Disclaimer: not advocating for current system.

What alternative would you propose for providing loans?

My controversial (for Lemmy) take is that loans are good for society. They provide an incentive to not hoard resources, but provide them to those who want to put them into action today for future benefit.

A good loan benefits both parties, ie. An auto loan that allows someone to buy a car to get to a job to earn an income that is above the cost of the loan. Without the loan that person couldn't get to work and whatever service they were providing to society is lost.

All that said - that doesn't mean the way loans work today is the best solution, but the same functionality of trading current and future resources needs to exist. You don't have to call it a loan, and it doesn't have to be performed by private for profit institutions, but if you want a thriving economy I believe you need this function carried out somehow.

The equivalent function in Communism is (or historically has been) a centrally planned resource allocation which very clearly is a horrible idea because of the incentives towards corruption. If you take a literal interpretation of communism (instead of historical) where "the workers own the means of production" trade unions could fulfill this current to future resource allocation function. I do not know if this would create the same corruption as single central authority, but my gut feels is that it would (based on the US labor union and organized crime affiliation of the past.

In short, the current function for trading current and future resources (ie. loans) is far from ideal, but I have not found an alternate that provides more benefits than deficits. I would love to learn about more alternatives, but just saying 'loans R bad' makes it sound like you're advocating getting rid of them with nothing to handle their underlying function, which is a terrible idea.

And even if the bank owns 90% of the home you are still on the hook to pay the full property taxes.

I'm pretty sure banks don't just make up money but I'd be interested in finding out why you think they do.

I agree with you. And yeah it's bizarre that loans are literally just a privilege that banks get...to create new money out of thin fucking air. I agree--Biggest scam in history.

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

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

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

The two big main ones I can think of.

They provide short term housing. If your only planning to say 1-2 years in a location it often doesn't make much sense to buy a house.

They also take on all of risk of the property.

Obviously I am not saying landlords are the greatest thing in the world but they do serve a purpose.

Some people don't want to be locked down to one place for long. When I was in my twenties I moved to a different town every year when my lease was up just to see if I would like it better somewhere else. Or I'd get a raise and be able to afford a better place the next year. For people that want relatively short term housing, renting is a far superior option.

If I took out a mortgage on a place and then sold it a year later, I'd have almost no equity since you pay almost all interest in the front part of the loan.