"All I want to do is exploit struggling people for far more than my property is worth. Is that so wrong?!"
Even more ironic is that the "professional" landlords/property holding companies hire property managers who do literally all the work, including both the upkeep for the house and interaction with the tenants. Like, what exactly do you contribute at that point? What would change practically if I hired the property manager directly with the money I would be paying you? Especially when the most common pro-landlord argument (used by landlords themselves) is that they fix things around the house and maintain it.
"You expect me to unclog a toilet?!"
Yes. That's exactly what I expect a landlord to do. And if you don't live in the same city as your rental property, maybe that shouldn't be allowed.
I am against landlords like everyone else, but I draw the line at unclogging the toilet. It isn't worth the effort to report that and I don't need people unnecessarily seeing my shit in the literal sense. Provided that it is a standard clog and not something wrong with the toilet.
I'm not talking standard clog. I don't mind using a plunger. But sometimes you need more than that and they should either do it or spend their own money on a plumber ASAP.
Ah, I see. The Super Poo, the Toilet Destroyer, HAZMAT. Things that only a professional can do. Sometimes the rabbit doesn't come out of the hat and you need an extra hand.
I had a landlord who wrote into the original version of the lease that I (as the tenant) would be responsible for any needed repairs to the sewer system. This was a much more extreme version of being unwilling to unclog a toilet lol. I said fuck that noise and he took the clause out. He turned out to be a good landlord and he didn't raise my rent once in seven years, but his tendency to just try and get away with whatever he could in the lease had me a bit worried at the start.
For individuals who own like a single rental property as an investment property, you could blame the banks. Maybe the tenants don’t have the 20% the bank would require for a mortgage. But they can afford the monthly rent for the larger house rather than a smaller apartment. Also the landlord takes on the risk here. (Market value, no Rent payment, property damage, maintenance…)
They take on the risk? That's hysterical. Landlords don't risk market value. They buy up all the houses when they're cheap, make their money back and then some by renting the property, then make even more money when the housing market goes up and they kick the tenant out to sell the property. They don't risk property damage, that's the entire point of a security deposit. They don't "risk" maintenance, that's called doing their job.
I don't understand why a 20% deposit is necessary. If you can make repayments as you can make rent, let them own the house already
You don't need 20%, you do need at least 3% in most cases. You then pay pmi which is an extra cost.
In Australia its way more common for landlords to use propert management companies.
They charge about 5%, the tenant rings them and says "The hot water is out" they ring me and say "You need to authorise us to send a plumber" I say "Ok" they ring one of their go-to plumbers who attends super fast because they dont want to lose the repeat business of a property manager who has 100 properties to look after and they fix it at a fair rate because if they dont the property manager will find a new plumber.
When I was renting out my first house (had to move for work for a few years) I couldnt get an electrician for my own house as fast and as cheap as my property manager could get one for my tenants.
I bet. Mine inherited 17 houses and never works. He also talks to all his customers like he is doing us a favor.
I know a guy at college who basically uses this as a pick-up line to get girls. He said if you're with him you're basically set because he'll inherit a lot of house from his landlord parents so you won't need to work anymore.
Women like money this is nothing new.
They might not even be a gold digger but with money comes opportunities.
I rent out homes and I dont get any of these because I only rent out to hispanic working families. Fight me
Only some, usually the very right leaning ones or the very left leaning ones. Normal people behave normally.
I can assure you the very left leaning ones don't. If they did, they wouldn't be left leaning.
That was true a few years ago. Republicans were the good guys once too, but they sure as shit aren't today. Things change.
Extreme left-leaning means they agree with Marx that Capitalism is a doomed system, and work towards its dismantling. If they don't agree with that goal... they aren't far left.
It's so frustrating when people think left means BLM and LGBTQIA+ and vaccination. Those things are all great and I support them, but that's not what makes me left: left is about Unions and social safety nets and community welfare and workers seizing the means of production.
I'm Left because my guiding principle for how countries should be managed is "The greatest good for the greatest number".
This puts me in a collision course often with "lefties" who are just tribalists mindlessly parroting slogans and cheering for celebrities of "their side", because they never validate what they hear from "their side" against any such principles, which is how you end up with "lefties" such as tankies or the kind of "feminist" who just happens to be a high middle class woman who thinks "breaking the glass ceiling in corporate management" is far more important than reducing the 40,000% wage difference between CEOs and the average employee, in other words putting "loyalty to the team" far above and beyond doing what's best for society as a whole or simply trying to further their personal greed objectives using the some "group identity" as cover.
Those not capable of putting personal upside maximization or petty emotional needs (including all those related to tribalism) to the side if that is required for the greater good, are not leftwing, IMHO.
Left is about how you feel regarding hierarchies.
Being against discriminating people based on gender or orientation is being against hierarchies that put women or LGBT at the bottom; being against exploitation or favoring unions is about improving the situation of people who are below in a currently existing hierarchy. If you want absolute gender and LGBT equality but wholeheartedly support the right of Boeing's shareholders to gain lots of money and not to get taxed too much, you have some leftist ideas and some right-wing ideas. If you want to establish absolute socialism but think gay people especifically shouldn't kiss in public, you have some leftist ideas and some right-wing ideas, because you're putting gay people at the bottom of hierarchy.
In the US, worker rights and social participation in the economy often gets left out of "what it is the left" because of the Cold War persecution against anticapitalist ideals and the predominance of the Democratic Party's old guard at establishing discourse, which creates a skewed vision.
I'm left by default because I don't support violent coups, and I don't particularly care what some people choose to do with their genitals. Pretty pathetic when I put it that way, but that's just how it is..
Before then? It stood for general democratic desire and the idea that people should have the power over government rather than the old establishments. And before that... the concept of left and right didn't exist. Since they came up during the French Revolution when the revolutionary members sat on the left side of the assembly in Versailles, opposite the supporters of the old regime on the right side.
Like... are you talking about ideological drift? In that case, all political forces have moved towards the right since the 80s. Most prominent in the US, where our "left" party is actually center right
I'm really not trying to dunk on you when I say this: you've fundamentally misunderstood the left-right political theory. A previously left-wing party can drift to the right and vice versa. A party called the "lefty left socialist communist hippy party" can be made up completely of right-wingers, and that doesn't change the definition of left and right. I won't try and explain the definitions of political left and right to you because there are almost definitely better explanations out there than I could give. I just implore you to find an impartial, unbiased explainer.
GHWB was pretty solid IMO. Unfairly got voted out for the whole 'read my lips' thing. Check out this speech at the UN Panel on Climate Change. He is coherent, dignified, rational, and reasonable. So you know, unelectable by today's GOP, but we've known that for a while..
