I remember looking up just the air b&b’s in the Portland metro and there were over 4,000……
A large majority of the rest were being rented.
The wealthy are buying it all with no regulation.
There should be one home per family in the suburbs. One vacation place and your house. No one needs 10 properties, get rich another way you greedy terrible fucks.
Rich people outbid regular folks for real resources (homes), taking away any chance at intergenerational wealth building. the only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
Gary Stevenson has some worthwhile insights on what we can do and how to convince working class people that the rich must be stopped or else your kids and grandkids will all be homeless renters.
inequality is sharply risinh all around the world. and it’s getting worse. this is arguably the most important issue of our time.
the only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
Because the only way to escape an exploitative system is to become an exploiter…
I realise they don’t care, and are disingenuous about their suggestions… But these people think the solution for people not being able to afford shit is “get a, better job” or in this case specifically, “become landlord”…
How do you expect society to function if every, single, person, is a landlord? Who’s building the houses, cleaning after tenants stay, growing, harvesting, preparing food… Electricity?
Like, it just blows my mind that people espouse dumb shit like this and get a pass from most people
Someone that used to hang out on the Discord server I’m part of justified it because “the world is divided between winners and losers. For there to be winners there have to be losers.”
He was a real privileged asshole who worked in accounting for the US military. Loved how his paycheck was bigger than most soldiers, even some officers. Bitched for nearly a whole month about how the Obama administration was giving “free handouts” when the US pulled out of Afghanistan and gave all the veterans a care package.
I argued with him a lot. Nobody liked him. This is the kind of person the people from OP’s meme are.
I know people like this. They truly believe like they are doing society a favor by buying up houses and renting them out. The disconnect from reality is wild.
It’s a little better than corporate real estate vultures though. If you think about it, these small landlords and renters are more alike than the people at Blackrock buying up all this shit.
Nah, corporate landlords at least tend to have minimum standards and contractors on call.
These type of small time landlords are the ones that tell you that a working refrigerator is a luxury, and water damage due to a cracked pipe in the wall is the tenant’s responsibility.
Just because they aren’t faceless doesn’t mean they aren’t as bad. In case of corporations, at the very least, anyone up to CEO could claim they were doing what their boss/investors told them/expected them to do, they have the mirage of fabricated innocence. The guilt is also spread more thinly, with many, often low paid employees contributing a small portion towards the greater legal crime.
Small landlords have none of those delusions available, though from my personal, anecdotal experience, higher management in large corporations also often personally own real estate and rent it. I’m working in IT, but I have no reason to think it would be in any different elsewhere. I was led to understand it was “normal” and “smart”. So I’d say it’s the same kind of people that make decisions on top of the real estate corporations, and the petite landlords. And yeah, I’m excluding from that, obviously, renting a flat you’ve gotten as inheritance from your grandma or something, though I have more fundamental issues with the inheritance thing itself.
If it would destroy the economy if everyone did it, then it should not be doable in the first place.
This is like saying that if everyone had a small business it would destroy the economy. If you think a rental damages the economy, you have no idea what the economy is, or how it works.
Businesses buy and sell off each other and also create value. But sticking with the “if everyone did this” every one would run a one person business. Not efficient but would work. On the other hand if everyone is renting out houses, they can at most be renting out one (ignoring foe now second houses/holiday apts). Then everyone would be housed and paying each other in a circle. So, no, everyone doing what the post suggests can not work. All but the first house would be empty.
It’s funny that one probably-landlord downvoted this. You know who you are, scum-sucking leech.
It’s kind of a false dilemma to say everyone should do it or nobody should do it. There are a lot of things that would destroy the economy or even the world if everyone did it. I think there is a healthy amount of small family owned rental properties like the one in the meme.
It’s a simplistic statement, but it’s not meant to be that broad, it’s meant to be taken for this type of practice.
If everyone lived off leeching off someone else or from being middlemen, without producing anything, there would only be money moved with no products, labor, or services.
It’s not meant to be applied to something like “what if everyone’s business was just opening a pub?”. The economy would be destroyed without diversification and many kinds of businesses. But being a landlord isn’t anything like that. Particularly those that won’t freaking repair anything wrong with the house, just take their checks and the tenant is on their own.
