What do families do, that only want or need to live in a place or area for like a year or so? Buy a house, pay thousands in closing costs and inspections, lose several thousand to realtors, and then have to go through the trouble of trying to sell the place a year later?
We very much need landlords. What's screwing everything up is corpos doing it as a business or individuals with like 20 homes instead of one or two. Renting a house is a viable need for some people and it would actually suck if it was an option that didn't exist at all.
The only reason costs of houses are so high in the first place is because they are lucrative investment objects, along with the fact that the most important part of city (and rural) planning, building homes, is largely left to private companies. You are assuming houses would be just as inaffordable without landlords, which is a problem of the current paradigm and not the one proposed.
A couple of years ago, my boss' father (who founded the company and still worked there on and off) and I had a chat over lunch. I'm not sure how the topic of house prices came up, but he mentioned that when he and his wife bought their house, a car cost more than a house, so you knew that someone was really well off if they had two cars in the driveway.
I think that's the first time I've actually gotten my mind blown. The idea that a car could cost more than a house just didn't compute, and it still doesn't quite sit with me.
There's no reason that local governments can't do this job, there's no need for middle men leaching money.
Some of the biggest law breakers and abusive landlords are independent landlords. They're also the ones who don't seem to realize that being a landlord is a full time job where you are the handy man, maintenance, property manager, etc. It's not just collecting a cheque every month, you actually have to earn it.
The problem is that these socalled "viable needs" are treated as and acted upon like they are elective priviledges by charging exhorbitant prices for the properties that are being made available. Blaming the market for it is just passing the buck and not owning up to your own choices in what you charge. I get that the 'market' has some effect on your rates but making it the main driver for your price that reflects the cost of the entire mortgage on the property is what makes you look like a parasite. If you and your tenants shared the cost of a mortgage in a more equitable fashion, i bet there would be fewer complaints.
Are you taking it too literally or am I not taking it literally enough? Whenever I see stuff like this it never registered that the author is trying to say landlords shouldn't exist just that the people who call being a landlord their job are a problem. I've rented a lot throughout my short years and having a landlord who has some extra property they're trying to make a buck off are pretty decent it's the ones who treat it like their 9-5 I've had problems with.
The OP's image literally calls collecting rent "stealing", so it seems pretty obvious how they feel about it.
Some people honestly believe this 100% which of course is nonsense.
Keeping properties in good livable shape is literally a job. The money goes to many tradesmen that fixes many things. It takes time to manage it. Even if its not a 9-5, it still takes time. What is the logic behind if its 9-5, it is evil, and if its not 9-5 (how about 12pm-2pm?) it is not?
No, there are plenty of landlord's that are scumbags. It's emphatically not just corporations.
There are countless solutions to your problem, they just don't exist because we have landlord's.
This is a reminder that society as we know it is a mishmash at best, it's not the evolution of humanities best ideas and practices.
Plenty of options? Like what, because I bet your options are terrible.
We started out with a small house. But when my family grew, we decided to move to a bigger house and rent out our small home to generate some income. Our goal is to eventually move back into the small home when we no longer need the space of our big home.
Our tenants so far have been people from out of town that needed a place temporarily before they commit to buying a home. We are on our 4th set of family/tenants now. Every family have successfully moved out and purchased a home after renting from us, usually 1 or 2 years. Its a stepping stone for people. Without landlords and places to rent, as you said, it would be prohibitively expensive for people to be mobile and to improve their lives (I mean, that's the main reason people move around: new opportunities.) The anti-landlord crowd doesn't understand this, and those type of posts are ridiculous.
When someone live in a home, there are wear and tear on the home. When we first moved out, we spent a good chunk of money to renovate our old home to make it nice, presentable, and livable. A place that is desirable to live in. Then we continuously maintain the landscape, and fix anything that broke. Because one day we are planning to move back in, so we going to keep it in as best shape as possible. So charging a high enough rent to cover the costs and a bit more to make the time worthwhile is totally reasonable.
I was a renter once. It is the same situation for myself when I moved to this city. New job, new opportunity. I rented an apartment, saved up money, and then made a purchase a few years later. Among my friends, there's always a discussion of rent vs. buy. Some of my friends believed that they could save and invest and earn more money by never owning a home. I think if you do it right, it will work out either way. I am on the buy camp and it worked out. He was in the rent camp, and it also worked out for him. He is single and doesn't need a lot of space. And he is extremely mobile, and is able to move to another city for a grad degree and a new job in a very short notice. Without a place to rent, it makes it very difficult for people to do that.
Yeah, I’ve got to go with this. There are a small few of us that want the reasonable sized home we raised our families in, for retirement, but need to live for work elsewhere due to how things are now. I don’t make but $100 a month on rent and I promise that goes back into maintenance. I’m in a small condo that I own now, but I’m not attached here. I’ll move away and sell it.
Is someone else paying my mortgage, technically, yes. But damn if I’m not moving there when I retire and would like to NOT have a mortgage when I m too old to work. I raised my kids there, I loved the neighborhood. And the moment I decide I don’t need it anymore, I’ll sell it. But until then, I’ll be a responsible landlord and make sure I’m helping my tenant by keeping the house in good condition and reasonable rates.
"You evil bastard"...
Were talking about a whole new way of thinking about ownership and your trying to apply the current paradigms. If we dealt with home ownership differently obviously everything else would be different too.
I like how you throw this one thing out and are like oop, guess nothing can be done about that.
paying thousands in closing costs, and losing thousands, possibly tends of thousands to realtors, seems like a pretty good deal compared to renting that same house, which is probably going to cost you more, if not about as much money. For marginally less effort.
Rental income is considered income, and taxed assuming reasonable tax brackets much higher than investment income (That is to say, caiptal-gains. Interest/Dividends are also taxed at the higher income rate)
The cost of maintaining a livable home, property taxes, insurance, property depreciation, and renter interactions eat into the supposed windfall that landlords make.
I'm not saying it doesn't suck sometimes and that certainly these formulas are out of whack in some situations, but there are no easy answers.
Rental income is considered income, and taxed assuming reasonable tax brackets much higher than investment income
Depends on how the income is structured. You can own shares in a REIT that manages properties and count the dividends paid out as investment income.
The cost of maintaining a livable home, property taxes, insurance, property depreciation, and renter interactions eat into the supposed windfall that landlords make.
We had interest rates as low as 2.8% APY within the last three years. States have been lowering property taxes steadily for the last decade, as prices skyrocketed. Depreciation doesn't lower the land-value, which is where most of the price inflation has occurred since the first big real estate booms of the 90s. And "renter interactions"? I don't even know what this is attempting to imply. Is cashing the checks costing you money?
Some of the biggest investments hedge funds have made since the COVID crisis have been in residential real estate. This, in a market where The Magnificent Seven stocks have performed 20-30%/year for several years. Someone who works for Warren Buffet clearly sees a windfall in landlord-ism that you're not seeing.
(In the US) divedends are taxed as ordinary income. REITs are required to disburse their profits to the shareholders as divedends.
Only buy-low, sell high appreciation is taxed as capital-gains.
I don’t know where you live but in the US the IRS considers rental income as regular income for tax purposes. So when you fill out your taxes it just goes in your bog standard income section.
