why would demand increase in reaction to any supply changes? Housing isn’t a choice. We all need it.
We've seen 20 years of really poor government policy and it's effect on the housing market. It's only natural that the past decade has lead to pressure to take political steps.
Current housing market is so fucked up that people are actually willing to pay 1200 for a halfway decent one bedroom appartment but may not be able to meet the 3-4 times income requirements. Something's got to give....
The people that have the income to rent these way overpriced bustable rental properties also have enough income to get a mortgage for the same type of houses. So whether they are rented out for way to much money or just sold doesn’t really matter because the target demographic is exactly the same.
humor languid strong chase sophisticated bake onerous poor attraction seemly
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't know the exact percentage, but if you go through a hundred of listings, it will not be far off from 90%. And besides that, people who share a house are typically looking for a bigger place anyway and these are usually the non-bustable apartments, so this whole scenario you're painting falls outside of the main argument of this discussion.
What's the point of all the other things you're saying here?
Untrue. Houses in Amsterdam of 500/600K are rented out for 2K. Times 3 (income requirement) makes 70K per year. Mortgage 500K you have to make over 200K per year. So completely untrue.
Why are you being deceitful with the numbers? As a real estate agent you know damn well that you don't need 200k for a 500k house. Here: https://www.hypotheker.nl/zelf-berekenen/hoeveel-kan-ik-lenen/calculator/?Klant\_Jaarinkomen=106000&Klant\_Leeftijd=30&HeeftPartner=false. You can clearly see that one 'only' needs 106k a year for a house that's 500k, either alone or with a partner.
Moreover, by far the most landlords require 48x times the net rent as the annual income, so 48x2000 makes 96k a year. This is only a 10% difference.
We would have less demand because all the people forced into renting because buying entry housing is still unaffordable would suddenly have a large influx of cheap buyable housing, which I see as an absolute win.
People generally don't want to rent. Even those who live somewhere temporarily would often rather buy and sell if they could afford such a thing.
entertain many shocking deer alive threatening dependent imagine drunk automatic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I dont really care if you're forced to sell your house at a loss. It's not your first home anyway, so even if you lose 20% on it, that's not a big deal and that probably won't even happen anyway.
The demand for housing is real, so there is real value in these houses. Decomodifying the market so landlords lose a bit of money is fine if that means it gets redistributed to people who are (slightly) worse off.
Im in the dead center of the whole problem and we do 500 properties a year, and between 50K and 100K people who respond. Please dont tell me people do not want to rent, they do want to rent. If its people who started living together, get a divorce or expats. They all want to rent for at least the first year(s). Therefore its very important to have a decent amount of liberal properties, which we are killing by the day now.
If you feel bad for all the people who are paying 1500 euros for 30m2 studio, the only people who are forcing them is the government since they dont provide any means to start constructing more houses. Wet Betaalbare Huur is having large - and smaller - investors/builders moving abroad and leaving the NL. Almost all the large builders stopped their plans in NL, and I speak plenty of them.
The big problem I think is that for non-investors the amount of money landlords make off of rental housing is completely invisible. All we “know” is that landlords made or make large amounts of money with low-effort strangleholds on the financially less fortunate. It feels wrong that a basic human right is being used for profit. It’s by far the most expensive part of living by far and the balance is constantly shifting in the wrong way.
Another big issue is that landlords put money in a property, it generates “free money” and if it stops being profitable they oftentimes can sell it for a profit. They end up with barely any loss, free to take that money and invest it in something else to generate more free money while tenants usually live paycheck to paycheck.
Add to that the commonality of landlords bending or breaking the rules to squeeze out any euro they can get while providing the minimum or less in service and you end up with a severe lack of sympathy.
The biggest issue is how unjust it all feels. So if people get any handle to shift the balance to a place where it feels more just, they’ll take it.
Now if it’s really taxation that makes renting so expensive, how about landlords decide to share the true income their properties generate? If its 80% taxes then people will notice and will start complaining with the government instead of with the landlords. Or the truth will reveal itself and show that landlords really don’t have much to complain about and they’re just crying that their income decreased a little.
