561
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
561 points (91.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5408 readers
5890 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
- !whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !best_of_mastodon@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Betty and Bob are in an unfortunate situation, but they're taking a thing of value and charging money to cover all costs, and make a profit. The tenant is therefore paying the mortgage and all repair costs, and then even more to support what amounts to a leech.
It might be a good arrangement for Betty and Bob, but it makes living somewhere more expensive.
Which is the general point. I can be sympathetic to Betty and Bob, but landlords buying houses leaves less houses for everyone else for a 'job' that doesn't add any real value to society. It just props up someone with the economic means to buy multiple houses and make them a living while hanging the rest of us out to dry.
You could just buy a house.
I'd say there's a difference between renting out a portion of a house the landlord also lives in and purchasing whole other homes and renting them out.
Besides, no matter how nice the multi-home-owning landlord is, the reality is they don't purchase homes and rent them out without making a profit on all expected costs, maintenance included. The better deal for the renter renting a whole home would be to own the home and maintain it, because then they're saving the profit the landlord charges.
A nice polite leech is still a leech.
Sure, everything you purchase in a capitalistic society has profit added to it, but normally there's also added value. You pay more in the brick and mortar store vs buying online because the added value is getting the item immediately. You pay more for the car part at the mechanics shop vs doing it yourself because having a professional install it adds value.
What value does Jim-bob owning 5 homes and renting them out to make a living add to the tenants?
You make that sound like anyone who's able to rent a place is able to buy a place, but at least in the US, that's not alwaxs the case. Sure the mortgage might be cheaper than rent in most cases, but being able to save up enough for that down payment takes a lot. I didn't have the luxury of living with my parents after high school to save up enough for a down payment on a house, so I've had to rent places since then.
Sure maybe all housing should be free, there's certainly enough homes in the US for that to be possible, but the rest of capitalist society makes that impossible, but that's not the fault of every landlord ever. Some, sure, but not all.
Call me old fashioned, but if you're able to pay for the full cost of the mortgage and maintenance of the property, plus your 'share' of the living expenses of your landlord then yeah, I think you're able to afford the property without the landlord.
All your landlord adds is making the property more expensive so you can support their lifestyle.
Damn, that's a hell of a jump to make from my argument. Where did I say that housing should be free?
Just a few thoughts.
So they should pay the same expenses, PLUS extra to support the landlord who could meet the bank's criteria for a loan?
They also don't have to worry about cashing in on the appreciated value of the house since they moved in...
Funny joke. My parents bought a house for $90,000 in 1993 that is worth ~$400,000+ today. What percentage of investments could offer such a yield in the same time-frame?
I still get those same scam calls despite not being a homeowner.
Got anything else?
Obviously there has to be an incentive for Jim-bob to tie up his retirement savings and credit worthiness in a house that he doesn't live in. You may not like the fact that people have to qualify for bank loans to buy property, but this is the world we live in. Especially if you happen to be an undocumented immigrant.
Oh, your anecdotal evidence about your parent's home surely beats my Nobel-prize winning economics study citation. Lucky for your parents they didn't have to sell it in 2010. Because I have anecdotal evidence for someone who bought a house for $400k in 2004 and then later sold it for $280k after the real estate crash.
Also the increasing property value you mention is due to regulatory capture by home owners who prevent the construction of new rental properties for fear it will "hurt their home value." Combined with a mass exodus out of the rural areas into urban areas that are not building homes or city infrastructure fast enough to keep up with the increase in residents in the short run, which results in increased prices for homes in the city until those issues are addressed.
None of these things are "working as intended."
No, you get different scam calls which you assume are the same but are definitely not, since these ones just go out to names on lists of property owners, not random residents.
Obviously if I think landlords are a leech on society, then I must also be in favor of free property for everyone! There's no issue with having to qualify for a loan for a house, but don't piss in my shoes and call it rain. All landlords do is drive up the price of living for someone who could have potentially bought the house they're renting. If they're able to rent it, then they're clearly able to afford the mortgage payments, upkeep, taxes, etc. Plus extra to support the living expenses of the owner.
I sure missed any citations in your post. Unless you think just naming a publication counts as citing it.
cool story bro. There's always cases of people losing out because they buy high and sell low, but in your anecdote, what would the $400,000 home be worth today had the homeowner held onto the property? There is no stock portfolio that would appreciate in value the same way houses have.
Tell me more about the phone calls I receive and how they're not 'real' scam calls.
A place to live without having to handle maintenance/upkeep themselves, to be approved for a mortgage, save up for a downpayment, or to have to sell (and navigate all the mess of that process) when they need to move.
Admittedly, some of the above rely on you having a landlord that isn't shit.
I know a few people who could afford to buy a rather nice home, who instead seek out short term lease rentals to live in, so they can travel more and not need to be tied down to a specific place.
Edit: Also, the maintenance costs passed to the renter are dispersed across time as well, so they aren't having to foot the full cost of say, a new fridge suddenly. In multi-tenant situations, the costs are dispersed across all tenants, so a person needing a laundry machine replaced is somewhat subsidized by everyone else paying in who doesn't, kind of like insurance.
And you end up paying for all of those anyway, plus extra. Minus the equity increase as the house appreciates in value over time. The only party it makes long term financial sense for is the Landlord.
But the landlord charges enough above the mortgage payments to cover that cost, on top of the extra added for profit. The renter could save that extra money, cover the sudden cost of a fridge or washing machine, and have money left over vs renting.