Lol, no nuance here. Landlords are the devil. I try to inject some moderation once in a while. We have a rental, it’s in fantastic shape. We’ve never raised the rent. We’ve spent so much on improvements and repairs we’ll not see a profit on it for the next 3 years. Tax write off? Sure… but nonetheless landlords are the devil. Doesn’t matter if we worked out asses off to afford it.
E: what follows is people willing to subscribe to luxuries like entertainment, but complain about fair prices for necessities. Why bother being decent when you get shit on anyway.
I would argue that owning additional property in an environment where there is a housing shortage is implicitly unethical even if you’re trying to run it ethically. Only argument I can think of against that is that you’re keeping it from shittier landlords and corporations. But still, denying others the opportunity to grow their wealth through property ownership causes poverty on a mass scale. Not any one person’s fault, but still.
We charge well under mortgage rates for rent. It’s affordable. I hate to throw this out there, but our intent is never to “extract” the max profit from someone. If someone wants to rent at the upper extent of their ability to pay it’s not what we’re forcing on someone.
The only reason you own a second house is for profit. A profit you are doing directly from an other individual. You can twist that how you want, it’s the reality. You are doing it respectfully and are providing a service. But an artificial one.
You’re still extracting wealth from the tenant, and the tenant is only losing money. You’re still preventing the tenant from building their wealth through property ownership.
The ethical thing to do in this situation would be to sell the house to the tenant at a price proportional to the rent, minus what they’ve already paid in rent to this point.
Sorry I genuinly don’t follow. If I were to rent out at cost, that means if the tenant were the owner, they’d have to pay the same cost as well. So they’re losing the same amount of money either way.
And how would they be building wealth through property, if the property value doesn’t rise? They would buy the flat for say 50k$, and then own 50k$ worth of property
minus what they’ve already paid in rent to this point
I think you’re assuming that I would be paying off a loan with their rent? By renting at cost I meant their rent covers maintanance/upkeep
So they’re losing the same amount of money either way.
But if they own the property, they can potentially get that money back as the value of the property increases. Property is an appreciating asset, at least in the current US housing market, which is the frame of reference I’m coming from.
And how would they be building wealth through property, if the property value doesn’t rise?
The property value almost certainly will rise, as long as the property owner maintains it properly.
I think you’re assuming that I would be paying off a loan with their rent?
I was assuming that, yes, but it’s sort of besides the point. The fact remains, any money a renter puts in, they can’t ever get back. The property owner however, being the one in control of the appreciating asset, can grow the money that they collect from the renter by investing it back into their property, increasing the rate at which it appreciates.
Edit: in the imaginary scenario where property value never changes, the tenant is still paying all the costs of homeownership, without the benefit of homeownership, ie, owning an asset which has value and can be sold. In this scenario the landlord is simply a middleman who is hoarding an asset.
So ideally every apartment would either be owned by the tenant, or collectively owned by a group of tenants that individually couldn’t afford it (housing co-op)
It can be fairly priced, but that doesn’t really change anything I said before. It’s not how the property is run that’s the problem, it’s that it’s owned by someone who isn’t living there during a time where that, on its own, creates problems.
You’re literally my parents. They were long term landlords, bought properties for nothing in the 90’s rented them for 20-30 years and then sold them. Most properties were long term rentals, people lived there for 5+ years, one lady had 6 kids in 10 years in one of their houses. Rents in their area are ~$1200-2000, my parents were still renting at $700 because the place was paid off and the people living there had been there for nearly a decade.
Side hustle landlords ain’t the enemy, it’s the corporate landlords that are the true problem. Unfortunately the people being oppressively fucked don’t see a difference and it’s hard to blame them.
Hope your side hustle works out for you and I hope you stay one of the good ones.
EDIT: My parents both have full time jobs, having rentals wasn’t a job for them. They rented to pay the mortgage and pay for upkeep. The long term plan for them was to sell the houses and retire, not live off rent for perpetuity. They rented the properties at a rate that allowed them to pay the mortgage off quickly and pay for landlord repairs (roof, HVAC, water heater, septic tank, etc).