Hey bro sorry, I need to pay my rent a week late.
What? Your comment doesn’t make sense. If everyone did any profession solely we would destroy the economy. If everyone became doctors, there would be no engineers or pilots. We would still be doomed. A diversity of vocations are necessary regardless of which vocation.
*Edit. I was thinking maybe you mean investments. But the same holds true there. AND because of hedgefunds and private equity it’s becoming more and more of all the money funneling into a handful of companies. All the economists are sounding alarm bells on this. But considering the direction our leaders are taking us, I think this is all part of the plan.
Landlording is not a profession.
Handyman is a profession. Real estate management is a profession. Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
The economy can tolerate a finite number of leaches before dying. We currently have too many. The ideal number is zero.
Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
This actually applies to most all investments.
ALL forms of making money from having money need to be abolished completely.
If you’re not creating/selling a product or providing a service, you’re not EARNING money. Furthermore, rich people getting richer through passive income is the #1 thing diminishing the returns from actually worthwhile endeavors.
So let’s say I’ve saved $100k over the course of 20 years of work. Investing in my friend’s bakery startup (making me a silent partner)… should be abolished??
I somewhat agree with you. And I 150% agree that “rent seeking behavior” doesn’t add to society.
But what if you want to sell a product you designed but can’t afford to create it or to setup a factory for it, so you want funding, so you try to get investments, maybe by selling equity in your company. Is that not valuable to society? The people that take the risk that your product may not sell?
How did anyone do anything before currency was invented?
Your comment implies that what you describe is a requirement for a functioning society
It isn’t.
Before currency was invented might be a stretch— back then, which was a long long long, time ago we likely didn’t even have professions in the same sense. Albeit Dave might have had a knack for fishing, Kendra for making canoes etc.
There was plenty of space in the wilderness you could just go live for free. Now we have a lot of people, we need agriculture to support that population; there isn’t enough land for hunter gatherer societies to exist without a large population collapse first.
Now to your point I suppose we could have a society without money; yet I think there is some freedom in currency even if everyone gets a UBI. It allows two random strangers to come together and have one person buy something without having to trade an item that the other person wants, then the seller can go buy something they want.
Without currency we would have to have a somewhat complex trading system, which inevitably would see certain items of rarity never traded, or traded for so much surplus goods that a new ironically materialistic moneyed class would develop. It would make for an interesting book, but I think so long as people have varied interests and desires, and create creative works, money is a useful thing.
Yeah, it turns out that a system that rewards people for simply having possession of something leads to behaviors that are harmful for society.
The problem isn’t landlords, that’s just the group that most people interact with directly. The problem is that our rules (primarily taxes) are setup to reward that behavior and to add burden to people who actually do work for their income.
If you’re a billionaire you can get your effective tax rate to single digits or zero. If you work for a living you pay way more taxes proportional to your income.
Yeah, it turns out that a system that rewards people for simply having possession of something leads to behaviors that are harmful for society.
That’s not what renting a property is. Have you noticed when the water heater goes out in your apartment, you don’t pay for it? People who own properties that rent them out, absorb the risk of damage to the property that both the tenant will do directly, as well as regular wear and tear. This doesn’t even get into breach of contract from a tenant that simply stops paying rent, can’t be evicted, won’t leave… etc. Or one who simply moves out without telling the landlord, leaving the landlord to try to scramble and figure out how to get it back on the market so that they can cover their expenses.
When rent in an area makes renting the property more attractive than selling the property, rent in that area will go down because of an increase in availability.
It’s also not capitalism.
Adam Smith is seen as the person most responsible for coming up with the concept of capitalism, and he hated landlords.
“Landlords’ right has its origin in robbery. The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth.”