Additionally all expenses incurred for certain repairs and maintenance are tax deductible. My house gets similar tax breaks as I work from home, so things like plumbing repair (I guess considered an essential service) and regular maintenance can be deducted (although I’ve never gone over the standard deduction so I never really realize those benefits).
In every imaginable way rental income is better financially than “standard” income…though not morally.
Set some limits. Each person can own one primary residence and x number of secondary dwellings. Each additional dwelling is taxed at a higher rate than the one before.
People can still buy themselves a house and maybe another couple houses or condos for their family or investment.
But big landlords can't profitably buy up neighborhoods then crank up the rent. Or perhaps they can own them, but they're required to be non-profits and expenses and rents are highly controlled relative to income in the area.
It's a tough problem to solve though... Huge apartment buildings do have economies of scale that permit high density living.
And property owners who don't sell or develop their land at all because there's not enough incentive are a big problem in other parts of the world.
I really like the idea to tax each house successively more. And the money made from these taxes could specifically go to the government buying houses and turning them into social housing, or perhaps providing big discounts for first home buyers.
How about communal housing like in Austria? Not sure what's the proper name in English.
The trouble is that ratcheting up the tax on additional homes won't discourage anyone - the additional costs can just be passed on to the renters.
I'd suggest making it illegal for companies to own residential property for longer than 12 months.
Hopefully this would free up enough homes to bring prices back down.
I'd even settle for a law saying that a single corporation cannot own more than one house, duplex, triplex, apartment building (or whatever) in one city. If you want to have a real estate empire across America, fine. You can have your empire be one building per city.
Huge apartment buildings can still be done with individual units being owned rather than rented. They already exist - they're called condominiums.
I would argue that a live-in landlord that does maintenance work or acts as a building super is in fact doing a job.
Otherwise, agreed.
Building maintenance can absolutely be a job, which is wholey separate from being a landlord.
I think in this sense it is a little like arguing with petty bourgeois folks who defend capitalism by insisting that they do in fact work. Yeah, you do, but you don't have to be an owner extracting profit from other people to do that.
Not really, they're maintaining their asset, just like washing your own clothes isn't a job you get paid for, keeping your house in working condition isn't
Washing clothes and building maintenance absolutely is labor.
Rent is far, far higher than the cost of building maintenance though.
Washing the clothes would be a job if you were renting the clothes out.
The problem in my experience is that these landlords cut cost as much as possible, doing the bare minimum to rake in as much as possible. Barely maintaining shit, late maintenance, crappy construction even if it looks nice, nickel and diming left and right. It’s like this at every apt I’ve been at.
I am a landlord and also have a full time job. I also spend my time fixing my units.
With the maintenance cost and taxes, I'm actually losing money or breaking even depending on the year.
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn't be able to afford on their own in today's market. Being able to live near their work.
So why am I the bad guy?
With the maintenance cost and taxes, I’m actually losing money or breaking even depending on the year.
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own in today’s market.
Literally the hottest real estate market in history, after we just came out of the lowest interest rate market in history, and my man up here still can't even break even on a residence he is renting out to someone else out of the pure kindness of heart.
Maybe you are the rare, golden One Good Landlord, or maybe you're just some asshole on the internet posting utter bullshit. Who can say?
But I've never met any landlord like you IRL. Hell, I've never actually met a landlord who owned the property I rented. They always went through property management companies that do all the work for the owner and just forwarded on a chunk of my rental payment at the end of every month.
I do accounting for a lot of landlords. What he's talking about is cash flow. Almost nobody ends up with taxable income from renting because the rent goes to the mortgage, property tax, insurance, maintenance, etc.
Before you crucify me on a barbed wire Popsicle stick, the part he's leaving out is the equity he's building at the tenant's expense.
When he eventually sells the place, he'll get hundreds of thousands of dollars that didn't cost him anything. Whoever lived there just gets memories of that place they used to sleep in.
I mean he still owns the fucking property after his tenants have paid it off.
Idgaf if he is doing this out of the kindness of his heart, still a land bastard.
We own 3 rental properties. 1 we bought from my wife's grandpa because he was about to sell it to one of those "we buy houses scams" and we're currently renting it out for about 60% the rent on comparable properties...tenets have been great except for a few months several years ago when dude got hurt and couldn't work. We worked with them through that, and they haven't been late since or caused any damage. The other 2 are friends/family that couldn't afford a place on their own, so we bought it, and they rented it. We generally lose money on those 2. I grew up poor, and we had to move every year or two when we got evicted or when we were actually doing things right, but the landlord wasn't paying the bank.
There's a lot of scummy landlords out there, but there's several of us who aren't. We charge just enough to cover mortgage and maintenance. The payoff comes after we retire. We can sell the homes (hopefully to the tenets if they're interested) or supplement our retirements.
Those people are able to live in the house you took off the market (thus driving up the price of housing) and pay off your mortgage.
Are we talking about eliminating renting altogether?
Cause that is what it sounds like in this thread. Folks wanting to completely eliminate renting and drive folks to buy a house Everytime they move.
This ignores things like closing costs, realtor fees, really high property taxes, expensive home repairs, and temporary work assignments.
Maybe you really need a job but don't want to straight up buy a house and instead rent something until you can find a job back in your local area or you decide it's time to take the plunge and move for good.
Sure there are many a-hole companies and landlords that try to squeeze their tenants for every dime and treat their tenants like crap (lord knows I've run into those), but on the other hand there are folks who need a place to live but haven't decided where they want to settle down and people who can rent their old property at a decent date based on the low interest they themselves were able to lock down.
Some are folks (like me) who moved but couldn't afford to keep their house empty for an extended period of time to put it on sale while they're paying rent or a mortgage in another state. So renting, even if you're barely breaking even, makes sense.
Better to rent your old house for barely above the costs for the property taxes, homeowners insurance, and mortgage interest, and maintenance costs than to take a 6-12 month hit where you have to pay the above while not living in the house because your new job is in a different state. And that is if you sell in 12 months and don't take a big hit on the sale.
If you're buying/selling a house every 3 years then you're really going to get screwed. I personally went from living in a home I owned (and paying a mortgage on) to renting for 3 years just to understand where I wanted to live in a new state, which areas had the best employers, and wait out on a low APR and decent buyers market.
If I had to buy a house instead of having the option to rent, then I would have ended up buying a house near that employer which would have been over an hour commute from the better job offers I got after I moved here.
I don't know which particular Market you're in, but in the majority of cases, especially around me, if a bank would just fucking approve me for a loan I would pay notably less per month then I pay a landlord for rent.
And it's not like I even have a bad credit I'm in the 740s but since the fake imaginary value of properties is skyrocketed to the point that even a piece of shit falling apart house is almost a million dollars I can't get the kind of down payment they want. So despite the fact that the mortgage would literally be cheaper per month I can't get one.
And that situation exists thanks to people snapping up properties especially large companies and turning them into investment rental properties
If you're losing money with your properties, why not just sell them to your tenants for an affordable price?
Because they aren't mentioning the part where the value of the house is way more than what they have invested and they will make a fortune if and when they sell lol. I lose money each year on this! But the property value is through the roof and you can borrow against it and get cheaper rates than everyone else.
Because he has unrealized capital gains - in yearly income/expenditure their losing money but big picture, when they sell, they profit.