..and I'm saying GHWB wasn't that bad IMO. The last reasonable republican of that generation. Somehow that's a controversial thing to say though apparently 🙄
Im a left leaning landlord and im not like that at all. Im fixing everything thats needed and improving stuff from time to time but basically staying out of their lives.
Good guy landlord.
I wasn't saying psycho left is common or that you're like that, just that they exist. It's harder to spot them because there seems to be so very many psycho right nuts lately.
"Left leaning landlord" is an oxymoron ;p
Or at least if someone actually held to their principles, they would not remain both for very long ^.^
(The concept of a separate ownership class, which is the defining feature of landlordism, is in direct contradiction with leftism, which at the furthest end pushes for the destruction of these sorts of hierarchical class systems, or at the very least attempts to abolish the gatekeeping and hoarding of base necessities like shelter)
"Fix my AC!"
Particularly ironic that this is being framed as "unreasonable" because landlords themselves directly argue that their upkeep of the house justifies the significant upcharge they take from tenants. Like, even if we argued that landlord as a career is 100% acceptable and valid, that would literally be your job, would be like a professional chef complaining about people saying "make me food!"
Had a cook who literally complained about receiving too many different kinds of orders and the customers were not even in a hurry
If they can't handle a low pressure restaurant where the customers aren't in a hurry, there's no way they can handle McDonald's where the customers are actively hostile.
I'm sure that is a legit issue and the menu should be planned to reduce that load. In this case the guy was more suited to repetitive jobs in larger scale kitchens which mine isn't.
I had a rentoid that would call me for the most insane shit all the time. Changing light bulbs, fixing their own personal AC unit and stopping a neibourhood dog from barking.
When they were evicted I held the damage deposit because the hardwood floors and internal doors were damaged to fuck by their dog which they tried to claim as being normal wear and tear.
Sounds rough man. Maybe you should just sell the property, then you wouldn't have to deal with such things.
I own my house, doesn't mean I can't see landlords are leaches that are screwing the housing market.
Anyone who owns a home is a landlord by definition. You're a lord of alloted land.
It's silly that you believe that landlords are the problem. The housing crisis is 100% Chinese, Arab and Large buisness investors.
You're the type that talks about the environmental impact of the people when 80% of pollution comes from a single source.
Anyone who owns a home is a landlord by definition.
I suppose if you completely fail to understand context sure, but why would I bother trying to have a discussion with someone who fails to understand basic context?
The housing crisis is 100% Chinese, Arab and Large buisness investors.
And what are these investors doing? Are they perhaps being landlords and renting out the property?
Yup, people here are generally young and have only had experience being on the tenant side of the equation. Someday they may find out what it is like being on the other side and that tenants can be pigs.
They may be good tenants and assume that most tenants are good tenants. Not realizing how rare that is.
Then you also have the ones who say every landlord is bad, which is clearly them just being a bad tenant.
I put my rent fairly low to help people out but the low income people are generally disasters to rent to.
And they're paying the bank, income tax, and property taxes. It's not just free money. Slumlords exist, but the post doesn't stop at slumlords and references landlords in general, which opens it up to fair criticism from much more of the populace that may just own 2-3 houses. Unless you've owned and maintained the house for over a decade, you wouldn't profit from renting it it many areas. It's mostly just paying bills while you hope the value goes up.
Bad renters exist, but for every story like yours I have five places I've lived in where it took months to fix the A/C in summertime and the landlord just let it fucking go meanwhile holding out their greedy mitts demanding $2000 a month.
2 grand! To live in 90° heat, if I wanted to do that I'd just live on the street.
Fucking landloids.
Does cheap mean they're allowed to not fulfill their maintenance requirements meanwhile showing up on the dot collection day to take rent?
This will vary greatly from area to area but in most places for a tenant to withhold payment legally the property generally has to have a problem that would make the property "unliveable". Like the front door falling off the hinges, no water or no functioning toilets or the landlord has to ignore the problem for an unreasonable length of time.
The A.C breaking in the beginning of summer and it taking a week to get an A.C company to look at it probably doesnt count. Them leaving the A.C broken for the whole three months probably does.
Even the father of capitalism thought landlords were parasites that only leeched off the economy
Adam Smith justifies the existence of rent as improvement in the value of land.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term 'rent-seeking' which is a different concept entitely
I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.
I'd strongly recommend you consider reading the entire thing, because that is not his take at all.
Consider at his time, "landlord" literally meant a lord who owned land, and much of the rent he discussed (often negatively) is shit like, charging people to harvest kelp near your house.
Probably because he's not actually presenting an argument, and is instead expecting people to read a 57 310 word essay. Oh, and if you read all of that and still disagree? "You must have misunderstood, read it again."
Lol heaven forbid that someone should want you to have an understanding of what you’re talking about.
If you can't simplify it enough to summarize in less than 57 000 words, then you don't understand it.
Fun fact: all unions are inherently rent-seeking.
I say this as a supporter of unions - true is true. Rent seeking is inherently bad but the sum of the union equation is that they do more good than bad.
The police union, of course, is also uniquely bad in other ways.
Or all these people are fucking idiots who are just obsessed with labels and culture wars.
New here?
the alternative is that I don’t rent out part of my house and then there will be less housing
This is only part of it. The "housing shortage" exists not because there aren't enough homes, but that there are not enough homes on the market. Truthfully, renting out a spare bedroom is not the focus of people's ire (though through a certain lens it is still a problem, but I won't go into it here). The problem is that rent seekers are pricing people out of the housing market, which is creating higher demand for rentals, which drives up the market price, ect. It's a systemic problem, and not necessarily one of individual culpability. Another part of the problem is the commodification of homes: any action taken to address home affordability will necessarily drive down home values (they are the same thing, after all), and many people depend on the value of their home not dropping. It's a bubble with millions of people at risk of loosing their homes if it pops.
There's this convenient assumption for landlords that the rental market is full of people who simply want to be renters, or full of people who simply can't afford to purchase their own home (usually by some moral failing), when the reality is that rent seekers are creating the problem that they claim to be solving. Houses wouldn't be so expensive if there weren't so many people buying houses for the purpose of renting out.
All these cucks can blow me.
Of course, there are other reasons why people might be angry with landlords.
Well that's rather snowflakey.. if you aren't part of the problem why are you identifying with them?
Landlords must exist because people need to rent housing, and it sure sounds like you're doing it right. Some landlords (and some tenants) are awful human beings who should not be landlords while others are good people.
A bigger problem is happening in areas with housing shortages. Housing prices have been skyrocketing for 10+ years and home owners have been leveraging themselves with their home equity to buy other homes. On a large scale, that eats up a lot of housing supply, increases prices, and makes it more difficult for people without existing real estate equity to buy a house.