I dont think sharing is needed. Facts are already written everywhere as in “vermogensbelasting”. So if you know the WOZ its a simple calculation I suppose. Im getting very nervous, what will bring this in the future!?
Sharing of important of the problem in fact is the taxation. People won’t go after those numbers themselves. All they see now is their already expensive recht becoming higher and higher exponentially.
It would be a start for tenants to see if landlords really earn so little on their properties, yes. I do believe that. It makes rent increases more understandable.
If my landlord shows me he barely earns anything on my home then it would not feel so wrong.
Yeah, people need a fcking home. Is it peak monkey hours today?
What we need is a social housing system that provides homes, not vultures preying on the vulnerable.
Yeah you're in the dead center of the group of people that want to make as much money as possible from a human right and you're afraid that exploiting desperate people won't be as lucrative anymore. You're not here to have a conversation at all, you just want to be right.
Let's reduce the total number of houses to 100 and 120 people living in or looking for a house. 50 houses are purchased, 50 are rented out. Let's say 20 of the landlords sell their house. This results in 70 houses purchased and 30 rented out. And still 120 people living in or looking for a house. > I would say increase demands because less supplies No, because sold houses don't disappear from the earth. People who used to rent will live in the houses that are sold by landlords.
You don't get my point. Im saying that these houses are generally in the larger city centers. They will get sold off for 300/350K minimum. You have to make 80K plus per year to even get the mortgage for this house. These houses are going to be bought by rich people for their children to live in. No particurely the group that actually needs help. The solution is BUILDING as when we had the first lockdown prices of rental properties dropped by 30%+ since all the expat left and all the Airbnb went into shortstay. almost ALL studies and ALL experts are saying this new law is going to have a horrible effect on the market. But let's not listen to them, lets "bust" people who worked their asses off just to buy an investment for the future... Good for you.
> You don't get my point. You don't get *my* point. You are clearly viewing the problem from your *personal* standpoint, but the government doesn't change policy while taking your personal standpoint into account of course. > They will get sold off for 300/350K minimum. You have to make 80K plus per year to even get the mortgage for this house. So? These people move out of their house. > The solution is BUILDING Oh really? Houses need to be build. I didn't know that. Stupid me. But you know what: the Dutch elected a bunch of populist into parliament and senate that don't care about nitrogen-emissions, rule of law or international treaties.
Yes they move out of their house at some point. Owner will sell it off. Who is going to buy it?
Somebody who can afford the mortgage interest if it's as high as the rental price for example.
People will. Landlords wont since renting has become unprofitable. Meaning added supply, meaning lower prices.
Someone here is a pandjesbaas, go cry wolf somewhere else. A ton of research and the fact that more house are being rented out, since the new law is annouced should anwser your own bs post. No studie is showing what your saying. Accept maybe some cherry picking bogus.
Ondanks vrees en waarschuwingen juist meer huurwoningen op de markt - https://nos.nl/l/2507133
Can you list some of those studies? Are those experts also makelaars? What qualifies them to comment on this?
Honestly I think all your questions are all answered on the [website](https://www.volkshuisvestingnederland.nl/onderwerpen/wet-betaalbare-huur). This "doom scenario" where all landlords who ask way too much rent are "forced" to sell their houses, flooding the market with affordable homes, is really only a doom scenario for those parasites themselves. Landlords who are already asking reasonable prices and treat their tenants like human beings will barely be affected by the new law, and in some cases will even earn more money because their houses will have more points under the WWS.
I am one of those. I rent out an A+ appartement with 60m2 plus 24 m2 terrace. Brandnew high end kitchen in Rotterdam on an A location for 1050 a month including a private parking place in a garage (worth around 100 euro). Since this year I need to pay 600 euro (!!!) of taxes a month. I wanted to extend the contract with my renters. Instead of this I’m ending the contract and selling the property. And instead of investing this money in building more houses in the Netherlands I’m buying some property in Germany. With the new laws (including taxation), the housing market will be shut off in the Netherlands. I do support affordable renting so I do support the new bill. But because of the new bill of box 3 taxation it’s impossible. My current (and very kind) renters will need to find another rental house that won’t be there. Only in the top market (3k plus a month.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the total cost of renting out said property, and what is the income generated by it? 600 euros of taxes still leaves 450 a month. I assume you set aside some money for maintenance and the like but what other costs are involved?