In Australia, rental returns are paltry (less than 2%) compared to any other investment, but steep tax concessions on and insane capital growth (often higher than 6% annually) incentivises speculative investment in real estate.. This is what's driving up the cost of housing to the cartoonist levels they currently are in. It's not unusual for these speculators to not even bother with tenants, because like op suggests they often lose money maintaining the property, it's cheaper to speculate and maybe renovate immediately before selling.
The problem has nothing to do with landlords and everything to do with speculators going for capital gains. Greedy landlords can be a problem where there are no rentals protections, but that can easily be resolved with regulation.
If we remove landlords from the picture, we get a bunch of housing on the market.
I own my own home now, but I've rented in the past. Eliminating rentals is an awful idea.
I moved a lot when I was younger: for education, jobs, etc. Buying a house every time I moved (knowing I was likely in an area temporarily) would have been a fucking nightmare -- rentals fill a legitimate need.
Sure: fix the problems of price gouging and profiteering. Put strong limits on the number of single family homes one can rent, and outright stop corporations from buying single family homes. Increase protections for tenents and drive slumlords and absentee landlords out of business. But the idea of "just buy a house, lol" is absurd.
That doesn't mean we get a bunch of people with down payments and higher wages to afford these properties though. Housing prices would need to fall a lot for that to occur and if it did, it'd put many of the people who were able to scrape together the money to buy a house underwater on their mortgages.
You sound honest, but usually the internet speaks of generalizations. You may be an exception to that norm.
Otherwise; no, you don't sound like the bad guy
The big corps making profits is what the post is about, I think.
…but usually the internet speaks of generalizations.
Oh boy does it.
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn't be able to afford on their own in today's market.
Yes, but: why is the market in the state it's in? It couldn't be because a large supply of housing is locked up by landlords, thereby artificially curtailing supply and driving up prices...
From your description it sounds like land lording isn’t working for you. Why not sell?
It’s still worth it for appreciation and 1031 exchanges.
Everyone needs housing to live, and housing is increasingly being treated as an investment vehicle by the rich. In many markets, this has decoupled the monetary value of housing as an investment from the use-value it provides normal individuals, causing home prices to increase rapidly.
To your point, our current economic and credit situations have caused home ownership to be essentially impossible for a large number of people. Since home ownership is one of the primary ways individuals can build wealth, this has made it significantly harder for the average family to build wealth - trapping them in debt, making it much harder to save, etc. This is bad for society and for the economy, not to mention inhumane and harmful to millions of families in the US alone.
So, while renting is a necessity in our current economic climate, it is only a necessity for so many due to predatory economic factors preventing them from entering the housing market. Landlords, while necessary in this system, are increasingly corporations rather than individuals, and they are buying up huge swathes of the total available housing - causing increased housing scarcity, pricing more people out of the housing market, and increasing the number of people forced to rent. Individual landlords, as well as landlord corporations, are exploiting the system for profit and either perpetuating the current predatory housing system or (in the case of corporate landlords) deliberately making the system worse for profit, economically harming millions of families and individuals.
So that is why people see landlords as "the bad guy". Whether or not you in particular treat your tennants decently, you are part of a predatory system and are working to perpetuate that system. It is an interesting moral and ethical dilemma because the system we are forced to exist in creates the necessity for landlords (as you said, some people have to rent), but that same system created the conditions that force so many people to be lifeling renters.
Really weird way to run a charity. I think youre lying
I find it hard to believe you're losing money, unless you don't understand the economics of it. If your mortgage payment is £450, and rent is £450 that's an even ratio, of course you have maintenance costs on top of that, so it looks like you're down X amount on costs but you're not, you're up £450 - maintenance. But I seriously doubt you're charging Equal to your mortgage payment anyway.
I don't think this is a particularly fair take. Some people bought at high prices because it seemed like the right move (in 2008, for example), market crashes, you're stuck with your investment even if you're underwater (upside down).
It's definitely not fair to assume what his costs are compared to the cost to rent. It isn't necessary to have the example above to reside in an area where mortgages far exceed rent. Northern Virginia in the USA is a good example, where townhomes can easily exceed 1 million USD, which would typically require a 30-50k+ down payment plus closing costs, and would then be 5k+ in a mortgage. Rent that place for 4500 and that's a loss on monthly costs, but of course the landlord is earning long term equity (and that is the value, but they may not be turning a profit).
Edit: I'm simply stating that it's unfair to assume the original commenter is lying about not making a profit. I'm not suggesting they aren't experiencing a net gain in equity.
Sure, you're certainly their hero
If you weren’t making a profit, you would sell it. So, doubt.
They may not be earning profit, but they're definitely building equity that can be cashed in at retirement. No real reason to doubt the statement.
You're not.
Do they pay more in rent than your mortgage payment? Because that would mean that they absolutely could afford it.
If they can go back in time and get the same APR and buy the house for the same price...
Are landlords really that bad?
JT for the win. 🏆
We would be able to afford homes if people like you didn't buy up a bunch, clearly more than you need to live in, driving up prices
You're not, Lemmy is just filled with young naive quasi communist morons. It's really breathtaking how dumb this community is, financially.
Sure. We’re all edgy 14 year olds who have never worked, paid rent, or a mortgage.
Moralizing about landlords isn’t really the point—it’s not about the individual it’s about the social role in society. The reason landlords are bad is because their social role extracts wealth from the system and from their tenants and is nonproductive in economic terms. Yes, many landlords take advantage of this social position and act egregiously, but there are landlords who are kind and generous to their tenants. But this split doesn’t mean anything in the larger social context, which is why moralizing about these things isn’t generally productive. Same goes for capitalists as well.
sorry that i dont want to dump 10s of thousands of dollars into a property that i will have no stake in, or ownership over.
Folks, there's a difference between a slumlord and a decent landlord. I've owned a house for ten years now, and in addition to the mortgage and taxes and insurance I pay every month for the privelege, I've had to spend tens of thousands replacing the roof and doing other regular maintenance tasks. I'm actually about to dump thirty percent of the original purchase price into more deferred repairs and maintenance to get it back to a point where all the finished space is habitable again. Owning a house is expensive in ways that I did not fully understand until I bought mine, and decent property managers are taking care of all that for you, and if that's not a job I honestly don't know what is.
Slumlords and corporate landlords can fuck right the hell off, though.
I fully understand your point of view - but in my opinion paying mortgage and putting effort into your house/apartment is a kind of an investment and it's still way better than renting. Assuming worst case scenario, you can always sell your property, get (at least part of) your money back and pay off the mortgage.
In terms of renting - you're just trading your money for a right to have a roof over your head.
And to not have to worry about costs if shit goes wrong, and not have to worry about the overhead if you find a job and need to move, or meet someone and want to move in with them, or if you have kids and need to upgrade size, or if you are moving somewhere only temporarily.
Owning a home is great and a sound financial investment if you've settled down. Other than that, there are plenty of good reasons to rent.
Even if a landlord spends 100% of the rent then they still get to sell all the houses which people have paid the mortgage for. The same mortgage that the banks say that the people who are renting cannot afford....
property managers are taking care of all that for you, and if that’s not a job I honestly don’t know what is.
Nobody is saying property management isn't a job. But that property manager probably works for a real estate company, owned by the rich.
It's that last part that's the issue. The residents should collectively own the housing, not the rich.
Maintenance workers and property managers exist and are different than 'landlords'. The distinction is ownership, and it is from ownership that a landlord derives their ability to charge rent
To offer a counter perspective.