In the city where I live, owning a house is essentially not possible for middle-class people unless their parents give them a down payment. Even my girlfriend and I, who combine for more than triple the average household income in the city, are taking years and years to save for a $300k+ down payment that's needed to bring the mortgage payment down to $6k/mo.
Landlords didn't create the housing shortage, but I can see why someone who's struggling to buy a house while watching landlords buy multiple houses can develop a hatred for them.
The idea that ALL landlords are exploiting ALL tenants ALL of the time is just so fucking stupid it's hard to listen to. Goods and services cost money, idk why that is such a hard concept to grasp. I lean left and will probably never vote R for the rest of my life, but it's hard to listen to people like that who have no understanding of basic economics.
I can totally relate, but the audience in here is beyond belief. They already have their pitchforks out and no amount of logical will get through to the hoard.
So many of these clowns think that all landlords are billionaires who's main goal in life is to keep people miserable. They will never admit the truth that a bunch of loandlords are simply regular folks who decided to buy an apartment unit or maybe even a house (or rent part of their existing house) to help fund their retirement. Others invest in the stock market, but they aren't demonized, but someone renting out a spare room is, for whatever reason.
I looked into renting out my old place when I was buying a house. When you looked at the market rate for the area, then subtracted taxes, condo fees, utilities, maintenance, and insurance it was absolutely not worth it. Fuck that. All that stress and trouble just so some lazy piece of shit could try squatting on my property because they feel entitled to freebies? Da fuq. Hell no. I was not going to waste my time doing that. And yet the clowns in here would think that no matter what the rent is, it is somehow too high even though they have no bloody clue the kind of bills a homeowner has.
I feel this so much. I own a property. I rented it out. I ran into that exact same lineup of expenses vs income you note here and... I ended up taking my house OFF the rental market. It's just not worth it.
I keep getting into these discussions with people who yell “It’s immoral to buy a house and rent it out. Landlords must provide housing for renters at a loss so I can have cheap housing” and then... "It's an investment and you as the owner must fund my low cost housing because you might earn equity in the property when you sell it in the future."
Don't even bother arguing with those idiots. It's not worth your time.
The same clowns that scream about "low wages means low effort" to justify lazy workers, also can't fathom why someone isn't going to rent their property (with all the risk, stress and work that goes along with that) for just $100/month in profit.
Funny how they don't see the hypocrisy.
On Reddit, you'd get the same anti-work, anti-landlord, pro-freebies crowd, but we also had a reasonably well trafficked real estate sub. I haven't found a good place to talk about home purchasing, repairs, and dealing with real estate agents on this site.
You can also tell by her anorexic physique that she's no landchad. No fridge raiding happening here.
I feel so bad for mine I’ve raised the amount I tip them every month from ~12% to 20%. You should, too - they struggle so hard.
(Lol)
Because I love my landlord so much I only communicate with him through my lawyer to make extra sure every letter is worded really nicely and politely, much more polite than anything I would every write him. Also got him two very nicely worded court orders by know he would've missed out on if it wasn't for me.
My old landlord refused to fix our water heater, the leaking roof causing mould and water damage, the outlets that were falling off, the broken light switches that didn't work, the ceiling light that was flickering and and literally hanging by the wires. All for $2000/month + utilities. Then he kicked us out because he wanted to sell the place, but now he can't sell it because no bank will touch it with the amount of water damage it has lmao.
Oh ya, can't forget the 5 times he's banged on our door threatening us with his lawyer because he stole $100 from us, we asked for it back, but he refused to answer our calls, so we had to wait 12 fucking months before our lease was up and we started paying month to month for us to subtract the $100 he owed us for 12 months from the payment.
That's an option that is actively being removed by massive firms. Empty houses are common, but available houses are few and affordable available houses are very rare.
Can't. Rich assholes and massive firms are buying them at insane prices so they can rent them out at double what a mortgage would cost. And that drives more people to apartments which drives their prices up.
There's a housing shortage in my area, and 30 percent of houses are empty. But if you jack up the rent enough, you make more money off those that can pay the ransom than you would by lowering the rent to get all units rented. It's an artificial scarcity created by landlords.
I work in municipal development and literally every single-family project that's approached the city in the last 18 months is for rental only, because they figured out that mortgages don't go up and eventually end, so why sell the houses at all?
If he does his job well, he can get the money. Deal?
This means being responsive and responsible when issues happen with water, heating, electricity, mold and vermin. It means making sure that if they repaint an appartment, they don't just set a bomb in there to splatter the place. Actually remove the cupboard doors before painting. It means not painting over electric outlets.
It also means not cutting the water for three days a month, replacing the toilet when it breaks, not a week later. It means maintenance on the building's laundry room. Clean shared spaces. Secure entrance that actually locks, and actually unlocks.
Those are only some of the issues I had when renting. It is demeaning to be treated like that, and then be asked for money.
I realized very early on that renting is incredibly expensive and that getting my own place was the most important step to having any sort of financial security. Even if it was a shithole, it was my shithole for storing my equity. I hear these stories of people who rent the same place for 20-30 years and end up paying fivefold what it would have cost them to live in a much nicer place with no cunt landlord to pay fealty to.
Obviously, if you're paying for a service and not getting it, you have a right to complain. If your landlord provides reliable shelter for an agreed upon price, I don't think it's fair to consider them the scum of the earth. People have a right to own property and do what they see fit with it.
Yep, I basically got a very cheap rate from my landlord because he's currently living thousands of miles away so he doesn't really know the market rate for my area and he basically just told me just send him the invoice for any upkeep that I need to reduce my rent based on that.
If more landlords are like him, people's sentiment on landlords would be better.
You make use of someone's services, you pay for it. If you hate landlords, don't indebt yourself to landlords. I started off with nothing, now I'm a homeowner.
If I'm so fucking clueless, how come I have a mortgage and you don't?
Thanks for solving the housing crisis. I never realized if I just lifted myself up by my bootstraps I could be a homeowner!
Where did you live before you bought your house?
Is that approach available to 40-something single parents working at McDonald's?
I lived in a basement suite, followed by a dump of an old house, before I found a slightly less dumpy old house to purchase in a rural area that most city folk would absolutely hate. This was all before the age of 20. Sold my old house about 7 or 8 years later to a younger man who had a very similar starting plan.
Now I have a 5 bedroom house on two acres. It's not in some heavily populated area, it's out in the country and it's affordable.
Anyway, if you're a single parent over 40 working at McDonald's, you've made far too many bad decisions in life for me to be of any help.