More details about what he thought of rent in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith imagined a world with well-regulated capitalism. In that world, a capitalist might invest in a factory to make a widget. They’d take raw materials, use capital (including labour) and end up with a product that people would want to buy. That capitalist would always have to stay on their toes because if they got lazy, another capitalist could undercut them by using their capital better, to either undercut the widget’s price, or to sell it more cheaply. This competition was key, as well as the idea of the capitalist putting in work to continuously improve their processes. A capitalist who didn’t continually improve their processes would lose to their competitors, see their widget sales drop to zero, and go out of business.
In Adam Smith’s time, the alternative to capitalism was feudalism, where a landlord owned a huge estate, had serfs working on that estate, and simply collected a cut of everything the serfs produced as rent. In that scenario, the landlord had to do almost no work. It was the farmers on their estate who did the work. The landlord just owned the land and charged rent. Originally, serfs were even tied to the land, so they weren’t allowed to leave to work elsewhere, and their children were bound to the same land. But, even once that changed, there was still good farmland. The landlord could lower the rent until it was worth it for a farmer to work the land. The key thing is that the landlord didn’t have to do anything at all, just own the land and charge rent for its use.
I think the reason that people are so pissed off with capitalism these days is that what we’re really seeing is a neo-Feudalism, or what Yanis Varoufakis calls technofeudalism.
Think of YouTube. A person puts tons of time and money into making a video, they upload it to the only viable video platform for user-made video, YouTube. YouTube hosts the video, then charges a big cut of any advertising revenue the video generates, basically charging rent for merely being the “land” on which the video lives. In a proper capitalist world, there would be plenty of sites to host videos, plenty of ad companies competing to buy ad spots for a video, etc. But, YouTube is a monopoly, and internet advertising is a duopoly between Google and Facebook. They mostly don’t even compete anymore, each has their own area of the Internet they control and so they’re a local monopoly. This allows them to behave like feudal lords rather than capitalists. There’s no need for them to innovate, no need for them to compete, they just own the land and charge rent. Same with Apple and their app store. There are no other app stores permitted on iPhones, so Apple can charge an outrageous 30%.
It goes well beyond tech though. Say you’re a Canadian and you want to avoid American products, but you love your carbonated beverages. You could buy Coke, but that’s American. Pepsi? That’s American. Royal Crown cola? Sure sounds like it might be Canadian, or British, but no, it’s American. Just look at the chain of mergers for its parent company: “Formed in July 2018, with the merger of Keurig Green Mountain and Dr Pepper Snapple Group (formerly Dr. Pepper/7up Inc.), Keurig Dr Pepper offers over 125 hot and cold beverages.” Sure, if you look you can find specialty things like Jarritos, but the huge brands just dominate the shelves.
Capitalists hate capitalism, they want to be feudal lords, and since the time of Reagan / Thatcher / Mulroney / etc. competition hasn’t been properly regulated, allowing all the capitalists to merge into enormous companies that no longer have to compete, and can instead act as feudal lords extracting rent.
The fact that landlording is bad and not a profession isn’t the point.
The point is that @MithranArkanere@lemmy.world’s argument failed to convincingly argue that because it was logically fallacious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
In other words, the fact that thing A would “destroy of the economy if everyone did it” is an emergent property of everyone doing it, which doesn’t apply to any single entity doing thing A.
Yes yes. Many people fail to accept hyperbole. You don’t need to explain that you don’t either.
That guy said what I was pointing out. Also, it’s not a hyperbole, it would absolutely destroy the economy if everyone did the same thing regardless of what that thing is. Even if everyone decided eating chicken would be the only protein that we eat would destroy the economy. Which is why I added my edit. It’s not just about a profession, but anything, literally anything done in unison by every other human would wreck an economy.
Are you’re saying that if an economy has an increse the concentration of farming activity then economic ouput will deteriorate as fast as if it were to have instead had the same increase the concentration of parasitic activity? Very interesting idea.
Maybe I’m dense but the only way I can see that working is if the parasites become super-effective livestock and can be turned into food that is either more nutrious or has a longer shelflife than the feedstock.
Huh? I’m saying if everyone dropped whatever it is they normally do and instead all do the same exact thing, it would ruin an economy. We need diversity regardless of whatever else is happening. We couldn’t survive if everyone became farmers and no one become engineers. So ultimately, it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything, such as landlording, the economy would be ruined.
what’s the difference between real estate management and landlording?