My house has been paid off for a decade. The mortgage was a significant cost, but unlike rent it went away (and stayed at a flat rate as rents went up). I spent a boatload replacing the HVAC, but it was "working", it just sucked. If I were renting it would have just stayed at "suck". I replaced the roof once, but because I wanted solar panels, which again if I were renting it would never happen. So over the last 20 years, I've put up with only two significant items and both were elective. When I was renting the only thing that the landlord had to cover was when the 15 year old water heater rusted through and he just had a cheap low end unit swapped in, probably a 600 to 800 dollar job at the time.
For the past 6 years it's been nothing but insurance and property tax. I'm getting boatloads of money from not having to pay rent or mortgage. This is the light at the end of the tunnel of a mortgage that is nowhere in sight for perpetual renter.
Have a colleague that opts for home warranty to own house but not be surprised by big repair expenses. I'd be skeptical, but he says his has honored their warranty reasonably.
My boyfriend and I have discussed moving out of his parents' house for many years now. We discussed renting, but then I realized it was just cheaper to buy a house in a small town. We wouldn't even be able to afford to rent in the larger town over that's closer to his job and a friend of ours told us about how a ghost company bought out her old place, raised the rent another two hundered dollars when they were already struggling to get by, and didn't even tell people about it until two weeks before the new year. My friends were able to move out when they did only because of rumors floating around.
My mother and I were forced to live in an apartment after we moved when I was a teenager, but the only reason we got in was because the older guy who owned them knew my mom's dad and used to go hunting with them when they were young. He was kind enough to cut us a deal. That's literally the ONLY reason we didn't end up on the streets. Her sibling said we could live at their place until my mother found a job, but about two weeks later kicked us out because "my husband and I have sex every Saturday and we just can't do that anymore because your son is in the house."
I knew what sex was, I was old enough to understand, and I told my mom that we could just leave the house for a while every Saturday. It really wasn't an issue. But no, the person who convinced my mother to move multiple states away from where we used to and convinced my mom that the job market was absolutely booming (it was absolutely NOT) basically told us to fuck off.
Now that we lived in an apartment in the middle of buttfuck nowhere, my mom jobless and sending applications to any place around us to no avail, we were fucking stuck.
The apartment had many issues and the man and woman who helped the older man run the apartment were hillbilly rigging everything that broke so it just broke again. Over and over.
Eventually, and sadly, the owner of the apartments passed away (the guy actually built the apartments himself with the help of his son) and his son wanted nothing with the place. It took a good year for the apartments to sell to someone else. I went to school with her son and she was kind enough to not raise rent, but eventually she sold them off, too.
It was too much work for her husband and herself and her youngest graduated with me, so she sold the apartments to some jackass in Tennessee.
The rent doubled. There was fucking NOTHING we could do about it. The guy who bought them was hours away from us and had his underlings hire cheap labor to start ripping everything apart.
The people who lived in these apartments weren't rich or had a lot of money. Many were elderly and had nowhere to go, yet they had to leave. My mother was one of them. I helped her move with my boyfriend and we found her a place, but holy fuck, apartments suck. Landlords especially.
Some rich fuck who has no idea what the local economy is like, buys some apartments for cheap, then thinks it is a good investment.
My boyfriend and I are doing our best to currently find a place, but not everyone can buy an entire house to live in. Not everyone has a good enough credit score or people to help them when they are in need.
I've seen a few people talk in the comments about how they own apartments and rent them and are "one of the good ones", and sure, some landlords will work with people. I've witnessed it myself, but only out of luck as stated above. The vast majority of landlords are jackasses who only want to line their pockets with money, and even if it isn't a specific landlord, some scam company can easily buy the apartments and fuck everyone over.
Being a landlord isn't a job. Taking money from vulnerable people isn't a job. If you go out of your way to work on the apartments you own, good for you I guess. Congrats. Woo. But you still chose to own apartments or rent out a house. You CHOSE to line your pockets with money from people who are desperate to have shelter, but not everyone has a choice in deciding to rent.
my eventual plan is to buy a decently big chunk of land somewhere out in the middle of fucking nowhere, and then build it into something i'd be happy living in myself.
Hopefully i can still fucking do that when the time comes.
The friends that I mentioned above actually used a decent sized storage shed as their house and built it on family property to save some money. The two of them made it into an actual house with a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. And I mean a lot. Her boyfriend's family helped pay for some of the supplies and I can't remember if they 'only' owed 60k total on the house or if that included all of the supplies.
I've been desperate to move out already but I don't want to screw my boyfriend and I over. I did find some cheaper land on Zillow that we could have bought, but neither of us have family that could help us buy supplies, and compared to the sizes of small homes where I live, it's just cheaper to buy.
That's just my own experience living where I do, though. I really do wish you the best of luck in finding/building a place that you can decorate or even make it uniquely yours. It's rough out there.
Threads like this really stress me out. I live in the US, and I've always wanted to rent long-term. I've obviously also always wanted a less broken system. If renting was the cheaper option and there were more legal protections for tenants, I think being an independent landlord of a very small number of properties can be well-done. We need to fix a lot before this ever becomes viable, and the stranglehold corps are gaining on the housing market is a fucking crime against humanity. Those fucks are parasites.
I think the real problem isn't landlording, exactly, but the capitalists we've propped up along the way :3
A renter's market can exist without private landlords. There are other structures that can provide the same functions as landlords that don't also create their own demand by crowding out actual homeownership.
It's ok to want to rent, but landlords are not a necessary part of that relationship.
Can you elaborate on that? The only thing I can think of is the government owns the property and rents it out and can keep the rent to what it costs I suppose. But utilization of the spot seems problematic over the long long term.
High value locations due to proximity to services and public transit would be filled almost instantly and a family could live in that spot for 80+ years.
Someone moving to a new city would basically only be able to find housing in less and less desirable locations. Living in the city center versus 30 minutes out of town would cost the same I assume. You'd really want to know someone who works in the organization that manages properties to know when something is coming available and put in your application before it's public.
I collect rent from a roommate. The unemployment office doesn’t consider it income so it doesn’t impact my unemployment payout.
The government doesn’t even consider landlord income to be employment income.
Do you own the property? If not, you're a tenant and it isn't treated as income because it isn't income. They're just paying their part of a shared rent through you.
If you are the owner, they aren't your roommate, they're your tenant, and maybe you should get these terms clear before you file your taxes again.
Housing as an investment should not exist as a concept. Housing is to provide shelter and comfort, not generate wealth.
So then should that be true about all the other necessary things? And if people are not incentivized to do things efficiently then why would the cost not increase?
Being a good landlord can be a job, depending on the home and the needs of the tenants and whether or not they're able so whatever work is needed for the place.
The problem is most just want the returns of an investment without the risks of such, and without ever putting any further "investment" into the property after purchase.
Municipal landlords have by far been the best in my experience. They're not for-profit, their employees are strongly unionized (though the ones in private companies might be too) and they actually respond to issues you're having in a timely manner.
I get what you're saying but it doesn't really address OP's point (which I don't agree with either).
You're really talking about the maintenance and admin required to provide a property to a tenant. OP is talking about charging "rent" for property, which is a unique type of revenue.