How did you buy the basement suite? Or did you rent it? Almost nobody graduates high school with enough cash to buy a house, so...
far too many bad decisions
Hard disagree. I work as a programmer which pays well enough to be comfortable. The work doesn't suit everyone, and even if it did, we need people doing other things than programming for the world to work! That includes fast food, retail, etc. The cliche is teenagers and college kids, but in fact over half of people making minimum wage are older.
That includes a lot of single parents -- spouse left, now they have to scramble for income even before child support kicks in. They're not all just jackasses you can dismiss with "bah, they made their bed".
My problem with your advice to "just buy a house" is that it's not actionable for at least half the population.
Your know, I guess experiences vary widely, but the landlords I know don't fit all the hate. For instance, one of my employees decided to rent her house instead of selling it when her family needed a bigger one. They've been renting to the same family for a decade or more without ever raising the rent. The family could not afford to buy any house, let alone the one they're in, so renting allows them to live in a kind of place they couldn't afford otherwise. My employee has let them skip rent a few times when times were hard.
I know a few similar stories. Maybe it's different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever, but I just don't see being a landlord as inherently bad. Like anything else, you can do it ethically or unethically.
Sounds like a problem with the price of housing, which is a not entirely unrelated issue.
Yeah, for sure - I live in southern California, which has about as high a cost of real estate as you're going to find, but that isn't caused by landlords. I mean, if you bought a new car and were selling your old one, you'd probably sell it for whatever the market would pay, right? Maybe if you're really well off you'd just give it to someone, but most of us are going to sell for the going rate. It's the same with houses. If I can easily get $500k for my house, I'm not going to list it for $400k just to be nice - I could use the money.
Do people feel like it's inherently more laudable to sell their house than to rent it? It seems like, as long as they're not gouging, they're doing more of a service by renting to people who can't afford to buy, and also covering all the costs of repairs and risk of damage that renters don't have to worry about.
I just don't get the hate broadly, though the management company who ran my daughter's apartment complex were assholes.
I work in a real estate adjacent field, part of the housing issue IS very much because of big companies and people just buying up all the houses to rent them for passive income.
I don't care if people have 2 or 3 houses but when they own 8 or 9 or hundreds then yea we have an issue.
Yeah, I agree a hundred percent. In every business, it's possible to be predatory. Big companies are doing some really shitty things, and we should try to figure out how to stop that.
But some people are saying that being a landlord is inherently unethical - the moment someone rents a property, they're a vile leach. I just think that's wrong.
My last land lord raised rent by 2.5x after the first year. When we moved out he kept the full security deposit because "the inside of the oven was dirty"
Your mileage may vary
4 beautiful words that worked wonders with my shitty landlord who tried to keep my deposit "normal wear and tear".
As soon as I stated that, the lady changed her tune completely.
Yeah, that's pretty shitty.
My point wasn't that there are no terrible landlords, just that this popular concept that being a landlord is inherently wrong is misguided.
I only had a couple landlords in my life, and both were good experiences. One was the parents of a friend, and they just asked me to make an effort to do low-cost or low-effort repairs myself (e.g., a dripping faucet) rather than call them, and in return they made our rent much less than it should have been. The other was an apartment, and the lady managing the property liked me and hardly ever raised my rent. She said she never had to deal with issues from me, and wanted me to stay as long as possible.
Maybe that's why I don't have the visceral hate so many seem to.
I think people are mostly using the term landlord to refer to rental companies. I make a point to try to rent from landlords usually a much better deal and don't mind you doing minor improvements to the place. Sucks when they sell to a company though. The companies are also responsible for over building condos at the expense of cheaper apartments and small family homes.
Your landlord is allowed to raise it by that much? I'm Dutch and we have limits on how much rent can increase, which was a maximum of 4.1% in 2023.
Maybe it's different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever
Yes. My landlord is literally a corporation.
Doesn't matter either way. My landlord is an asshole who never fixes anything he says he will (even things he's legally supposed to.) Can't use the law against him because he's allowed to raise the rent any time he wants with a few simple changes to our lease.
I've never had a good landlord. Most of them are greedy trash.
I'm a land lord, did exactly what people say we all did. 15 years ago I bought two 200k homes for 30k each (30k was the down payment) the houses are worth over 600k each now..
they are an income plan for my kids so they don't have to necessarily worry about taking a better paying job instead of something they want to do. Probably a little naive now. But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit just so the government won't come after me due running a loss on my taxes. I have raised rent only enough to do that.
I pay for a property management firm to take care of the properties so that the tenants have 24 hour response to issues. I've had the same tenants for 12 years in both properties. Every 4 years or so I have one of the rooms that the tenants want renovated. It's a right off so doesn't costa fortune ava the house gets slowly updated. Not every landlord is an asshole. Some of us play the long game without screwing people. But I realize that I am part of the problem. I am part of the reason for less supply in the market. But selling my properties will make my children's lives less secure and I'm not willing to do that. So i do partially deserve some of the blame.
Edited to add down payment info.
I don't see you having any blame. Supply and demand for housing includes everything, including rentals. You would be part of the problem if you bought those places and left them empty as vacation spots or something. You didn't, you're supplying them to people who I'm guessing wouldn't be able to buy them themselves. You're not driving up the cost of housing. I'd argue that, since you're charging less than you could, you're actually lowering it.
He literally is driving up the cost of housing. Rental markets are quite seperate to the actual housing market and people who own 3 houses, drive up the cost of buying a house. There is a good chance they can't afford to rent, yes, but only because of people like him buying housing they dint need to make a profit, they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.
they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.
Have you purchased a house? Because this part is simply not true. You have to have a percentage of the cost up front. The more you have, the smaller the payments. Lots of folks who are renting out places put a lot down so the mortgage payments (and what they charge for rent) are much smaller than a first-time buyer can afford. Then you have the cost of property tax, maintenance, and repairs that the renter isn't liable for.
This is very much the problem with the Canadian real estate bubble. People are paying rental prices now that absolutely could have paid for a house 5 years ago. But now they are paying a dangerously high portion of their income. The problem is that their rental prices that they pay now wouldn't make the payments on the house today.
Not for myself, but yes, I have. And that's kind of my point. You have these arbitrary barriers to entry on home ownership that are designed to keep poor people out, since the can't afford these costs upfront, and can't save for them because they are either paying their landlords mortgage instead, or are paying money directly to the bank/asset manager/ whoever owns their rental. So it's in the banks best interest to not give them a mortgage.
And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn't landlords wouldn't be making money, so would raise rent
I think "designed to keep poor people out" is way off. People selling a product want nothing more than for other people to buy their product. The sellers of the house aren't the ones setting the mortgage details - they have nothing to do with it, they just want to sell the house.