Real estate Management is about rent collection, property maintenance, coordination of finding new tenants, etc. There’s labor there.
Many single property landlords are also real estate management and handymen of their own properties. And that part of the situation is actual labor.
In common parlance, people will often conflate these. But I find this dilutes the harm caused by actual landlords, which are mostly large corporations that simply own property and collect income.
actual landlords, which are mostly large corporations that simply own property and collect income.
You can think of a landlord, whether it’s a giant corporation or a family that owns two homes and rents one out, as an investor. They choose to keep their money in a property which they rent to someone else for a profit. But they do this rather than selling the property and investing in a restaurant, a local shop, the stock market, or just blowing the it.
The difference is that housing is a finite, in fact scarce, requirement for life. You could also say that Nestle buying up all the water supplies is simply where they’re choosing to invest. Sure, but it’s still wrong.
It’s an abuse of capitalism to create captive markets for basic necessities where people have no real choice but to purchase your goods. Adam Smith knew this.
Now you could say, “just move”, but the fact is that there is not sufficient affordable housing available in this country to meet demand. And a good portion of that is held by investors.
It has little to do with the “profession” and more to do with the distribution of goods. If everyone owned rental properties, nobody would live in these rental properties, meaning for lords to exist there must be serfs.
This is like saying that in order for business owners to exist there have to be people who want the products that that business provides. So what?
That’s true for teachers, too.
If it is a lifestyle that would destroy the economy if everyone had it, then that’s another story.
If everyone went to work every day for 8+ hours for the direct benefit of the members of their community, the economy and the community would both be incredibly healthy.
If everyone purchased the tools that other people need to live and work and decided to rent those out instead of doing their own labor, the economy and community would fail.
This should be incredibly obvious.
Then it should be illegal to have no children, because if everyone had no children, we would literally go extinct.
That’s just the first thing that came to mind, huh? Tell me you wasnt to control women’s bodies without telling me.
Mooching off of others to fund your life style and giving nothing back in return
opens envelope
What’s something considered classy if you’re rich, but trashy if you’re poor?
Well this is gross. Its extremely had to buy ONE property, to exist in, if you dont have Bank of Mom and Dad to rely on.
How does the second tenant pay their mortgage? One apartment’s rent should not be enough to cover the mortgage of four (or five - including the one they live in). My guess is that they only payed all the mortgages for these four properties and this is about the mortgage of the apartment they live in.
The cheat code to a stress-free life is to own lots of real estate to being with.
Oh, some rents are getting crazy and the buildings were purchased 10-20 years ago so the mortgage isn’t that high. It’s all a scam.
Of course they mean their own personal mortgage. The mortgage of the property they rent out is already covered by the tenant.
Because they’re liars trying to show off?
I mean… Maybe they don’t have a large mortgage? Maybe they put a large sum down and got a good interest rate?
Having lots of wealth to being with is always a good idea.
Here’s a tip poor people; just have money!
Same people will be looking for a govt bailout when the real estate market collapses.
All so that none of their tenants can afford any of those four things without constantly struggling!
That’s because they haven’t seen that tweet from a money genius who invented the cheat code on life. You just need more money streams for more money. Who knew? Here I was, just sitting with a gazillian dollars stuffed under my mattress nor knowing what to do with them.
My engineering brain is trying to figure out how it would actually be possible… Some kind of reverse scaffolding system that ratchets down instead of up.
Start with a tall platform, build the cap of the pyramid, then build an additional layer under, while also bringing the platform down by one layer. Repeat for each layer.
Cunk is hilarious though…
How is this legal.
In a word, corruption.
In two words, legal corruption.
In three words, blatant legal corruption.
In four words, United States political system.
Meh.
-
This isn’t an America problem. People do this in every country
-
This is capitalism not corruption
For everyone here’s a fun thought experience. You have a room with 100 people. In that room is 100$. 1 person (Elon Musk let’s say) holds 95$. 4 people (let’s say various CEO class people) hold $1 each. The remaining 95 people share the remaining 1$.
