this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
942 points (99.4% liked)

People Twitter

7977 readers
1067 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 day ago

I get that it's satire but it makes a good point. It is the government's problem that renting out property is financially incentivized. We can't expect any significant number of landlords to start charging below market rent. Especially because many of those landlords are public corporations who must act in the interest of their shareholders, directly against the interests of their tenants. This is the government's problem to regulate and in absence of the regulation effort is better spent targeting government than individual landlords/corporations imo. Ya the government won't do anything, they are the landlords after all, but at least there's a path to changing the financial incentive through government.

[–] JokeDeity@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago

This has to be satire. TELL ME IT'S SATIRE!

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 53 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Yes, this is a satire account, but I've heard the exact same crap from so-called "small landlords" who think clearly the problem is someone else.

Every small contributor that makes up the bulk of the problem thinks the REAL problem is the one that's bigger than them and they're the small potatoes, or the good one.

This applies to EVERYTHING. Not just property.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I've had two good small landlords and a few bad ones, and all corporate landlords have been bad except for one that was okay aside from the semi annual fire evacuations for the laundry room

the good landlords were renting at fair prices and doing honest work. the bad ones were overcharging for students and not doing a fucking thing, including several months where the basement was slowly flooding through the foundation and I had half my carpet pulled up

I don't have a problem with the good landlords who rented out their long since paid off crappy but maintained place for students at fair prices. it's the hoarding, price gouging, and not putting a fucking cent back into it that pisses me off.

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

There should be nothing wrong with owning multiple houses. But your property tax should be adjusted on every house you own depending on the number of houses that own. It should be completely cost prohibitive at a certain point to own more than 2 or 3 homes. It should kick in after a year or two, so that it gives people more than enough time to purchase a new home, fix it up or renovate, and then time to sell the previous house. Owning houses shouldn't be a profit-making venture.

[–] neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Societal problems should be solved by the government, not by individual actions.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

At a practical level, I agree with you.

That DOESN'T mean that if you do shitty things just because they're legal, you get to be exempted from people's judgement.

For example, shorting stocks and collapsing basically profitable companies for short-term gains is totally legal. Doing it still makes you a piece of trash, and I will judge you, and encourage others to judge you, as such.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

It's like... I try to think of what an "ethical landlord" might look like, and I just can't picture it. Realistically the only """service""" they provide is not having to save for a down payment and fixing things that break*(I know they don't, but I'm trying to imagine what it would take for one to be ethical, so they actually would be in this hypothetical)*. The things a land lord will take care the ability of their tenants to build equity. That's the benefit of owning. Pro-landlord people will say landlords take the risk of property values decreasing, but that's pretty rare. Especially considering landlords inherently are taking up stock. So to be generous I'll assume property value is static.

Even in this crazy optimistic, crazy generous hypothetical, land lords still rob tenants of equity because they aren't able to get a down payment together. The only thing I can see making it fair is the landlord gives that equity back, either by charging exactly what the property's mortgage is or transferring a portion of the ownership over every payment and... Now wait a second... This sounds like... BANKS. A MORTGAGE. Seriously. Every time I try to imagine what it would take to really really be an ethical landlord it just comes back to being a bank or mortgage.

Maybe there's some place for folks to act as very very small banks and give a mortgage to someone like this, but like... It's so convoluted.

TLDR: I view them as leeches even when I'm giving them every benefit of the doubt in a favorable hypothetical.

[–] ShawiniganHandshake@sh.itjust.works 71 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Lots of people seem to be missing this - Chase Passive Income is a satirical account.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

I don't know how they could miss that. It is very clearly a satirical post. No rich people are either that self aware or interested in outing themselves as greedy useless pieces of shit.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Its real like the goldmen Sachs elevator

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago

That's very nice. Now please face the wall.

[–] ook@discuss.tchncs.de 196 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] casmael@mander.xyz 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah this one or the bicycle meme

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

He’s not getting hurt like in the bicycle meme though, just hurting others.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 161 points 2 days ago (19 children)

I can walk into a bank today with a mortgage cheaper than rent, and I’ll be denied cause I don’t make enough money, explain that logic to me.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 98 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Landlords don't care if your rent is sustainable for you in the long term. They have nothing to lose if at one point you can't afford it anymore, someone else will.

Banks on the other hand care very much if you'll be able to pay your loan in full. Even with the house as collateral, it's much better for them if you just paid your loan instead of them having to deal with all that.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 days ago (9 children)

"they get the house if you don't pay" really isn't so great after you've look at what they actually get for those houses.

Generally, people don't get foreclosed on when their house looks super fancy and well maintained.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MBech@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago

Had that happen a few years ago. Banks are in on the landlord scheme and they can go fuck themselves. Unfortunately it's literally impossible to live without a bank today. At least in my country.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If something were to happen, and you couldn't make rent, you might get evicted, which would be inconvenient.

If something were to happen, and you couldn't make the mortgage, the bank might lose money, which is unconscionable.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] myotheraccount@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

It's easy guys, if nobody would rent, everyone could be a landlord, and we could let the rent rise to 10k a month or more even, and we all get rich on rent. How does nobody realize this? It's irl infinite money glitch!

[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 70 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] WhatThaFudge@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago

The fact that we have to ask this is the point I think.. Hilarious post btw! 🤣

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 77 points 2 days ago (24 children)

This isn't small timers, it's corporations buying up all of the housing, building only "luxury" apartments and price fixing the fuck out of the rent.

Then they spout "Trickle Down Housing" where the "luxury" apartments will be available in 30 years.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago

The guy said "these houses, ...each" so he could own the whole area and jack up the rents, not be a small timer. But yeah, it's not the person renting out Grandma's old place to help pay for her nursing home.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 79 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

A) This is a hoax account

B) You can still get cheaper housing if you don't live in the whitest, red-lined-ass, suburban enclaves in your state

C) Even then, it doesn't matter, because landlords primarily benefit from very low borrowing costs rather than low housing costs. A $300k house was still functionally unaffordable to anyone earning $45k/year, unless your credit score got you one of those sweet sub-3% ZIRP era loans. Renting was effectively paying a vig to a guy with a better interest rate than you.

D) ZIRP also flooded the market with the excess cash that made $300k basic bitch housing possible. And then turned those $300k homes into $600k homes 15 years later.

E) Build Public Housing

F) And municipal mass transit, so you don't have to sit in traffic for a hour every day

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] credo@lemmy.world 64 points 2 days ago (25 children)

This is the, “If I don’t do it, someone else will,” argument. Which is true.

There is always all least one other ass hole out there.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›