But few people can afford to buy a house outright, so they have to borrow money. The bigger the percentage of the purchase price you have to borrow, the more the payments are going to be. That's not to punish poor people, it's because they're putting up their money so you can buy something, in return for them making a profit on their money.
And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn’t landlords wouldn’t be making money, so would raise rent
You're still not getting it. Let's say I want to live in a house that costs $600k, but I don't have it. If I were to find a lender who would finance the whole thing (doubtful), the mortgage payments would probably be around $3k a month, and I can't afford that either. But let's say you have $300k to put down, so only have to finance another $300k, and your payments are more like $1500 a month, which I can afford. I pay you the amount that covers your mortgage, you end up paying property tax and other costs, but my rent is going into your property. If I live there for three years, you've gotten $54k in equity, even if the house's value itself didn't go up any, for just the cost of taxes and maintenance. Meanwhile, I got to live in a house that I flat out couldn't afford.
I was not blaming the people selling the house, I was blaming the banks for putting an arbitrary down payment on getting a mortgage to keep poor people out of home ownership, which benefits the banks as they are all heavily involved in property investment so benefit from more people renting either by directly being the landlords or simply from the increased housing demand from landlords wanting to buy as many properties as possible, thus driving up housing prices, which drives up mortgages and makes them more money.
Like you say, the banks male their money from interest on the loan, so the 20k down-payment they require is an arbitrary barrier to entry.
No, I get it, you're just making up a scenario that doesn't really happen. Like sure a landlord could in theory pay half the price of a house just to reduce mortgage costs so they can rent it out at half the market rate AND pay property tax and maintenance out of pocket, out of thr kindness of their golden hearts. They could also just buy the house outright and let you live in it for free and just make their profit off of the increase in house value. But obviously they won't. The landlord is going to charge you market rate for that 600k house which will almost certainly be more than 3k, because why wouldnt they? And even if they did, are the going to rent directly to you? Or are they going to advertise it and get a slew of offers of people wanting to live in a house for half price and so someone a little bit richer than you will offer them, say 1,750 for the house, because of supply and demand. And the vast majority of people aren't trying to live in houses they can't afford, they are just trying to live.
And even then, it's still not ethical, you're still exploring people for profit for their basic needs without adding any value to the system.
How the heck did you find not one but two 200k houses for 30k? Or are you saying you bought them for 30k and now they're worth 200k? Either way holy balls I wish I could do either of those lol
I assumed they meant they were just worth $30k when they bought them. That is a pipe dream that probably won’t happen again in any of our lifetimes.
Sorry, I didn't explain that well. The down payment was 30k each. But basically that's all I've had to spend on the houses.
The house pays for itself, that's the beauty of having to rent out houses. ROI might vary, but long term, you are secured as long as the property is properly maintained and is attractive to renters.
Edit : reading a lot of comments on this thread, it's obvious that majority have no idea how house and lot transactions go, and how little real life experience they have on it. They are just hopping on the bandwagon on landlord hate.
"Anybody that disagrees with my unethical actions simply lacks life experience" - some landlord apologist chud.
This shows one of the most common things landlords tell themselves to justify it.
But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit
You tell yourself this, to make you feel better, but you don't acknowledge that almost all the money your tenants pay you is profit, since they are paying for the mortgage. Even if you rented at 0 immediate profit, for the entire time until you paid off the houses, you would have actually made 1.2million in profit, since you now own 2 houses at 600k each.
And those families, instead of paying a mortgage and ending with hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, that they could refinance, or use to buy a better house or leave as inheritance for their kids, now have nothing, as all that money has gone to you.
There is no such thing as an ethical landlord. Even the """good""" ones are still exploring people's basic need for shelter to make them rich.
If you really wanted to be a "good" landlord offer those families the chance to buy the house with the 15 years of down payments they already made to you to start it off. But as you said they're an "income plan" for your kids I don't think you would do that.
I mean, I get what you're saying. And perhaps if my financial situation was better I could consider the option to offer the houses to the tenants. But as you suspect I will not trade my children's financial security just to be charitable. The rent I charge is 30%-40% below market value. I suspect if you were in my position you wouldn't be so inclined to give away your wealth either.
I was in your position, when my grandparents died I inherited a house, that people encouraged me to rent out. Instead I sold it and invested the money (specifically into a green energy fund.) As that way I still have my financial security, without being a landlord.
Because to start with, I invested and risked my own money a much less bubbled deal estate market with a significant amount of my available capital. You invested someone else's money. I took all the risk, and you want me to give away all the profits from that risk. Even your "green" investments take advantage of workers, buy off shore parts, cost people their jobs. Why don't you donate all your profits to those people. Your entire argument is so steeped in hypocrisy that it's hard to even know if you're not just a troll.
This is the whole "not all cops are bad a guy I know is a cop and he's nice" argument just for landlords.
Or you could phrase it about slave owners "my freind owns slaves, but he just owns the one and he treats them really well!"
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe """ethical""" the landlord is.
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe “”“ethical”“” the landlord is.
That's what I'm not seeing. Can you explain what makes it inherently immortal?
The explanation depends on how deep or philosophical you want to go on this conversation, but basically you are exploiting someone's basic need for shelter for massive profit, keeping trapped in the poverty cycle as they are having to pay rent to the landlord to pay their mortgage for them and so is much harder to save for their own house. As well as reducing supply of housing on the market, thus increasing prices and making it more innacessible.
Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town's supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup. They don't grow it, they don't transport it, cook it or chsnge it, they don't do anything that ads value, just buy it and sell it at a higher price, to the people that would have otherwise bought it for themselves. Do you consider that ethical?
Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town’s supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup.
Okay, that's clearly exploitative and unethical, but that's not inherently what landlords do. Anyone who sells products or services can do it in a way that's fair or is unfair. The mere act of selling something itself isn't unethical. Look at the conversations we have about drug companies. I don't think anyone argues that drug companies shouldn't be able to sell medication, or even make some profit for their research investments. The problem is when they price their drugs way above what's reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.
Renting out a house isn't different from renting out anything else. You go on vacation and you need a car while there, but you don't want to buy one for a short time, so you rent one. The rental agency used their money to buy the car, then they rent it to you for something you're willing to pay for a week, and they make a profit from all the people who rent the car over its life. You both win. Why is it any different with a house?
The problem is when they price their drugs way above what’s reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.
This is exactly the problem with landlords. The argument for landlords being that some people can't afford to own a home becomes a bit moot when landlords buy up all the houses and rent them back at unaffordable prices.
Why is it any different with a house?