And yet here we are all fighting because some of our deluded asses think we are going to be one of those 5 people one day.
Meh.
- This isn’t an America problem. People do this in every country
It’s WORSE in the US than in most other countries, including all other wealthy countries, though. Differences in scale matter
- This is capitalism not corruption
Taken to the extremes it will inevitably reach if not sufficiently restrained, capitalism IS corruption with fancy packaging. It’s right in the name: it’s an ism (belief system) where accruing capital is the most important of ALL things.
In every Western country other than the US, accepting large sums of money and other perks from rich people who want favors is the DEFINITION of corruption, whether or not there’s a specifically stated quid pro quo.
It may be worse in the USA but capitalism absolutely is the reason it happens.
Its definitely not capitalism. Our system survives by creating economic slaves, for instance the mortgage acts as a gatekeeper in the fiat system, by locking up economic value and an inelastic good in a form that can only be unlocked by completing the payment obligations. Housing rises in price to max out the metaphorical bucket of whatever interest rates allow for debt accumulation, and property ownership is controlled by one’s ability to secure debt. This ensures that the financial system has a steady stream of obligations that help sustain the flow of currency, which helps drive aggregate demand.
The goal is to create a 2% inflation, as calculated by an index that excludes housing appreciation and investments, you require ever growing money supply. Money supply is grown via debt accumulation, this then funnels down into foods and services, excluding substitutions and hedonic adjustments, reversing technological deflation, deriving a 2% inflation to a dynamic basket of goods. Housing works well for this because housing is finite and demand in inelastic; prices can rise faster than fundamentals, and it is therefore a liquidity sponge that is a necessary liability to take.
-
It’s the same here in the UK, unfortunately. Is that neoliberalism? Or just a rehashed kind of feudalism? I don’t know, I’m mostly a gardener.
Yeah, it’s pretty much a defining aspect of Neoliberalism. Just like turning the corruption up to 11 in both severity and blatancy is a hallmark of the economics of fascism.
How is it legal that people buy property and rent to those who want to rent instead of buy? My question to you is why wouldn’t it be legal?
In principle it’s fine and it fulfills a market need… not everyone wants to buy. But in practice, under-regulation in a market where many people want to buy but can’t exacerbates wealth inequality by reducing the available housing and driving up home costs. This in turn drives up rental costs. It’s a nasty cycle.
Absolutely, a problem that is improved by increasing housing supply (thus lowering costs). We need more government investment in building homes and to remove barriers that prevent or slow homes from being built. Simply outlawing rentals, as OP suggests, would do the opposite, it would take out a huge chunk of people who are building homes, drastically lowering supply and exploding housing prices.
The solution is for the state to guarantee that everyone must have a place to live. Shelter is a human necessity, it should not be conditional.
Are you envisioning the government being a major landlord, like in Singapore? It seems to work really well for that country, but Americans seem uncomfortable with the idea of government housing.
There are definitely alternatives, where there is more tax incentive to own one home that you live in, and increasing penalties for holding more properties, especially for a long period of time and especially if they are in areas of high housing demand.
OP isn’t directly suggesting making rentals illegal; in fact it’s a bit vague what specific practice they’re blaming. My best guess is that they generally don’t feel laws should allow/incentivize owning so many housing properties, especially if one is not personally doing anything to earn money from them.
A responsible landlord is “doing” arrangements for property maintenance and handling all tax and other legal requirements, and my hard feelings are towards slumlords who let dwellings become unsafe, or property flippers who kick all the renters out and build new dwellings to sell to more wealthy buyers.
But also, isn’t the hate for landlords equally applicable to banks and other financial institutions that hold mortgages? They really are earning money by no other responsibility than having the capital available at the start.
those who want to rent instead of buy?
Who actually wants to spend 1/3 of their paycheck on something every month and not own it?
Biggest plusses people argue in favor is not having to maintain the property yourself and being able to move much more easily. If you are one of the people who would prefer to buy, I highly recommend you do so. Maintaining your own stuff is quite nice, as it lets you keep it up to the quality you desire.