Ive lived in a lot of rentals. The ones owned by single owners instead of a company were much worse at doing repair work. Not saying big landlord companies are good, cuz they're not, but being able to immediately get a repair man is a good thing. I just dont think the average landlord who depends on rent to pay bills are wealthy enough to eat repair costs so easily.
I've had the opposite experience. The mom and pop landlord did most of their own maintenance and the guy would take time off work to come fix stuff. Whereas the larger property management companies did everything in their power to not fix stuff.
Yeah, if it's their full-time job that's one thing, but if it's a side hustle they're passionate about, it can be a very good experience.
Yeah, the idea of rent being required to pay for the property is stupid in general, and should not be allowed, but it seems various financial institutions do calculate that in among the variables for lending.
In the past, I did have a small 2bdrm not too far from a university. After I broke up with my partner at the time, I rented out the room but the non-bedroom areas of the house were common, so it felt more like a roommate situation (we also hung out together, had meals, etc)
Part of the money I got - which wasn't huge - went into saving, and part of that saving was the "oh shit fund". A few times, the "oh shit" moment was stuff that broke. down around the place, special levies by the strata, etc.
Anyone who is renting out a full place and not setting aside maintenance/repair money is an idiot or an asshole. Probably both.
You'd have to get rid of the concept of private property and that isn't going anywhere. Same with landlords.
You're not going to vote this out of the system.
You don’t need to get rid of private property to undo a lot of the damage done by landlords. You can build subsidized housing to compete. You can write tax codes to make it unprofitable for people to own more than one house. You can tax land by area instead of by built value to encourage building high-density housing.
There are a lot of levers that other countries have been willing to pull that partially counteract the damage of landlording, but the US has been reluctant to touch.
Got a lot of angry landlords in these comments. Oops.
You got a lot of people pointing out that your generalizations aren't entirely accurate. The problem isn't landlords, it's foreign nations coming in and buying up land for the purposes of exporting the labor and production of that nations economy by leeching off of rent.
The problem isn't landlords; they serve a purpose. It's corporations acting as landlords that's the issue. Corporations acting as landlords are allowing foreign nations to export our resources through ownership of property.
Here you go: https://youtu.be/m1m7WmKJZyQ
Yeah lot of bootlickers here. Being a landlord means exploiting people's basic human need for shelter to pad your pockets and taking houses off the market to increase demand.
Fuck that guy up there acting likes hes doing his tenants a favor renting at market rate while he builds 3 houses worth of equity. Parasites every one
I don't get it.. if someone works and invests in a property, they pay a significant amount of money to have and maintain that property. If someone can only afford to rent for a short term period of time, what then? Is the next step that the person spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house supposed to just hand it over without selling it to a tenant? What is the alternative?
Put a limit on how many single family homes anyone can own. Especially corporations. They should honestly be banned from owning these homes at all. The housing market will adjust naturally without all these shitty big companies scooping up homes and making them inaccessible to buyers.
Individuals should also be limited on how many homes they can own if anything to prevent corporations from exploiting loopholes and having individual people "own" them instead. But also because it's just morally wrong to hoard property in the first place. I pay more in rent than I would on a mortgage but I can't afford the down payment for the very few homes that are even available within a reasonable distance from my job. Even if I could so many companies smatch them up over the asking price so people don't have a chance.
People like me that could financially afford the payments on their own homes are blocked by bullshit that was created solely to keep them perpetually renting. It's wrong. I shouldn't have to move to a whole new state or two hours away from my job because the same big company has bought up every house here. Not to mention a bunch of them recently got busted for illegally controlling the rent prices across multiple companies/properties using some kind of third party algorithm.
I don't think anyone should have to give up their property for free but if we're paying someone else's mortgage we should be getting more than a roof over our head.
As someone who was brokering mortgages during the housing boom this is exactly what happened. Landlords were usually just 1 or 2 extra properties, the odd person owned an apartment block, but it was all in personal names.
Once the corporations game started is when prices went nuts and havent stopped. Stop the corporations from owning rentals and this will all be solved. Personal liability is about 20 properties as far as the banks are willing to lend someone, corporations are unlimited if the numbers check out , which when you control and manipulate pricing, it always will.
If you limited house (single family residence) ownership to something like individuals, sole proprietorship, or partnerships, it would also remove liability protections which come with corporate structure, so it might make owning a large number of properties less attractive. That would be a good thing. But what would really drive housing prices down would be if houses were a public good.
HOUSES SHOULD NOT BE INVESTMENTS. They are an essential need and we have many people with no homes.
The alternative is stop treating them like investments. An owner should live in the house for some reasonable portion of the year. Crucially, this means corporations wouldn't be able to purchase homes. If you do that, housing prices would stabilize to much more reasonable, attainable levels.
If people weren't allowed to own property in absentia, then real estate prices would stabilise at a much lower level. As it is, this arrangement allows speculation which creates an unlimited market size. Some of the highest priced real estate in the world sits entirely empty for exactly this reason.
Without that the only people trying to buy housing would be residents, and at the point where everybody would be housed, housing prices would presumably be extremely low.
As for temporary, emergency or other unusual housing arrangements, non-profit organisations or cooperative systems could exist, and without property prices to protect everyone could be housed.
And because someone will always bring this up: going on holiday doesn't mean you're not using your house. Most of your shit is still in there. That's a facile argument that vanishes the moment you give it even the most cursory critical thought.
That said, this entire thing is unlikely to change in a world where the wealthy decide our policy. Landlording will probably be with us until we can find a way to abolish the market form entirely.
This is just childish mimicry of Marxism. The "landlord" as a source of income becomes a villain because the landlords as a class were villains in the eyes of Marx.
That said, people who full-on hate all landlords would say "fuck you and your money you filthy capitalist pigs" to your argument. That the house is hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't mean much to a communist because "property is theft". Yada yada.
That said, the fact of that seems to bury the real criticisms about megacorporate landlords that represent a fairly large percent of all rental properties.
It is an investment, not a job. All investments generally exploit others (by "stealing" surplus value). Stuff like maintenance and even management of properties are jobs, but they don't require ownership of the property (in which case, some of the value of their labor is being stolen, assuming the landlord is making a profit/building equity in excess of rent).
Alternatives could be public housing, some type of housing cooperatives where tenants build equity which can be redeemed when they move, and probably many other systems I am unaware of.
From what I have seen, having a property is a lot like having a physical body. It must be groomed, fed, watered, tended to, mended, etc. It ages, parts wear down, it starts to make creaking noises. And what's more, you have a limited time with that body. Eventually it dies. As to your question, it's getting to the point where the only thing capable of taking care of a property is a corporation, and unlike people, corporations don't die.
Be a landlord
Pay a cleaning crew to handle the janitorial services.
Pay a contractor to handle repairs.
Pay a management company to handle the day-to-day activities.
Complain that I'm not making enough money on the property.
Raise the rent to the market-clearing price.
Demand the municipal government lower my taxes, because its the only way to incentivize me to buy more property.
be landlord
30% of my business expenses are shit i don't need
why is my business not making money????
This format is shit
My favorite part is how they ALL claim it's so much work and they don't make any money. Ok? If you don't profit why do you keep buying property and doing it? Because you DO profit you bunch of lying liars! lmaooooo
I did know someone who used to rent out a property and it was a lot of work for insufficient money, so they got out.
Their problem was they actually gave a crap about their tenants and made sure to give quality service while competing on rent with rental companies that had screwing the tenants down to a science.
