• exterstellar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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 😍

    • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The bank isnt even that rich… They are allowed to just dream up the money from nothing and lend it to you.

      And if you miss a payment, they get to reposses a real asset.

      This is the biggest scam in history. The bank lends you imaginary money, and then reposesses a real asset

  • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    But Isn’t that how all business works?

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

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.
      • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I’m pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn’t want to be responsible for that.

        More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you’re mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it’s actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It’s just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.

        So while I see your argument that landlords don’t “deserve” the money they make, practically they’re an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.

          • eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What do you mean no choice? There’s always a choice.

            Realistically many people don’t have a choice to buy, because they don’t have the credit score, reliable income, or down payment, but I don’t see why that blame falls on landlords and not on the banks or the government?

            • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because plenty of folks would have a solid down payment, or better credit score, if rent wasn’t so damn high. Likewise affordable rent would make it easier for folks to move to places where they could get the type of stable job necessary for a mortgage, etc. It’s not the only reason folks don’t have the economic resources at hand, but it’s usually the biggest expense in ones budget, no?

              Greedy landlords are the problem, imho, and unfortunately every landlord except exactly one I’ve rented from (out of about ten in total) have been greedy assholes.

              As for a fix: housing is a right, imho. I’m not an economist so anything I offer will be full of holes, but some way of securing that people have stable, safe, comfortable housing is essential. Making sure people can’t exploit the need for shelter is a big component of whatever fix we need.

        • Gabu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Risk my ass, they take in profit off of doing nothing.

          As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out.

          Guess what? In the mean time, you’ve paid for these repairs with your rent, plus the repairs of any other property the landlord has.

          If you move every 3 years

          If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle.

          practically they’re an important part of the housing market

          Non sequitur, none of your arguments support this conclusion.

          If you want the current rent model so much, do you know who could do the exact same job much cheaper? The State itself.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I live comfortably in a 2 story, 3 bedroom that I own and I’m able to put enough into savings each month that I’m easily able to afford any emergencies that come up.

          Looking at local prices, I would not be able to rent of a much smaller unit where I live.

          The actual ‘need’ for rent could be easily covered by people renting out their basement suite or having a boarder. There’s no benefit to society for allowing people to purchase properties they don’t live on just to profit off someone else’s rent.

          • eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d be willing to bet you bought at least a few years ago, and probably couldn’t afford the house you’re in now if you had to buy it today. I’m in a similar spot. It definitely feels wrong. The rapid increase in prices in the housing market in the past few years is ridiculous. I think it’s a lot more complicated than “landlords” though. I think a lot of the issue stems from restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of small homes in dense neighborhoods. A lack of respect for trade jobs also contributes, with massive shortages of skilled construction workers driving prices up.

            Granted, I live in a relatively affordable smaller city. If I were in a city with a lot of real estate speculation like LA or Toronto I might feel differently. But speculators aren’t landlords. I have a much bigger beef with a speculator who let’s a house sit empty than a landlord renting out apartments.

        • bdazman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Risk doesn’ t create value, what the heck are you talking about? I’ll spin a revolver with a single round in it and fire, what fictional wizard signs my check?

          Renters are the real ones at risk, being forced by an entire class of sociopaths acting in solidarity to parisitize their wealth. In a disagreement, landlords can commit asymmetric harm with impunity because legal defenses require capital, which the renting class lacks by definition.

          Your “good” landlord only appears to be so because of the ubiquity of normal landlords. The handyman needed to help you that day cost pennies compared to what rent seekers steal, thats why they call it “passive income.” In this case, you are describing work performed by a property manager, not a landlord, that created value to you. The landlord performed that managerial labor, and still pocketed disproportionally more value than he provided, because his earnings come from ownership, not from labor.

          If its cheaper to rent than buy, why do landlords do it? Out of the goodness of their shiny little hearts? Thank you my lord for saving me from myself.

          Landlords do not create housing. They destroy housing by turning what would have been a sold unit of housing into a rented unit of housing. They are directly incentivised to keep housing scarce.

  • Ulvain@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know what you millenial z’s or something keep complaining about - just buy a detached single family house with a backyard in the city for 125k and pay up your 1% interest rate mortgage within 10 years while your wife keeps it clean and drinks herself to death while resenting you daily, like any civilized 30 year old with a job for life and guaranteed payout pension does!

    Is the /s really necessary?

    • Promethiel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Man. Every time I see it again spelled out, how smooth these disingenuous decrepit assholes had it when they were my age, I start wishing for a claymore and a stump.

    • Nikelui@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is the /s really necessary?

      Depending on the age range, someone might think you are being serious. I’d just leave it.

    • bdazman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Landlords out here in lemmy dot marxist lenninists comments deadass pretending their right to steal wealth is more important than ones fundamental human right to housing.

      Let this be your reminder that “Landlords” do nothing of value. Anytime they claim they are, they are doing the work of an occupation that possibly does, like an electrician or developer or architect or carpenter or handyman or painter or realtor. Ticket scalpers don’t create tickets. Don’t let these antisocial freaks rewrite the dictionary, or excuse their own refusal to read anything about their own behavior.

      If they try to cosplay as a pitiable person who only owns a house and doesn’t want to be broke, tell them that their victims don’t want that either, and only the landlord hates working for a living more than they hate parasitizing the wealth others. Their “ethical and reasonable” rent seeking is enabled by the threat of violence from the other “unreasonable” rent seekers, therefore acting as a single unified class.

      They could have sold their houses to profit, but that’s not enough for them. They must do their part to squeeze every drop of blood from that soil so that they don’t accidentally decomodify housing even slightly by providing their smidge of housing to the captive market.

      Read On The Rent of the Land. Fuckers.