Because you rent a car for, like you said, a vacation. That's like renting a hotel room. You rent a home to live in. If you could afford a mortgage, you'd buy a home. But landlords basically go "hey, the bank doesn't think you make enough money to make regular payments, so make those payments to me instead."
This is exactly the problem with landlords. The argument for landlords being that some people can’t afford to own a home becomes a bit moot when landlords buy up all the houses and rent them back at unaffordable prices.
You make it sound like that's the normal case, but it's just not so. Here's a Pew research article.
72.5% of single-unit rental properties are owned by individuals, while 69.5% of properties with 25 or more units are owned by for-profit businesses.
I don't mean to minimize it as a problem - it's a big one - but the vast majority of rental house landlords aren't big corporations buying up all the available places and jacking up prices, it's individual's who decided to rent their place out instead of selling it.
The problem most people have is their credit, not the mortgage payments. Both my mortgages (I'm not a landlord, but I do airbnb 3 months out of the year) are $1500/month, and most people pay that and more just for rent.
Nevermind the fact that some people are eligible to buy a home, but think they won't qualify so they dont try. I was in that group with a credit score of 680, which is acceptable for the first time home owners program. I was accepted, and now I own 2 homes.
Drug companies produce the actual drugs though. They are creating value by making the drug and the money they make from selling it is their reward for creating value. Landlords do not build the house, so they do not create value.
And renting a car is different because its not something you need to simply survive and less importantly we don't have a car shortage. And also you typically don't rent a house just for a week most people rent houses for years and years until they can afford to buy a house, at which point their landlord has made 10s or maybe even hundreds of thousands off of them, while doing little work and adding no value. Like I'm not arguing against hotels or even renting in general, I'm against landlording for private homes, because its inherently unethical, just like buying all the food in a supermarket and selling it to the same supermarket customers at a markup to make profit for no work.
I guess we just disagree. I've said why I think they can be providing a useful service and create a win/win situation, but you don't see it that way. Good discussing with you.
By this reasoning, farming for anyone other than yourself is also inherently immoral.
Farmers exploit someone's basic need for food for massive profit, keeping people trapped in the rental cycle as they are having to pay for food from the farmer to pay their business loan for them and so is much harder to save for their own farm.
I was just going to have a discussion about housing, but something in what you said made me curious about something else- Hopefully this isn't too personal of a question, but do you make many friends with that sort of approach to conversation?
Yes, I'm only abrasive to people who are purposefully being dense and I'm lucky enough to have surrounded myself with intelligent people.
Idk I feel like there's also something to be said to have the freedom to just buy another house after saving a bit. It sounds so easy, but most families would have to sell their house in order to upsize.
Never moved but my mom was in credit unions and the trade in of the house was pretty common. In all fairness, there were many "multiple apartment complex owners" at that same CU, they were notably colder and exclusively about numbers (i.e. throwing a fit and sending another appraiser to their barely functional building to get a dozen k).
Yeah, there are honestly a lot of reasons to rent instead of buy. One of the main ones is uncertainty about the market. Lots of times people think that the prices in an area are inflated and likely to come down. If you buy, you risk taking a big loss. The landlord, in that case, is the one with the risk. Similarly, if you don't plan to stay in an area for several years, it can be more trouble (and even cost) than it's worth. I've also known people who simply don't want to be bothered with the upkeep, even if they can afford to buy. There's a real freedom in being able to just pick up the phone when anything isn't working, there's a leak, or whatever.
Even if you try being a good landlord, dealing with some tenants can really darken your soul...
It's also not as lucrative as most would think. I have a few rentals and it's certainly not enough to quit my day job in IT. It's maybe an extra $15-20k in my pocket at the end of the year after expenses and taxes and such, and I spend at least 10-20 hours a week doing accounting, maintenance tasks, coordinating contractors, legal stuff, etc. Sure, the equity is nice too, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me until retirement age.
As far as whether landlords can be "good", I see myself as providing a valuable service to those who cannot or don't want to become homeowners. In a perfect world, those who cannot but want to become homeowners should, but the cost of housing has little to do with rentals and almost everything to do with zoning, development restrictions, and tax structure. Until that world exists, someone has to offer rental properties to these people, otherwise where would they live?
Until that world exists, someone has to offer rental properties to these people, otherwise where would they live?
If all the available housing wasn't bought up by people wanting an extra 20k a year in rent, they'd live there.
If not landlords (and it often isn't), it would be owner occupants buying them at equally obscene prices. Contrary to what the media might lead you to believe, something like 80% of housing units are owner occupant.
If not landlords (and it often isn’t), it would be owner occupants
That's exactly what I'm saying. If it wasn't for someone purchasing it just to profit off someone else just trying to live, it could be purchased by someone actually living there. You see how that's better right?
It might be better for that one individual who purchased for themselves, but the people who can afford to buy is a much smaller group than those who can afford to rent. A healthy housing market has a good mix of both, because even if everyone who wants to own does, there will still be plenty of people who want to rent too. Whether it's because they aren't planning on staying more than a few years, or simply because they don't want to have to deal with the tribulations of home ownership of which there are many.
Well, we're already moving quite the distance from
In a perfect world, those who cannot but want to become homeowners should
In regards to
but the people who can afford to buy is a much smaller group than those who can afford to rent
You did say you were profiting off the rent. So the person paying the rent could afford to make all the payments you are making with the money they are currently spending on rent.
there will still be plenty of people who want to rent too.
I have no problem with people renting out their basement, that is adding to the number of available homes. Single unit dwellings should be illegal to rent out and landlords should have to live on the property they are renting.
The main point I'm trying to make is that rentals existing is not the reason housing is expensive and difficult to obtain, it's a supply issue. Remove red tape, build more housing, so there's enough for all the people who want to own and the people who want to rent. Fix that, then see how it balances out with natural market forces, and then you create policy if things are still wacky.
As for profiting off rent, yes, the tenants in any of my rentals could afford a 30yr mortgage payment with the cost of their rent. However, when I start adding in costs like maintenance, property taxes, insurance, and my own time and sweat, most of my tenants are paying similar if not less out of their pocket every month than they would be if they owned the home they lived in, the only difference being that they aren't building equity. It's not like they don't get anything out of the deal either, they never have to worry about finding a plumber for a weekend emergency, or having to dig up $15k when the roof needs replacing, and most importantly, they can move somewhere else with zero risk of going underwater on a mortgage. Now, all that said, there are shitty landlords and property mgmt. companies out there and I would absolutely support reasonable legislation to get them to behave.