What a great time to be alive. Born too late to explore Earth. Born too early to explore the Cosmos. Born just in time to exist in dreadful remnants of the past of exploitive feudal system.
I got a positive one for you
Your local area doesn't have a property tax?
They are taxed, but I think they could be taxed more and better. Specifically, we should implement a land value tax (LVT).
As for why LVT? In short, it's just a really good tax. Progressive, widely regarded by economists as "the perfect tax", incentivizes efficient use of land, discourages speculation and rent-seeking, economically efficient, and hard to evade. Plus, critically regarding landlords, land value taxes can't be passed on to tenants, both in economic theory and in observed practice.
As for the difference between LVT and property taxes? This video explains well how property taxes enable land speculation and disincentivize housing development, and how replacing them with land value taxes would alleviate these issues.
Further, even places (such as the Australian Capital Territory) that have implemented quite milquetoast LVTs have seen positive impacts on housing affordability:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
building manager is a job
a lot of people who say their job is "being a landlord" are that and a building manager
but it's probably useful to draw a distinction between that and people who actually have nothing to do with their properties because they outsource it all
a lot of people who say their job is “being a landlord” are that and a building manager
Well, you've got slumlords, who famously make money by not doing their jobs and then evicting anyone who complains too loudly. I've had to deal with one or two of those in my life, and its always fun to get in fights with the landlord over whether me fixing a thing they knew was broken means I'm not entitled to my security deposit back.
Then you've got relatively honest landlords, who primarily profit by having enough credit to buy property and then take a profit on top of the cost of building maintenance. They're... fine, I guess. I've never met one, but I've been told they exist and don't entirely suck. But as real estate prices skyrocket, their populations have shrunk as they simply sell out to the third kind of landlord.
The Investment Landlords have become the most prevalent. These are individuals or businesses that own real estate in trust and employ a management company to do the actual running of the property. And the property managers tend to split between the absolute worst kinds of slumlords (because big firms tend to have the local sheriff/police in their pockets to harass belligerent tenants) and the priciest kinds of "honest" landlords (folks who advertise as "luxury" and charge "teaser rates", then raise rent 20% every year until you flee to another "teaser rate" unit).
In every case, you're far better off owning your home than renting one. But with the need to put 20% down when even starter homes are selling for north of $500k, that's often not an option.
The real job of a landlord - of any stripe - is to apply for financing to purchase an expensive piece of real estate. That's what you're paying rent to access. Not the maintenance. Not the location. Not the features of the unit. You're paying for the borrowing power of your landlord.
How has no comment in this thread yet mentioned Georgism or Land Value Tax? That is the solution to Landlordism
A land value tax is a good tool to help ease the transition away from landlords, but it alone is not enough.
Regardless, we definitely should be primarily relying on LVT for government income.
it's really not tho, i'm sorry but all Georgism/ and value tax is/was a form of pre-marxist capital taxation.
or do you think that Property tax is stopping BlackRock as we speak?
Property taxes != Land value taxes
Further, it's not a tax on capital; it's a tax on land. It's very explicitly designed to target land, as land has distinct economic properties that make it a prime target for taxation.
And yes, it does target speculative investments like those of Blackrock:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
The difference is scale. If a house is a safe investment that makes a reliable 10% return on investment before tax and then you pay 1% in property tax, the remaining 9% is still an extremely attractive return so the investor appetite for housing remains unchanged by this small tax. Change the tax to 9% and you're only left with 1% return, suddenly other investment options become much more attractive. Once the investors have left, prices can normalize around the price tolerances of people actually intending to live in the space.
This is a simplification using made up numbers, but the overall point is that the mere fact that property taxes as they currently exist (with very low rates) allow investors to run amok, that doesn't mean that a more substantial LVT couldn't change that.
Obviously taxing in a way that makes rentals completely non viable is probably not a perfect solution, and raising the tax dramatically all at once before prices have a chance to react could be catastrophic, but with a careful incremental approach gradually raising LVT and displacing other taxes (starting with regressive ones like sales tax) with those revenues based on observed outcomes, progress can be made to a better equilibrium where people who want to own a home to live in have better opportunities to do so, people who want to rent still have some options, people aren't getting rich by ransoming housing at extortionate prices, and more investment capital is funneled toward productive enterprise over plots of dirt, strengthening the actual economy.
I think it's probable that the Georgist dream of displacing all taxation with LVT may not be achievable due to diminishing returns on raising the tax as property values react, but I think moving in the direction of Georgist policy could absolutely usher in some better social outcomes
Lmfao, thanks for bringing all of the parasites and their icky little defenders out of their holes so they can get blocked.. 😂
I just got charged a $50 fee on a 7$ bill. The apartment had been empty and I wanted to move in on the 1st. Told me they couldn't because they already had two people moving in that day and they can't do more than that as per policy. Ugg fine I was driving all the way across country and was on limited time. Setup all my bills but couldn't start them on the 29th because the bills were still in someone else's name...fine the 1st then. Two months later the apartment sends me a 57$ bill because....:( rent is twice my house mortgage I just sold :( there is a 150$ mandatory fee for amenaties....how this isn't considered part of rent is beyond me...it's not good out here...
This post is insane. Sometimes I feel like Lemmy is an echo chamber for the maniacal. I rented for nearly 10 years of my life because I didn't want to own a place and be tied down. Not everyone wants to be a homeowner. Once I got to the point that I wanted a home I bought one... And guess what, I save money every month on my mortgage versus renting. Renting is a convenience, home ownership is not dead... People buy up the houses near me faster than they can build them.
Congratulations on renting out of choice. That's a choice most renters never have.
Well it was partially out of choice and partially the stage of my life. I was in my 20s and working in fast food or between construction jobs. My career didn't really start until my late 20s/early 30s. I guess I didn't really consider buying as an option until later in life and my income in my earlier working years was inconsistent and a bit too low for my lifestyle.
Maniacal is a strong word but the lemmy community does seem to have a particular bent to it.
Where did this post say renting shouldn't be allowed?
By saying being a landlord is not a job and implying that everyone should get handed a house to live in - this post is saying renting should not be allowed / an option.
If there is no financial incentive to maintain the house, then there is no reason anyone would become a landlord / rent out their property.
Most people also fail to consider how expensive it can get to own a home, even if you're renting it out. Rent covers unexpected costs of the home. For example, through no fault of anyone - a tree put its roots through your main sewer line and now the house has been filled with back up nastiness. In this situation - is the landlord / homeowner expected to come up with the money out of their own pocket when the rent is capped at the mortgage? Something like that can easily cost upwards of $20,000. Landlords just magically make money appear to cover the maintenance?
Renting is more like insurance. You pay a fixed rate while the landlord takes the risk of potentially having to put out a large sum of cash in a short period of time. Just because you didn't get in an accident today doesn't mean your insurance company didn't pay out claims today. It's a shared risk for all renters of the property instead of them being directly on the hook.
My only argument here is that rentals should exist. There should be some places that you can rent. I'm thinking the kind of rentals that are high-rise, high density type situations.
There will always be people who need short term housing, which will be longer term than what a hotel/motel will allow for without robbing you blind. Students are a prime example, being able to have students, who don't live near the educational institution, having affordable, temporary housing near the institution, is helpful. They're not staying, so rentals should be available for them.