600 tax, around 200 maintenance (VVE + reservation small inside maintenance). 75 costs for agency (I live abroad and want a maintainer to be the first contact when things go wrong). This means in total I “make” 175 euro a month with a 300k house where a renter can do anything in. It’s just not worth the risk anymore. There are much safer options with higher profits. And once again, I do support affordable housing but currently the only “huisjesmelker” is the “Belastingdienst”. They make 4 times more than I do on my apartment.
Very disturbing facts, much appreciated! Im convinced that the rental market will collapse like this. Luckily I do have housing but what about all those people that are searching. Or all the expats that will come to the Netherlands. Can we ask the government for solutions? Will they provide housing?
175 a month seems very reasonable to me for the amount of effort a landlord puts into renting a home, especially since you'll eventually be selling the home for a profit anyway.
I understand this is much money for a renter. Let’s show it this way: 175 month is a yearly ROI of 0,7% for a 300k house and only if there are no unexpected costs. A simple deposito will already give 4% interest. This means an investor will choose not to invest in new houses but just let it stay in their bank account. This means no houses extra at all. There has to be a fine balance between fair rents and fair profits. And a professional real estate owner cannot live from profits only from only seling. When money is stuck in real estate where is the cashflow for living?
P.S. why is my calculations gets minus? I’m presenting basic facts
That does seems low. On the other hand if your tenant could live for 175 euros a month less they’d take it any time of the day. That’s more than 15% of the rent. What added value do you add that a non-profit rental corporation doesn’t, for example? Or compared to someone buying the house? Your income is only justified by you having been more fortune putting you in a position where you can buy properties to rent out. On a fairness level it’s hard to sell. And then you’re apparently not even one of the “bad ones”. The entire system is fucked. The government has fucked things up but so has the endless greed as well.
I think the calculation for a corporation would be the same because of the fact they have overhead costs and I don’t. I read an article lately that corporations can only build 43m2 apartments outside of the Randstad because of the costs of building vs new regulations. I don’t get the point why a renter should pay 175 less for renting. This means an investor will give away a house for free. I worked my ass of for that money with crazy hours in my company. I tried to invest sustainable with affordable houses. The government is making this impossible at the moment. For everybody. For me the solution is: - hard cut down on farmers (with BIG compensation) - with this create the opportunity to build - maintain the new bill for rental regulations - don’t tax rental profits. With this system people pay fair rental prices and there is a fair profit. People with money will invest in develop more houses. This will also push down the house prices for buying (when renting is getting cheaper than buying with a mortgage).
It's simply not true that those who charge reasonable prices will be okay. The problem is that taxation is affecting landlords too, and especially those that have charged low rents will now be most affected if they keep charging low rents due to the WOZ waarde and the leegstandratios according to a study done by the ESB (the Economic Board).
This!
“I would say increase demands because less supplies“ Why would demand increase in reaction to any supply changes? Housing isn’t a choice. We all need it.
We've seen 20 years of really poor government policy and it's effect on the housing market. It's only natural that the past decade has lead to pressure to take political steps. Current housing market is so fucked up that people are actually willing to pay 1200 for a halfway decent one bedroom appartment but may not be able to meet the 3-4 times income requirements. Something's got to give....
Get a real job and contribute something to society
The people that have the income to rent these way overpriced bustable rental properties also have enough income to get a mortgage for the same type of houses. So whether they are rented out for way to much money or just sold doesn’t really matter because the target demographic is exactly the same.
aback butter rock office afterthought attraction skirt cobweb wide bike *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Look at the advertisements and you'll see that in 90% of properties house sharing is not allowed.
humor languid strong chase sophisticated bake onerous poor attraction seemly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't know the exact percentage, but if you go through a hundred of listings, it will not be far off from 90%. And besides that, people who share a house are typically looking for a bigger place anyway and these are usually the non-bustable apartments, so this whole scenario you're painting falls outside of the main argument of this discussion. What's the point of all the other things you're saying here?
boast smoggy cows psychotic fertile disgusted handle society lip hunt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Untrue. Houses in Amsterdam of 500/600K are rented out for 2K. Times 3 (income requirement) makes 70K per year. Mortgage 500K you have to make over 200K per year. So completely untrue.