Why do you think any business does what it does? That’s an absurd assertion that anyone would do that for nothing. We take good care of our tenants because we like having good people there, and that’s worth a lot. We play the long game. Your /s is useless after that post.
Yeah, profit is legitimately a problem, this guy Adam Smith wrote about it in a book and then Marx wrote a whole series of tomes doing a more comprehensive analysis about how it is unsustainable and to the detriment of humanity.
Yeah, youre a member of the rentier class, not the capitalist class.
The critique is actually different for rentierism vs capitalism, even most capitalist economicists hate rentierism. You’re collectively a parasitic class even to the capitalists because you increase their operating costs indirectly for no benefit. Earnestly no offense, as class analysis is about understanding structures, not moralizing.
You still benefit from extractivist class dynamics. Unless you’re going to be in the red even after selling the properties you own, even if you’re charging so low that you lose money in the short term. But I’m guessing that on aggregate over time you’re gaining money in the short term.
It is more than my opinion, it is literally the academic concensus on the subject, including pro-capitalist economic theorists in the consensus. You’d literally have to go back to the divine right of kings being an intellectual position taken seriously to find a consensus in support of rentierism.
Now, of course, feel free to be an anti-intellectual about it. Your opinion as someone who hasn’t read a lot of political economic theory is just as valid as the mainstream academic concensus among economicists and political economicists.
You know nothing about me or my reading choices or knowledge. I could cite tons of capitalist garbage in favor of renterism, but that would be just as meaningless as your tripe. Point is renting is a business, like any other. The business owner can fleece customers or treat them like humans. We choose to be the latter, we choose to treat our renters fairly and give them an excellent service, and if that’s too difficult for you to separate from your prejudice for that facet of capitalism I see no reason to waste further conversation on the subject.
Fuel is NOT a basic human need, especially in countries where gas stoves are extremely uncommon or banned from being used in new houses (which includes most of Europe). In fact, in most of the US electric stoves are also by far the most common type (with the exception of California, NY, Illinois, and New Jersey).
Fossil fuels as a “need” is manufactured, it’s completely artificial, it shouldn’t even be legal to install stoves or heating that require gas. The US and Canada also shouldn’t have shitty car-dependent infrastructure. The only reason we have these problems is because of propoganda from fossil fuel corporations promoting garbage like “gas stoves cook better”… whatever that’s supposed to mean… or lobbying to keep cars as the only viable form of transport for the past hundred years.
I absolutely agree with you about grocery, energy, and fuel companies being evil. But most companies aren’t grocery, energy, or fuel companies.
That said, I still hate capitalism. But for the purposes of this discussion, landlords are listed among the worst because they’re part of the select few who withhold basic human necessities over profit.
Food stamps. It definitely would be nice to have a government owned food bank. This is a bit of a weird one because the line between luxury food and necessity food is blurry and complex. It certainly is a system that is also in need of reform
Electricity?
About half owned by the government why I live, the other half is highly regulated, companies dont really get a choice of what to charge. It’s also illegal where i am to cut off electricity during winter months where it really is 100% a need. If they don’t really get to choose who there customers are or how much they charge, aren’t the real customer the government? I think this would be a pretty good model for land ownership.
Fuel?
Not really a basic need, I haven’t used any in a couple years. The car cartels are certainly a huge threat to people’s basic freedoms.
Don’t get me wrong, capitalism is still evil. On the employment end they’re still extorting people because below a certain level, in the current society, money becomes a basic human necessity.
But for the purposes of this discussion, from a consumer perspective, most businesses in the world don’t trade in human necessities. Landlords, grocery stores, hospitals, energy companies, and a few more are the select few who do.
Lol, no nuance here. Landlords are the devil. I try to inject some moderation once in a while. We have a rental, it’s in fantastic shape. We’ve never raised the rent. We’ve spent so much on improvements and repairs we’ll not see a profit on it for the next 3 years. Tax write off? Sure… but nonetheless landlords are the devil. Doesn’t matter if we worked out asses off to afford it.