And yes, dorms are a thing. But often dorms do not have the capacity for the number of students that need temporary housing.
There's also people who are transitioning from one living situation to another, people who maybe lost their home in a fire. Those people need a place they can stay for the year or so that they can work out the details of rebuilding their home.
People moving into an area for contract work are another example. Your contact says one year, so rather than put down a large sum of money to buy a home in the area for the duration of the contract, just rent for a year and you can decide what to do next depending on how your employment situation evolves.
Rentals have a purpose in society.
The issue isn't having rentals, the issue is that landlords and society at large has normalized being a lifelong tenant, and rentals being "investment properties". Turning the whole thing from being a convenience for transient workers and students, into a way of life for many.
The popularization of not owning the property you live in, long term, has fueled the greed of companies to turn it into a profit making enterprise. And now shit landlord wannabe people with more money than sense keep buying up properties as investments and renting them out at significant markup. This is robbing opportunity from would-be legitimate home buyers to actually own a home. It artificially inflates the value of those homes and now we're seeing the results of that trend. Home prices are sky high, basically only obtainable by people with significant funding already (those who "won" the birth lotto), and those who are seeking to profit from the property.
The only way I was able to buy a home was by pooling money with my brother, his wife and my SO, and putting a large percentage of inheritance towards the down payment when my father died. Pretty much all of our savings and all of the inheritance money went towards buying and doing some basic repairs to the home. Not everyone is so lucky. My father had quite the nestegg at the end of his life and all of that value was dumped into this building.
Even with a good amount put as a down payment, the mortgage is still the more than the cost of four single bedroom rentals.... At least it was when we moved in. I'm sure rentals have increased in cost and the numbers have changed.
We don't rent any part of this home to anyone else. We have no interest in becoming landlords.
With all that said, rentals are still important for transient living situations, but the extent that they've started to dominate the market as basically the only option for lower income people (and even then, it's still quite expensive for them) is, in and of itself, a problem. The housing market is set to collapse yet again, as process rise to the point where nobody can afford a roof over their head without help. It's only getting worse. I'm glad I bought a house when I did, I'm sad that I didn't do it sooner, and I'm angry that it's only getting worse. I don't want anyone to be in a situation where they have to choose between eating, or having a place to live. It's getting to that point and I'm hopping mad about it. I've made my bed by paying what I did for this house, it doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pay the same amount. If someone bought an identical house for themselves tomorrow at half the cost, I wouldn't be angry. I would be happy that the market has cooled off. It won't happen, but I would appreciate hearing that.
Things have been allowed to progress towards consolidation of assets to a small group of individuals in all aspects of our lives for too long. Something must be done.
It should be social housing then like in Vienna. https://youtu.be/MxuACFQBwxs
yeah, or rent controls should be in place
yeah see we have these already, they're called apartments.
Or like many other people said, government owned buildings.
We're at a point where you don't even have to rent out to get rich. The rate at which prices grow makes real estate the best investment hands down. Even without landlords, it still makes sense for businesses to gobble them up just as a security.
I’m seeing a lot of these memes lately.. is this a particular type of landlord or all landlords? Just want to make sure as reasonable people that we should at least do our part to logically assume that some money is required to the maintenance of upholding the structure you’re renting. I’m sure we can agree that there is labour on working on maintenance and those workers also deserve a living wage.
I guess this is targeting landlords that just live off the rent income and/or own multiple houses
You could argue that Landlords who only live off rent money are contributing nothing to society while still having a considerable income.
In Amsterdam for example, if you have 1 property in the state you're allowed to rent normally, but from the 2nd property on you can only make your house available for affordable rent programs (for refugees, low income families etc)
Which is cool cause it discourages people to buy multiple houses and live off rent
Nobody is suggesting maintenence labor is parasitic, only that landlords are.
I rented for many years before I felt ready to buy. When I was younger I didn't want to be tied to a mortgage, even if the bank would have given me one.
I was lucky enough to have a very reasonable landlord who always got things fixed and painted when needed and charged a very reasonable rent (and in turn I tried to be a good tenant and take good care of the property) One day he told me he would like to sell the house and I decided to buy it. Even gave me a very good deal compared to the maximum market value he could have gotten (which of course also saved us both money in agents etc.)
All that to say (and yes it is very anecdotal), good landlords exist and I was very happy with mine.
Just heard on the "local news" here where one of dallas' outlying suburbs has banned new short term rentals anywhere but commercially zoned areas, so at least that little bit of sense made it through.
mao tse tung enters the chat
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. But if leech landlords (as described in the meme) are on the chopping block (regulation) I'd happily drop the cleaver/vote in favor.
capitalism competely collapses without the housing market being one of the many debt carrots converting perceived labour into cash.
I don't want to own, I'm happy to rent. Landlords provide a service I want, just like my butcher, my dentist, my hairdresser, etc.
Ticket scalpers don't provide tickets, GPU scalpers don't provide GPUs, and landlords don't provide housing. Owning isn't providing a service
A non-market co-op would better suit you. It's still renting, just without the leech on your paycheck.
Here is an example in practice:
All housing should be like this, or outright owned by the user.
that would be an apt comparison if your "butcher" was just a space where you would bring your own cow and butcher it with your own blade, and pay for the privilege of doing all that yourself. but unlike landlords butchers do provide a service.
I dunno about this one. Maintaining residential areas does take some work. Bills and all that do have organizational skills. Is it a 40 hour a week job? Depends on how big it is and how many residents there are.
Problem with banning them outright, is where are all the people who can't afford to buy a house going to Live?
Sure, house prices might drop and some people might be able to buy. What about the rest?
Make them homeless?
Housing is a human right.
The only rights we have are the ones given by those in power to the weak. In this case, you say that housing is a human right. Someone with a pet would label you a monster for not including them. Do animals not have the right to housing?
Housing isn't a human right, it's civilization's privilege. Housing uses resources and knowledge to build. Its impact on the environment needs to be considered and whether its foundation can withstand nature's whims.
The capitalist system really limits the kinds of things people can imagine. We're not confined to regulating the market from the outside, the government can be the "landlord" without the profit incentive.
Hmmm. We'll need someone to run that of course.
The government will need someone to do the admin, to be the property master. The government can use some of the income from the tennants to pay their wages, allowing them to profit from the hard work of the tennants of course but we won't hold that against them.
No, property master doesn't sound right? What would we call the person running such a scheme? Building ruler? Land controller? Residence lord?
There's probably a simpler term for it. It'll come to me.
Give them homes. Simple as that.
Which homes? The ones that are already in short supply? The ones that are currently being rented out? Would that mean nationalizing those buildings? Or are we building new homes? How are we paying for any of this? Raise taxes? Cut some other services?
None of this is simple when it comes down to the details on how to actually implement it.
No, no, don't you get it? Someone must profit!!1 🙄🤦♀️ (/s in case it isn't clear)
A single property, no, multiple properties with fair rent, yes. The problem is prices.
Mao was right about many things. But he was most right about Landlords.
Landlords existing isn't a boring dystopia. Pick a different community for the meme.
Landlords are pretty dystopic.
Found the landlord
I'd much rather rent than own! It gives me a lot more freedom to move, i have less at risk and no stress that something might need fixing.
Stop being so obsessed about owning! In the end you won't take any of it to the grave anyway
It's fine to prefer renting, it does have benefits. But it should be a choice.