Lmao this guy thinks landlords maintain the property.
Great, you can move more easily to another overpriced unmaintained property. You will own nothing and you will be happy about it.
My exact thoughts. Never had anything in my apartments maintained by the landlord, always had to maintain everything myself at my own expense. And despite maintaining it for them, they still keep our deposits when we try to leave.
Keep our deposits, jack up rent despite doing nothing for us, and when they sell to a new landlord you have rich freaks coming into your home while you’re eating your lunch in your kitchen to stare at you and inspect the place to decide if they want to purchase you or not.
Never had anything in my apartments maintained by the landlord, always had to maintain everything myself at my own expense.
When is the last time you bought a furnace, a water heater, or a new roof for a property you rent? Ever?
It isn’t that the owner isn’t maintaining it, it is that they aren’t maintaining it do the standard you would prefer. And that absolutely is an issue. And it is one of the primary benefits of no longer paying a landlord and instead buying a property and maintaining it to your own standards. You will almost certainly end up with a maintenance standard you like as you will be the one dictating and implementing it.
A basic standard includes a ceiling that isn’t caving in, a foundation that isn’t sinking causing the windows to pull the wall above them apart, but either way the landlord won’t address it and I’d never have the money to correctly address it myself. In those instances it feels less like my personal standard isn’t being met but rather the basics and fundamentals aren’t being maintained.
I would love to own though. If I were ever in a position to own and afford maintenance I would feel safer.
I apologize by the way if I write in a confusing way, or have a hard time communicating my point, I have trouble with that. Owning is preferable in my opinion, property and privacy are power and a form of independence I long for.
It dawned on my that my wife and I pay 30k a year to live in our house. I made 65k last year, the most I’ve ever made and the amount I told myself in Highschool that if I could get a job making that I’d be set. Feels like I’m still bussing tables at fucking Texas Roadhouse.
For context, im in tech and she’s in the arts. Combined we’re at about 110k a year. Wild that that feels like just scraping by.
1/3 income these days is if you’re lucky
Pretty much been covered by others already.
The laws are written by rich exploitative fucks
All i had to do was just buy 4 houses? Damn. I’m rich!
I used to have my own place before my wife and I got married, and she had her own house too. When I moved in with her I decided to rent out my place to a friend, otherwise I’d have to still pay like $650 a month for my mortgage. I set my friends rent at $900 a month for him and a friend, with cats. I paid my mortgage and had some extra to save up in case a repair was needed. Average rent for an apartment (not a house) was 1200-1500 in the same area. My renters ended up taking better care of the house than I ever did. It was beautiful when they lived there. I ended up making about 5k to 10k extra bucks over the course of a few years and my mortgage was paid for me. Eventually they had to move out due to some issues between the two at which point I sold the house and made over six figures(net profit, not gross), off a house that cost less than $80,000 when I bought it.
See what I did there? I charged a reasonable rent and still made a totally stupid amount of money off of just one property. I wasn’t a goddamn parasite who tried to bleed my tenants for everything they were worth.
People like these total shitbags. They’re the reason why America’s youth have no future
You still take someone elses money, just less of it.
Can we not shit all over normal people for doing normal stuff? This dude doesn’t run Blackrock, he had a single rental property.
Hundred years ago it was normal to beat women of they were out of line. Millenia ago it was normal to own slaves. It’s also “normal” for the US Healthcare to screw over people who need Healthcare. Just because something is “normal” doesn’t mean it’s somehow right. Slavery was normal but then different societies over time understood that slavery is not right and it stopped being normal. Beating women used to be normal but over time we learned that’s also not right and it stopped being normal. I don’t know about you but I don’t think ripping people off is right. However ripping people off has been normalized for capital owners (including land lords).
Nobody should be wishing for his demise (compared to Blackrock and its kin, who I do think should cease to exist), but at the same time he shouldn’t be padded on the back for not ripping off his friend as much as he could’ve. What he did shouldn’t be normal.
He didn’t rip off his friend at all. He took just enough to pay the mortgage and save something up in case of repairs. That isn’t ripping him off. That’s doing him a favor since he charged him so little.
