this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
934 points (91.8% liked)

Memes

45581 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 89 points 2 years ago

Paying a bank hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest is also robbery. what did the bank do? Were rich and did paperwork. Wow so irreplaceable and valuable. Think of all the poor people they swindled to get there! Amazing ๐Ÿ˜

[โ€“] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 46 points 2 years ago (2 children)

But Isn't that how all business works?

Customers pay for things and that payment pays to keep the business going.

[โ€“] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (29 children)

The business in this case being what? What good or service is being provided? Landlords didn't create the land, nor did they build the residence, nor did they improve its value by building a community around it. They are benefiting off of the work of others simply because they "own" it. The most common arguments I hear in support of landlords are:

  1. Landlords take care of maintenance. Maintenance costs don't increase 20% a year. If rent was simply maintenance costs it would be a fraction of what it currently is
  2. Landlords allow people who cannot afford a home a place to stay. Why do you think they can't afford a home? It's like saying without scalpers people wouldn't be able to see concerts because the tickets are instantly purchased by bots.
[โ€“] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The two big main ones I can think of.

They provide short term housing. If your only planning to say 1-2 years in a location it often doesn't make much sense to buy a house.

They also take on all of risk of the property.

Obviously I am not saying landlords are the greatest thing in the world but they do serve a purpose.

[โ€“] benignintervention@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Two years ago I became a first time homeowner. I'm moving in 6 months and am going to keep this property and rent it out. I cannot afford to buy another house almost anywhere in the US. I will be renting. However, I closed on this place with 3% interest and pay $1500/mo for the mortgage, plus about $250 for utilities. Round up to $1800/mo. Anyone buying at today's interest and value with 20% down is looking at a mortgage of about $2300/mo, before utilities.

I absolutely resent this market, but I refuse to let this place go into the hands of anyone like Blackrock. And since I don't care about maximizing profit, I can keep the rate on the lower end and help someone live here for a few hundred a month less than they could with a new sale. I can rent it for $1700-1800/mo to cover incidentals and repair and still let a renter live here for less than a new mortgage.

I've been toying with the idea of counting every dollar the renter pays against the mortgage and selling to them at the difference when (if) rates come back down.

Certainly not ideal, and a little bit apologetic, but in this situation it's about as close as I can get to a win-win. Or least lost-least lost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] ashok36@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Some people don't want to be locked down to one place for long. When I was in my twenties I moved to a different town every year when my lease was up just to see if I would like it better somewhere else. Or I'd get a raise and be able to afford a better place the next year. For people that want relatively short term housing, renting is a far superior option.

If I took out a mortgage on a place and then sold it a year later, I'd have almost no equity since you pay almost all interest in the front part of the loan.

load more comments (27 replies)
[โ€“] Restaldt@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Something Something housing should be a right not a business

[โ€“] exterstellar@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Is this post saying that if the landlord CAN afford the house without you paying rent, then it's justified, and in that case they ARE providing you housing?

[โ€“] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah I had the same thought, this post doesn't make a very good anti-landlord argument if in the case the renters stop paying, then both they and the landlord lose their homes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In the same way GPU and game console scalpers were generously, out of the goodness of their heart providing GPUs and game consoles to the masses.

[โ€“] superweeniehutjrs@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Although I agree with the sentiment - I am curious how the system works with landlords having so many unoccupied units in some cities. Especially business/commercial/industrial landlords. It keeps rent artificially high, while reducing some types of overhead I would guess.

[โ€“] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Speculation. Some investors are more interested in holding the property until they can sell it in the future for a profit, rather than the rent they would earn now. Some landlords will have negative cashflow even if they are charging rent because they know they can sell the property for a profit later.

[โ€“] superweeniehutjrs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How does the business of being a landlord not work out to a "yes and" solution? You could make money on rent and sell at a later date. Is risk too high due to the cost of proper upkeep when a unit is occupied? Is it the cost of management?

[โ€“] IMongoose@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

My family has a few houses they rent out. Not nearly enough income to live off of as they all have other jobs, but it's some. As a rule, an empty apartment is better than a bad tenant. Not only will a bad tenant not pay and take months to remove, they will actively destroy the place causing thousands in damages. "Just sue them" someone may say. Well, they don't have any money for rent, they surely don't have 10 months of rent + $4k in repair + legal fees. Sure, we can garnish their wages. What's 5% of $0 in reported income per month?

Yes, some landlords deserve the hate they get but let's not pretend everyone is the perfect tenant either. The people of Walmart need to live somewhere.

I think that a lower price for the rent translates into a lower valuation of the property. So an empty apartment at $2000 a month is still theoretically worth more at sale than a rented apartment at $1500

[โ€“] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That is precisely how we have wound up in the current market.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] Kase@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Thanks for reminding me to pay rent today :/

[โ€“] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Rent is robbery... But your landlord is poorer than you? What?

People with diverse skills or able to remote work, move to the Midwest and rural mountain states. Swing them blue and get all the mcmansions you want.

[โ€“] Grayox@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 children)

No one said that landlord's are poor, landlord's quite literally leech off of their tenants pay checks, making them even richer than they were to start, without lifting a finger, or contributing anything to society.

load more comments (12 replies)
[โ€“] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Can you do the duck one pleeese?

[โ€“] JargonWagon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

ITT: No one understands the benefits of renting over owning a home.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next โ€บ