As for renting SFH, I disagree, although I am of course biased given that most of my portfolio is SFH. Just because someone doesn't want to be a homeowner doesn't mean they shouldn't have the opportunity to live in a detached house. I'm not strictly opposed to some limitations on SFH rentals, but I still think we need to fix the supply issue before looking at that further. That said, I do think multi unit housing is much more efficient, and if it were made a lot easier to build, a huge number of landlords would readily switch from SFH to that. Heck, I want to replace some of my SFH rentals with multi units (I think du/triplexes are a good balance without sticking out too much in an otherwise SFH neighborhood), but getting planning approval for it is such a byzantine nightmare that I've given up for the most part.
My mom rented out 3 apartments and earned barely enough to take care of the two of us. A significant portion of her expenses go toward treating her type 1 diabetes
What's a "good" landlord? Someone that upholds all of their obligations that the law says they have to do in order to make money off of the actual work of others? Still a parasite.
ThEy PrOvIdE a SeRvIcE!
Yes, the service of buying property so now property is unaffordable for me and I HAVE to rent if from you for more than my mortgage would have been, but you know, banks...
There might not be a good landlord, but there might be landlords that are not bad. My rent is low (too low and the government starts adding taxes to compensate your "non-competition") and did not get increased in the years I have been living here. Broken things get fixed in a reasonable time, there are no scammy charges and so on.
So does the person who made your coffee this morning not deserve a place to live? What about the person who delivered your dinner? The person who delivers your mail? The one who picks up your trash? The people who built your house? The person who stocks your groceries?
wHaT dO yOu Do FoR a LiViNg?
What does that have to do with your right to a roof over your head?
What do you do for a living?
I sell drugs to minors and bribe police to allow me to keep doing it.
No, I'm a construction worker building houses and units.
No, I'm a construction worker building houses and units.
So you, the mastermind behind the housing crisis, blame the victim?
Why do people have to rent? Because they cannot buy because construction workers refuse to build enough housing.
Why do landlords charge so much rent? Well, the biggest contributor to that is mortgage costs, driven up by out of control labor costs for construction.
The rest of the rent goes into savings by the landlord. The reality is, most renters are not as gentle with their homes as owners are and when something breaks, they demand that the landlord fix it and threaten to withhold rent until it is fixed. Facing financial ruin if they cannot make mortgage payments, the landlords are forced to turn to greedy construction workers preying on people backed into the corner. The construction workers take all of the set aside "excess rent" and more.
So really, we should stop blaming land lords and start blaming construction workers. They could, literally, build a free house for everyone.
…
I am joking, if that was not clear.
For a moment there, I thought your second sentence was going to be confessing that you were also a landlord.
What do you do for a living?
So you have no idea and just assume they don't "deserve" to have shelter of their own?
That's not true at all.
I move around a lot and have rented from some great landlords in the past who kept the price low, property in great condition and couldn't be more helpful when I've had problems. Granted I've had some awful ones too, usually big companies, but it's definitely not fair to say there aren't good ones out there.
I get that the world likes things in absolutes, and it's easy to say that landlords are parasites and shouldn't exist .. but that neglects that not everyone wants to put down roots or go through the property of buying and selling a property every time they move. I'm definitely not defending the big investment companies who are just there to monopolise the market and squeeze every penny they can out of it, but it's the same with every industry, there will always be bad actors who will exploit the system if they're allowed to.
Landlords aren't bad because they treat their tenants poorly, they're bad because they make a living by monetizing a basic human necessity. It's like saying there are no good billionaires, or all cops are bastards. Of course there are landlords who treat their tenants well, billionaires who donate a lot of money, cops who actually want to serve and protect, but saying they're all bad is really saying they are perpetuating a broken system. Landlords are bad because you shouldn't have to pay a monthly bill to have somewhere to sleep. Billionaires are bad because you can't make that much money without exploiting the working class. Cops are bad because their complicit in abusing power.
I don't think privatized water utility companies are any better than landlords. They're both symptoms of the same broken system. Utilities should really be government services, paid for by taxes. When water treatment is privatized, their business is no longer providing clean water, it's making money. They just choose to make their money by throttling people's access to clean water
Look, you making rational and nuanced arguments has no place here. We want pitchforks and torches!
The Nazis used torches, so those are out, and have you ever looked into the symbology of the pitchfork? It comes from the three prongs of the trident, of Posiedon fame, and we don't do religion here.
Ours put our rent up 25% so just because I was upset I paid this month's rent a week late and they were complaining they needed the money to pay their montgage... Bitch please I don't wanna hear about your financial problems
They need your money to pay their mortgage. Looks like you are paying for their house. I guess it's one thing if that house is entirely occupied by you, but I've had this very same situation where I'm renting their basement yet paying $1300 (which was actually more than their mortgage)
It's so fucking disgusting and insulting to not only not be able to afford your own home because of all this b.s, but to also be paying for someone else's home...
I run a small senior living complex in a rural town. We have the cheapest rent in town. We scrape by, trying to make improvements here and there. They are maintained though. We seriously charge hundreds of dollars less than the next closest complex in the area. We refused to raise our rent in the past 4 years dispite rising taxes and utility bills. Most our tenants are widows/widowers living off a fixed income. We are either too nice or bad business owners because that "fix my AC" One always stings and reaches into my personal budget. And by "personal budget" I mean I eat ramen for a couple weeks.
Anyway, I actually feel like this meme. Other than my tenants are usually happy. Occasionally we get someone who is just never happy no matter what you do. I know all the other complexes are owned by one company essentially creating a monopoly and they have exploited this town. We get calls from people crying because they will be homeless.
For every one good landlord like you there's 1mil slumlords that don't think you even need AC, or think that black mould isnt a health hazard.
Bless you.
Tenants deserve to live in house conditions that the landlords themselves would be willing to live in.
It's the model of housing as a business that is the problem, no matter how benevolent an operator may try to be. The market is designed to eliminate you as competition and reward the exploitative monopolistic company.
More importantly is whether or not you are or would ever act as a firewall against competing (or at this point any) housing development.
Like if a subsidized public housing for seniors opened up next door to your complex offering rates at or below your own: would you support it given this persistent at risk population?
We would support it. We only have 24 units, we field at least 50 calls a day. We would be fine. We have turned down an offer from the company that owns the other complexes. The offer was 3 times what we paid 10 years ago and had a few more zeros on the end of what we still owe. But these tenants have become family. Also from a business owner perspective I would rather have this steady income than the BS of a quick payday then having to reinvest somewhere else and work are butts off to get that sustainable without turning into a scumbag landlord. Landlording is easy if you charge exorbitant prices and pay people to do everything. We do all the work ourselves to keep the cost down. Meanwhile I work another full time job. So does my wife and we have two kids. I don't have time to get another property to this point of sustainability.