E: what follows is people willing to subscribe to luxuries like entertainment, but complain about fair prices for necessities. Why bother being decent when you get shit on anyway.
I would argue that owning additional property in an environment where there is a housing shortage is implicitly unethical even if you’re trying to run it ethically. Only argument I can think of against that is that you’re keeping it from shittier landlords and corporations. But still, denying others the opportunity to grow their wealth through property ownership causes poverty on a mass scale. Not any one person’s fault, but still.
We charge well under mortgage rates for rent. It’s affordable. I hate to throw this out there, but our intent is never to “extract” the max profit from someone. If someone wants to rent at the upper extent of their ability to pay it’s not what we’re forcing on someone.
The only reason you own a second house is for profit. A profit you are doing directly from an other individual. You can twist that how you want, it’s the reality. You are doing it respectfully and are providing a service. But an artificial one.
What if it’s run at cost? (And the property value were to stay level)
You’re still extracting wealth from the tenant, and the tenant is only losing money. You’re still preventing the tenant from building their wealth through property ownership.
The ethical thing to do in this situation would be to sell the house to the tenant at a price proportional to the rent, minus what they’ve already paid in rent to this point.
Sorry I genuinly don’t follow. If I were to rent out at cost, that means if the tenant were the owner, they’d have to pay the same cost as well. So they’re losing the same amount of money either way.
And how would they be building wealth through property, if the property value doesn’t rise? They would buy the flat for say 50k$, and then own 50k$ worth of property
I think you’re assuming that I would be paying off a loan with their rent? By renting at cost I meant their rent covers maintanance/upkeep
But if they own the property, they can potentially get that money back as the value of the property increases. Property is an appreciating asset, at least in the current US housing market, which is the frame of reference I’m coming from.
The property value almost certainly will rise, as long as the property owner maintains it properly.
I was assuming that, yes, but it’s sort of besides the point. The fact remains, any money a renter puts in, they can’t ever get back. The property owner however, being the one in control of the appreciating asset, can grow the money that they collect from the renter by investing it back into their property, increasing the rate at which it appreciates.
Edit: in the imaginary scenario where property value never changes, the tenant is still paying all the costs of homeownership, without the benefit of homeownership, ie, owning an asset which has value and can be sold. In this scenario the landlord is simply a middleman who is hoarding an asset.
So ideally every apartment would either be owned by the tenant, or collectively owned by a group of tenants that individually couldn’t afford it (housing co-op)
If its run at cost, why aren’t you selling it to the tenants?
It can be fairly priced, but that doesn’t really change anything I said before. It’s not how the property is run that’s the problem, it’s that it’s owned by someone who isn’t living there during a time where that, on its own, creates problems.
You’re literally my parents. They were long term landlords, bought properties for nothing in the 90’s rented them for 20-30 years and then sold them. Most properties were long term rentals, people lived there for 5+ years, one lady had 6 kids in 10 years in one of their houses. Rents in their area are ~$1200-2000, my parents were still renting at $700 because the place was paid off and the people living there had been there for nearly a decade.
Side hustle landlords ain’t the enemy, it’s the corporate landlords that are the true problem. Unfortunately the people being oppressively fucked don’t see a difference and it’s hard to blame them.
Hope your side hustle works out for you and I hope you stay one of the good ones.
EDIT: My parents both have full time jobs, having rentals wasn’t a job for them. They rented to pay the mortgage and pay for upkeep. The long term plan for them was to sell the houses and retire, not live off rent for perpetuity. They rented the properties at a rate that allowed them to pay the mortgage off quickly and pay for landlord repairs (roof, HVAC, water heater, septic tank, etc).
No they’re still part of the problem just not the biggest problem.
Yeah, youre doing it out of the goodness of your heart and not to have a renter pay for you to own an appreciating asset. /s
Why do you think any business does what it does? That’s an absurd assertion that anyone would do that for nothing. We take good care of our tenants because we like having good people there, and that’s worth a lot. We play the long game. Your /s is useless after that post.