You leave your assets to your family. A house is extremely significant to their future after you die.
Why?
Did you get a house off your parents? I am doing fine without one. People are meant to be able to handle themselves and live their own Iives - make their own sucesses. No reason to leave them a house
Teaching people how to live and manage themselves is a way better value to leave behind that a house.
I believe a landlord should have a similar stake in their property that franchisee's for good companies often have: Forced to have a very real presence and understanding of the property, its condition, and how to handle the work if necessary. This would force landlords to own only so many locations, often closer together, and would create more landlords of higher quality, which means better living conditions, and likely lower rent for tenants. This would also make it more of a job. I feel it would also be beneficial if there was a subsidiary program so that landlords were forced to rent, at reduced cost supplemented by the Government, individuals with disabilities that don't directly impact those around them, who can largely live on their own, though may not be able to hold a full-time position. This would only have to be maybe one unit out of every 10.
Finally, assuming everything above could be ironed out to work without some jackass finding loopholes: Property owners, regardless of location, should be forced to pay taxes unique to them. These taxes would specifically go towards programs that support housing and relocation efforts, food and clothing programs, and especially help to offset lowered cost-of-living rental units.
We can mix and match these ideas. I'm mostly vomiting them out this point. POINT is, they can stick around. Let them feed off my wage ONLY if they make it worth our time. I'm happy to not have to worry about mowing a lawn or shoveling, for instance. But if they are going to exist, they must do so under rules that make it more work and less play. After all, a landlord who goes out of their way to promote strong living conditions and happy tenants would, using the ideas above, be a landlord who could play more. Because they've earned it.
Unlike now where the good is uncommon.
It's called not becoming a corporate slave /s
Have you ever tried it? It's more work than you think.
But it's work that only exists because the landlord decided to extort money from their tenants. No one said the life of a parasite is always easy.
so is robbing banks
Landphobia on my Lemmy? It's more likely than you think.
make sure to tip yout landlord !loveforlandlords@lemmy.world
Don't many landlords.. manage the home(s) they're renting out? Like cutting the grass, doing maintenance work, investing into the property for upgrades etc.. ?
I don't see how the landlord is stealing from the renter.
Side note: I don't support corporations buying up property and renting them out or converting them into AirBnBs.
It's not a job but it's a great way to pad my bank account
It is a job though. A landlord:
- takes on risk - if the unit doesn't rent, they still need to pay taxes and whatnot
- repairs and renovates units
- maintains the grounds and whatnot
Some landlords are scum bags (maybe most), but I remember one fantastic landlord. They came on time when they needed to do service to the unit, were very responsive to issues we had, and didn't screw us on the security deposit. If the handful I've had, only one was truly awful.
This place is getting a little too libbed up recently, needs more maoism reapers dipped in mama marx's chili oil.
Nice
ok to be clear, maintaining and upkeeping a property IS actually a job.
However it also requires that you well, do the job. There are a lot of people that housekeep for others, that's a job. Landlording is theoretically, a subset of this, in the other direction. But in reality, it's not.
Regardless, i think renting homes should be illegal.
Honestly anyone who happens to own two to five different properties shouldn't honestly be taxed nearly as much as anyone who is going to own 50.... 200..... 1,000 + properties who should then at that point be taxed 100% on their profits.
Honestly anyone who owns 2 or more different properties shouldn't own them anymore.
Landlords wanting to use AI to drive prices even more should be illegal. Landlords shouldn't exist.
It is a job when you’ve got dozens of shitty tenants always complaining about petty little things like heat, mold, and infestations
Hold up.
If they're complaining about that stuff, you're either a shit landlord or you're housing shit tenants who bring mold and infestations to their home.
The heat thing, that's all you bro.
Also, the people removed about this shit are probably not the ones causing it, unless you're one of those filthy parasites renting out an entire property to a single renter....
If you are, I can't imagine what would compel you to post here.... Like, at all. It's a good way to attract attention to yourself I suppose. Hatred is still attention.
I rent out my basement at well under market value to an older lady that was in the house when I bought it.
I understand the post was made as a generalization but some landlords aren't bad and some situations are better than the alternatives.
Would you rather I kick out my tenant and god knows where she would live or maybe she becomes homeless?
a better question is why are you so horny for the approval of random internet strangers??
Like you either understand what the issue is here and are pretending not to in order to fish for a reaction; or you don't and your questions along with that knee-jerk reaction of "nuh uh not ALL landlords!!!" are totally genuine... but if you truly don't understand then there are much better ways to gain understanding than inviting random unqualified lemmy users to criticize the intimate details (at least the limited amount of such details that can be shared in a lemmy thread from a single perspective) of your extremely unique situation, and then getting upset and going on about "legions of frothing idiots online" when they do exactly that.
I could ask questions like, "how did that woman's house get sold to you literally right out from under her?", "is it fair that this elderly woman is generously allowed to live in her own basement now because at least she's not homeless?", and "do you think that woman might have had the opportunity to buy her own house, and yourself to buy a separate home from hers, if speculation hadn't driven up housing prices?" but I'm also just a random dumbass on the internet with a total knowledge of jack shit on your specific situation and just enough on property/capital ownership to understand that landlording as a practice and as a system is parasitic and exploitative in nature.
Why are you so horny to paint a brush that all landlords are evil and "eat the rich"?
What I'm horny for is understanding that situations may be complex and idiots willing to espouse a novel are probably the ones that might have the issue lol
Edit - and it wasn't her house ya dillhole but of course that would involve actual willingness to understand the situation. She moved in prior to me buying the house.
Landlord: a person who rents land, a building, or an apartment to a tenant
Renting out a room in your house does not a landlord make
Tell that to the Legion of frothing idiots online. Yes, I am a landlord in everyone's eyes.
You should tip landlords, not get rid of them!
So renters would just live in someone else's house for free?
I mean, if the property owner doesn't want to sell, then I guess so.
But I'm guessing they'll want to sell. In fact I bet a lot of property owners would be looking to sell. All around the same time. Wonder what that would do to prices.
It's a "job". But it's a shit career. Having to put up with destructive, unruly, and frankly unsanitary renters is a fucking nightmare.
You can live off of investment income. That's the way capitalist systems work. Don't hate the players, hate the game. Most of these "leech" landlords, are middle class people that have a slight step up, and instead of railing against the people at the top, you're complaining about the people who barely have it better than you. I get the argument, but it's directed at the wrong people.
I get what you're saying, and I'm not arguing it.
However I am always amused at the "Don't hate the player, hate the game" comment, because invariably the people doing the hating hate both (the game that allows the player to exist, and the player for perpetuating it). It's always been a funny comment to me.
Like when you complain about a particular type of corruption in a politician (which is technically not illegal) and you get "Don't hate the player, hate the game," when the whole point is we should change the system so that politician can't be corrupt. I feel like people get lost in this idea that a person working within a bad system is inherently blameless because the system allows the bad thing (it's not wrong if it's allowed), any criticisms made must inevitably be directed at the person doing the bad thing in that system (undeservedly, hence the "don't hate the player"), and that since it's in that person's self interest to perpetuate that system it is also in their interest to treat the system as immutable.
Like, you can't have it both ways. Either you recognize the system is bad, even if you benefit from it, and it should be changed, OR you are the system and deserve to be criticized for it.