I'm a landlord. I'm priced WELL below the market because my tenant is state patrol and is a great guy and a good family. I haven't raised his rent ever. I will raise it when my HOA goes up next year, but that's only to help cover my fees. If keep the rent so I can pick the right renters that is compatible with me. I rather have a good renter than a few bucks more a month.
We need more landlord rights. And stop these filthy peasants from getting our carpets dirty.
Oh, the hard, hard life of the rent-seeker who is stupidly greedy and unwilling to lose a little bit of profit to pay somebody else - like an agency - to take care of all the work and manage their assets, so instead of making money purely from having money without lifting a finger, they have to suffer the indignity of actually working a few hours a week like poor people.
The pain and suffering must be unbearable...
If there's something that landlords and tenants can agree on, I think it's that real estate agencies are the absolute fucking worst.
In Economics "rent-seeking" is seeking to receive a "rent", but the concept of "rent" here is broader than merelly the kind of rent paid for a property (for example, when banks place themselves in the position to get a commission out of every small financial transaction out there, through "Touch To Pay" schemes, they are "rent-seeking").
So whilst not all rent-seekers are landlords (probably not even most rent-seekers), all landlords are rent-seekers, which is exactly how I handled those definitions in my post.
Your post is like saying "'Apple' is not the same as 'fruit'" when somebody else whilst talking about apples called them "fruit".
Landlords aren't necessarily rent-seekers (though some individuals conceivable could be) as economists use the term, and your lack of understanding of economic rent-seeking is something you can fix.
Rent-seeking is a concept in economics that states that an individual or an entity seeks to increase their own wealth without creating any benefits or wealth to the society. Rent-seeking activities aim to obtain financial gains and benefits through the manipulation of the distribution of economic resource
Providing a home is a benefit to the society.
Credit processors (what you're calling "banks") provide a service to merchants. They are also not rent-seeking.
A builder provides the "home", not the landlord.
The landlord just takes advantage of a superior financial position to sit between the builder and the person who actually needs a home, and get a periodic payment for that.
As you seem to be having trouble with that, I've done the google search for you, so here's Wikipedia's definition of Rent-Seeking.
An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created, or to impose regulations on competitors, in order to increase one's own market share.[15] Another example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. According to some libertarian perspectives, taxi licensing is a textbook example of rent-seeking.[16] To the extent that the issuing of licenses constrains overall supply of taxi services (rather than ensuring competence or quality), forbidding competition from other vehicles for hire renders the (otherwise consensual) transaction of taxi service a forced transfer of part of the fee, from customers to taxi business proprietors.
The concept of rent-seeking would also apply to corruption of bureaucrats who solicit and extract "bribe" or "rent" for applying their legal but discretionary authority for awarding legitimate or illegitimate benefits to clients.[17] For example, taxpayers may bribe officials to lessen their tax burden.
One would assume they would list... You know... rent, if it applied
You not liking landlords doesn't change the meaning of words. You can still dislike landlords, and just use words properly.
You seem to have missed the whole part of that article (most of it) about how the expression had its origin in describing the activities of those using land ownership to extract rents.
You know, getting a "rent" for "land", also known as being a "landlord".
All that your quote does is confirm the point I made two comments above that "rent-seeker" is group that includes all of "landlord" like "fruit" is group that includes all "apples" - I suppose when you're willfully blind it's normal to run around in circles.
What you're missing is they were literally lords, who literally owned land, and extracted rents from shit like charging to harvest kelp on their shoreline, or charging a toll to navigate down a stream, etc.
Ie. not contributing any benefit (preventing access to a natural resource/mode of travel otherwise possible)
It has nothing to do with providing homes, which is a distinct economic benefit.
This all comes from this very long bit of Adam Smith's work, which I will link in its entirety and encourage you to read, with the above definition of a literal landlord in mind.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
As a similar confusing distinction, though a modern toll road may seem similar to extracting rent to navigate a stream, a modern toll road explicitly addresses the externalities of using the road (ie. Damage to the road), and is a non-negative use of rent seeking.
That isn't clear at all because it seems like all the vitriol in this thread is about the very concept of owning real property and renting it to someone who wants to rent. This thread is not at all about landlords not fulfilling their contractual obligations. All I'm seeing here is "fuck landlords and big bad mean rich people" and it's really childish and immature. Nobody has suggested a viable alternative yet to that, including you.
I don't know if this is the right place for it, but an idea I've had:
Charge a high tax penalty on home ownership if the home is fully functional and livable, but spends over a certain percentage of the year unoccupied by any person as their primary residence (and a steadily accumulating tax for any home that spends too many years in an unlivable state)
This might put pressure back on landlords to put their homes on market for reasonable prices, instead of inflating their rents based on MBA recommendations long past what people can pay simply to "keep the property value high". It would severely devalue the idea of owning homes the same way you would own piles of gold, as long-term investments people are hesitant to actually use.
Would the tax be federal, state, or local level?
How does one prove occupancy to show they aren't subject to this tax?
How would the tax authority determine the same in order to prove noncompliance?
Does this effectively prohibit second and third homes? Am I allowed to put real property in a holding company?
I'm not trying to start a ruckus here, just asking questions. It's a big problem but I'm not sure if tax is the solution. Usually when people suggest solving problems with taxes it isn't fully thought through and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I can't claim to know the benefits of state, local, or fed taxes. Like a lot of things, I imagine it's better trialed on a local then state level, and might never reach federal.
Like a lot of tax claims, it may just be reliant on claims, and would not always require proof. You file for taxes, you report 3 homes, you state which one you occupied; or you state that you had a tenant in that home. If you're audited on your taxes, they may find you falsely reported a tenant, which would be tax fraud. The IRS could find reason to audit someone if, for instance, they're freely posting on Facebook "Yeah, just say you have tenants who do not wish to be named, they can't do anything about it". Many tax rules already work by self-reporting, and/or finding conflicts in prior documentation.
It would not prohibit third homes, but you'd have to pay a hefty property tax to hold onto an extra home and require it to stay empty while people are out there homeless. So, you'd have to be rich and not care that simply owning these properties bleeds you money (which is the opposite of how being rich usually works - your properties generate so much value by "existing" that you can simply persist a high quality of life just off residual income)
Pretty sure a tax like that at the federal level would be unconstitutional. The 16th amendment authorizes an income tax, not a real estate tax on empty houses. State and local level attempts to do that would be a prieoners dilemma situation. Good for everyone overall if everybody cooperated, but too much incentive to be the one county or state that doesn't tax the shit out of rich people for their third home, thus attracting the wealthy there.
Again I agree in principle but idk if tax is a feasible solution. (I'm a cpa btw for whatever that's worth.)