Yeah, profit is legitimately a problem, this guy Adam Smith wrote about it in a book and then Marx wrote a whole series of tomes doing a more comprehensive analysis about how it is unsustainable and to the detriment of humanity.
We’re not interested in infinite growth and owe no loyalty to shareholders. Our rates are static.
Yeah, youre a member of the rentier class, not the capitalist class.
The critique is actually different for rentierism vs capitalism, even most capitalist economicists hate rentierism. You’re collectively a parasitic class even to the capitalists because you increase their operating costs indirectly for no benefit. Earnestly no offense, as class analysis is about understanding structures, not moralizing.
You still benefit from extractivist class dynamics. Unless you’re going to be in the red even after selling the properties you own, even if you’re charging so low that you lose money in the short term. But I’m guessing that on aggregate over time you’re gaining money in the short term.
Well, that’s an opinion.
It is more than my opinion, it is literally the academic concensus on the subject, including pro-capitalist economic theorists in the consensus. You’d literally have to go back to the divine right of kings being an intellectual position taken seriously to find a consensus in support of rentierism.
Now, of course, feel free to be an anti-intellectual about it. Your opinion as someone who hasn’t read a lot of political economic theory is just as valid as the mainstream academic concensus among economicists and political economicists.
You know nothing about me or my reading choices or knowledge. I could cite tons of capitalist garbage in favor of renterism, but that would be just as meaningless as your tripe. Point is renting is a business, like any other. The business owner can fleece customers or treat them like humans. We choose to be the latter, we choose to treat our renters fairly and give them an excellent service, and if that’s too difficult for you to separate from your prejudice for that facet of capitalism I see no reason to waste further conversation on the subject.
Typically most businesses aren’t profiting from the threat of withholding basic human needs.
Really?
Groceries?
Electricity?
Fuel?
I think you need to adjust your thinking.
Fuel is NOT a basic human need, especially in countries where gas stoves are extremely uncommon or banned from being used in new houses (which includes most of Europe). In fact, in most of the US electric stoves are also by far the most common type (with the exception of California, NY, Illinois, and New Jersey).
Fossil fuels as a “need” is manufactured, it’s completely artificial, it shouldn’t even be legal to install stoves or heating that require gas. The US and Canada also shouldn’t have shitty car-dependent infrastructure. The only reason we have these problems is because of propoganda from fossil fuel corporations promoting garbage like “gas stoves cook better”… whatever that’s supposed to mean… or lobbying to keep cars as the only viable form of transport for the past hundred years.
I agree with the rest of your points though.
Yes really.
I absolutely agree with you about grocery, energy, and fuel companies being evil. But most companies aren’t grocery, energy, or fuel companies.
That said, I still hate capitalism. But for the purposes of this discussion, landlords are listed among the worst because they’re part of the select few who withhold basic human necessities over profit.
Food stamps. It definitely would be nice to have a government owned food bank. This is a bit of a weird one because the line between luxury food and necessity food is blurry and complex. It certainly is a system that is also in need of reform
About half owned by the government why I live, the other half is highly regulated, companies dont really get a choice of what to charge. It’s also illegal where i am to cut off electricity during winter months where it really is 100% a need. If they don’t really get to choose who there customers are or how much they charge, aren’t the real customer the government? I think this would be a pretty good model for land ownership.
Not really a basic need, I haven’t used any in a couple years. The car cartels are certainly a huge threat to people’s basic freedoms.
deleted by creator
IIRC natural gas where I am is controlled by the same government org electricity is, so similar restriction apply.
I get charged a solid 30bucks a month to have it as a backup to my heatpump which is very annoying.
Well actually…
(I get your point though, it is very direct with landlordism)
Don’t get me wrong, capitalism is still evil. On the employment end they’re still extorting people because below a certain level, in the current society, money becomes a basic human necessity.
But for the purposes of this discussion, from a consumer perspective, most businesses in the world don’t trade in human necessities. Landlords, grocery stores, hospitals, energy companies, and a few more are the select few who do.