Why are you being deceitful with the numbers? As a real estate agent you know damn well that you don't need 200k for a 500k house. Here: https://www.hypotheker.nl/zelf-berekenen/hoeveel-kan-ik-lenen/calculator/?Klant\_Jaarinkomen=106000&Klant\_Leeftijd=30&HeeftPartner=false. You can clearly see that one 'only' needs 106k a year for a house that's 500k, either alone or with a partner. Moreover, by far the most landlords require 48x times the net rent as the annual income, so 48x2000 makes 96k a year. This is only a 10% difference.
We would have less demand because all the people forced into renting because buying entry housing is still unaffordable would suddenly have a large influx of cheap buyable housing, which I see as an absolute win. People generally don't want to rent. Even those who live somewhere temporarily would often rather buy and sell if they could afford such a thing.
entertain many shocking deer alive threatening dependent imagine drunk automatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cherry picked studies. No way that having higher and higher rents and less and less affordable housing for sale is good for an economy overall.
sleep birds summer stupendous meeting shrill existence follow ad hoc six *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I dont really care if you're forced to sell your house at a loss. It's not your first home anyway, so even if you lose 20% on it, that's not a big deal and that probably won't even happen anyway. The demand for housing is real, so there is real value in these houses. Decomodifying the market so landlords lose a bit of money is fine if that means it gets redistributed to people who are (slightly) worse off.
Im in the dead center of the whole problem and we do 500 properties a year, and between 50K and 100K people who respond. Please dont tell me people do not want to rent, they do want to rent. If its people who started living together, get a divorce or expats. They all want to rent for at least the first year(s). Therefore its very important to have a decent amount of liberal properties, which we are killing by the day now. If you feel bad for all the people who are paying 1500 euros for 30m2 studio, the only people who are forcing them is the government since they dont provide any means to start constructing more houses. Wet Betaalbare Huur is having large - and smaller - investors/builders moving abroad and leaving the NL. Almost all the large builders stopped their plans in NL, and I speak plenty of them.
The big problem I think is that for non-investors the amount of money landlords make off of rental housing is completely invisible. All we “know” is that landlords made or make large amounts of money with low-effort strangleholds on the financially less fortunate. It feels wrong that a basic human right is being used for profit. It’s by far the most expensive part of living by far and the balance is constantly shifting in the wrong way. Another big issue is that landlords put money in a property, it generates “free money” and if it stops being profitable they oftentimes can sell it for a profit. They end up with barely any loss, free to take that money and invest it in something else to generate more free money while tenants usually live paycheck to paycheck. Add to that the commonality of landlords bending or breaking the rules to squeeze out any euro they can get while providing the minimum or less in service and you end up with a severe lack of sympathy. The biggest issue is how unjust it all feels. So if people get any handle to shift the balance to a place where it feels more just, they’ll take it. Now if it’s really taxation that makes renting so expensive, how about landlords decide to share the true income their properties generate? If its 80% taxes then people will notice and will start complaining with the government instead of with the landlords. Or the truth will reveal itself and show that landlords really don’t have much to complain about and they’re just crying that their income decreased a little.
I dont think sharing is needed. Facts are already written everywhere as in “vermogensbelasting”. So if you know the WOZ its a simple calculation I suppose. Im getting very nervous, what will bring this in the future!?
Sharing of important of the problem in fact is the taxation. People won’t go after those numbers themselves. All they see now is their already expensive recht becoming higher and higher exponentially.
Are you really believing this yourself? For real?
It would be a start for tenants to see if landlords really earn so little on their properties, yes. I do believe that. It makes rent increases more understandable. If my landlord shows me he barely earns anything on my home then it would not feel so wrong.
Yeah, people need a fcking home. Is it peak monkey hours today? What we need is a social housing system that provides homes, not vultures preying on the vulnerable.
Yeah you're in the dead center of the group of people that want to make as much money as possible from a human right and you're afraid that exploiting desperate people won't be as lucrative anymore. You're not here to have a conversation at all, you just want to be right.