He could’ve given the rest money back to his friend after all the repairs were done. He chose to keep that money.
Yea, and if he had just sold the property in the first place there wouldn’t have been a house to rent at all.
So given the equity to his friends?
No. Here’s what he could’ve done to not be a leech.
- sell the property
He no longer uses it so selling it to someone who would use it would be the best option. But maybe he’s sentimental about the place or has some other reason to keep it. Then it’s better if he “rents” it out.
- Get tenants but have them only pay for the utilities they use,no rent is paid.
He chose to keep the house, the mortgage on it is his responsibility not the tenants. Even if he just asked the tenants to cover the mortgage that is already leeching because you’re not using your money to pay it off, you’re using someone else’s. Once the mortgage is paid off he has a property he didn’t pay for while the people who paid got nothing. But let’s say he can’t afford to pay the mortgage but he still wants to keep the house?
- have the tenants pay thy mortgage as well, but nothing more.
Again, it’s his property whatever patch work it requires it’s his to cover. He’s already offloaded his mortgage to the tenants, why demand even more from them? But let’s say the tenants are scum of the earth and every day they tear the property apart, having the also pay to cover the repairs would reign them in.
- give back the money he took for repairs but he didn’t use for repairs.
He’s offloaded the mortgage on the tenants. He’s offloaded the maintenance cost to the tenants. The least he could do is give back the maintenance money he didn’t use. But he doesn’t even do that.
And yet, according to you, we’re supposed to think of it as him doing the tenants a favor because he’s not ripping them off more? Do you think a wife beater not beating his wife every chance he gets is doing the wife a favor? Do you think the slave owner not whipping their slaves is doing them a favor? Absolutely asinine.
See, when the Landlord charges reasonable rates, and actually provides services in exchange for that rent (helping update appliances to newer, having paperwork on hand for any code/inspections needed for property changes (that the landlord would ultimately benefit from,) and in general treating it as a matter of ‘I have obligations’ instead of ‘I will do nothing but I will absolutely blame the tennants for the inevetable crumbling of the property.’
I dislike the concept at base level, but that is a someone who is trying to not be a scumbag.
The renting part isn’t even that bad, the owning part and selling for profit is the problem.
The renting part isn’t even that bad, the owning part and selling for profit is the problem.
What are you talking about? I buy a house for $200k in 2012, real estate market goes crazy and now my house is worth $500, selling it for market value iis… wrong?
Morally wrong, yes. But sadly normal…
Someone who needs a place to live in and doesn’t have the money or doesn’t want to buy their own place. IMO, it is a fair trade as long as the landlord isn’t a cunt. The reasons to why they don’t have enough to buy their own place have nothing to do with a single landlord, some people don’t want to take roots in a single place. If you wanna go to war with someone, go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people.
The incentive structure for landlords creates these conditions, it’s not some individual failing of their moral character. Individual tyrants aren’t better than corporate tyrants.
go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people with that I can agree. But taking money is still taking money.
By that thought everyone should be doing everything for free.
Based
Oh, a utopia. Where everyone works for free.
Not everyone is in a situation where they can or even want to own a house. Renting is much safer in terms of sudden emergencies. Water heater blows out in a house? Fuck you, 3k to replace at least. In an apartment? That’s a landlord problem.
So?
There’s a line to draw between exploiting tenants, and compensation for providing dwelling.
You might even argue the OP creates this ambiguity based on interpretation of the wording, or poor communication.
For a productive conversation, let’s be crystal clear where that line is drawn.
This is something I think gets left out, but understandably so when there are so many issues with landlords.
But, as a property owner, you’ve got all the liability and are responsible for repairs and ensuring that the property is livable and usable. I think there’s a level of compensation you can be earning from your time, but I think that having extremely high rent PLUS the ROI of your property increasing in value over time is double dipping. When you consider that your money is invested in property and you’re getting value that way, it IS leeching IMO if someone else is doing all the upkeep and paying a premium for that.
Looking at the OP that way shows that those people are just exploiting others. But I do think there is such a thing as ethical landlording. But I think generally we’re not there.
If you start treating everyone who’s making a profit by owning a property and renting it out, as a piece of shit, soon you’ll have everyone avoiding renting property altogether, and simply selling, and investing their capital in something that returns a profit. You know the stock market, Bitcoin. The bottom line is a rental property is just a business like anything else
And you don’t see a problem with treating shelter as an investment?
You made a profit from people who thought they were your friends. Classy.
Yes, it’s called mutually beneficial. They saved hundreds of dollars every month since I was charging them way under market for rent. They were actually able to save up a substantial amount. I mean they were planning on having to pay at least 1200 a month for a shitty place, instead they got an actual fucking house for 900.
When his mom was dying of cancer, he had room for her to stay with them after chemo sessions. Since the house was in a great location near the hospital
That’s nice, but you shouldn’t have an extra property to rent out to others when there’s not enough to go around.
Your “friend” still paid a substantial portion of your mortgage and gained nothing from it beyond being out of the rain. You used him and paint it as mutually beneficial.
How is a stable comfortable place to live ‘nothing’? If being out of the rain was all it took we’d all live in tents and this conversation would not occur. Owning a house and keeping it repaired/functional is hard and expensive. You don’t do your side favors by acting like our boy kept his friend in a locked closet when we all know that isn’t true.
Why do you get extra properties to rent out to others while he has to pay the rent?
The only reason why he doesn’t have enough is because people like you have too much.
We’re coming for you.
The only reason why he doesn’t have enough is because people like you have too much.
This should be satire.
I’m not going to argue with you. Shelter is not a commodity.
Of course it is. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be able to sell it, take the money and invest in something else.
There are too many people like you.
I’m trying to help you understand. You want to insult me, and make moral arguments outside the scope of basic economics.
Oh I understand. You’re the one doing the mental gymnastics to try and normalize a system that exploits basic needs as get rich quick schemes that just do happen to only be available to a select few that have the money to play. Even now calling it basic economics as if that system is inherent to existence.
Using my “friends” to pay off a personal debt while making $250/mo in profit off them. See, it’s possible to be a good landlord, everyone!
Did you share any of what you made from the sale with your “friends” who helped you pay for it and kept it in good condition for you?
It seems like it was a situation where everyone felt like they got a good deal and nobody felt taken advantage of. He gave them a better deal than they were going to find anywhere else.
To me, it doesn’t sound like he was exploiting his friends.
Did those friends run the risk of having to pay for a new roof or anything else that can go wrong with a house? Tell me you’ve never owned a house without telling me you’ve never owned a house
Don’t try to talk sense into the senseless.
They act like everyone could do this.
If everyone did this, the system would fail, because the profit here is scooped off the top with no actual production or service.
It would also require everyone to own 4+ houses which isn’t exactly feasible
It would require a lot of housing density for everyone to own four dwellings (and would kill rent demand well and good), but I wouldn’t call it infeasible. For everyone to have a quarter acre lawn and a 2,000 square foot house that shares no walls with neighbors? With those additional requirements having everyone own four is infeasible, sure, but a belief that’s the only dwelling worth owning is how we have throttled our housing supply in the first place.
The product/service is the use of the property for the specified time.
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
And if everyone did this when they were able to, rents across the board would be dirt cheap.
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
Well, one has to do with recreation, and the other has to do with basic necessities of humans.
Step one: Have a shitton of money to buy property to rent out.
Oh, you don’t have enough money? Hhm, have you tried not being poor?it’s about suggesting that the social order that propped you up and elevated you basically arbitrarily based on birth is a reason you’re cool, and not just some shit that happened. none of this is about actually helping anyone. if they actually believed this shit from the bottom of their hearts, breathing a word of it would be fucking stupid.
The meme specifies Mortgage which means they also don’t have any money. They obtained a loan that they will be paying back for 15 to 30 years, at which point the property will deteriorate to a much lower value if any at all. If they sell the properties then they will owe depreciation recapture which works similar to a capital gains tax, as if it were additional income on top of the actual capital gains tax on the sale of the property itself. Plus closing costs to realtors.
