You guys are joking and everything, but that’s what they actually think
The joke falls kinda flat for me because I hear this too much already, but not as a joke…
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.
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 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.
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…
What did it mean before then?
As I said, things change.
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.
When was that, 160 years ago?
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…
I was referring to Lincoln.
…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)
deleted by creator
4 liberals so far are mad at reality
I rent out homes and I dont get any of these because I only rent out to hispanic working families. Fight me
Someone I know is like this, unironically.
Historically people with the title “lord” have had it so hard.
The Gaylords would like a word
“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
McDonald’s is always hiring.
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.
Cog in a machine
As a professional cook it be like that sometimes 😅
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.
Maybe you should buy the property then you won’t have to deal with renting.
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?
No. Most of the properties are left empty…
Or just evict them. I rent a portion of my home that I live in.
Aw man, it’s almost like they think they are paying you…
Removed by mod
Not nearly enough. Rents due rentoid.
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.
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.
demanding $2000 a month.
Could be very reasonable or even cheap depending on location.
Does cheap mean they’re allowed to not fulfill their maintenance requirements meanwhile showing up on the dot collection day to take rent?
No. Use your rights. Withhold payment until the service is restored.
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.
deleted by creator
It truly is a wonder why y’all are hated. You’re so… humble.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
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.
Or all these people are fucking idiots who are just obsessed with labels and culture wars.
New here?
Well that’s rather snowflakey… if you aren’t part of the problem why are you identifying with 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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.”
Removed by mod
🖕😁
You can also tell by her anorexic physique that she’s no landchad. No fridge raiding happening here.
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.
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right.
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.
Being right is its own reward.
I guess, but the mass incorrectness still annoys me lol
Fair. I was thinking today he seemed more to be referring to crops
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.
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)
You should tip at least 200%. Less is just selfish.
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.
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.
edit: the mods leave up comments that insult landlords but delete my comments that insult people who insult landlords. stay classy, clowns.
I worked for money and then bought a house. Try it. But that would require getting a job in a field that actually matters, and then actually doing the work. I work in IT. What do you do for a living? :)
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?
No such thing as a good landlord.
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.
There’s a reason “rent seeing behaviour” is a derogatory term.
deleted by creator
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.
All rentoids are bad. Rents due poor.
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.
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.
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.
Not all heros wear capes
M
Yeh I support LGBT…
Landlords
GOP
Billionaires
The police
😎
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’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.
I think the real test is if you give their deposit back. I’ve never gotten my deposit back without a fight, even after cleaning the apartment top-to-bottom. That’s why I always take photos before leaving.
Shit my place was in better condition when I left than the way it was when moved in and they still wouldn’t give the deposit back.
Free market doesn’t work quite so well when it’s a required item like housing or medical.
I cleaned the nasty ass yellow chain-smoker patina from the previous tenant off of my walls that were actually white.
This happened to me once. They sent a guy to check my place out, he said “Looks good, you’ll get your security deposit back.” Then months went by. Well unfortunately for them my BIL is a real estate lawyer and he was happy to draw up a packet of documents I could take to small claims court. I had to serve them about 3 times, each time the cost of serving them got tacked on. They didn’t show so I won by default so now the real work begang, collecting. They FINALLY paid it but I said, “You need to add the cost of serving you to it.” so they drew up a new check. Yup, a pain in the ass.
Other landlords have different policies, but personally, what I return depends on if things are damaged not caused by wear and tear. So that depends on how long a tenant rents from my place.
Eg., If someone stays for a year and I got new carpets for them and it’s ruined, then I’m charging for the spots that couldn’t be cleaned.
Eg.,2: If someone stayed with me for 3 years and the carpet is already 8 years old, it doesn’t matter if it’s completely ruined, I’m not charging for that carpet.
This holds true for everything in the house.
One of my tenants wants to get a dog and the carpet is already 10 years old. I didn’t even charge more security deposits because once he lives, I’m going to replace that carpet.
This is the way!
My previous landlord was like this. Lived there 4 years, rent never went up. We left the place like we found it (which was pristine).
Just bc you are a great landlord doesn’t mean anyone should be able to hold such power over anyone. Not to mention ownership of land is a human concept we can live without.
Not to mention ownership of land is a human concept we can live without.
How would you do it differently?
So how do you handle it when there are more people than space available? How do you cover the cost of maintenance? What would prevent someone from taking your house without ownership rights?
I don’t have power over my tenants. They have as much power as I do. They can leave and I can also ask him to leave.
They have zero obligation to stay at my place.
I have a space to rent and they need a place to live. It’s a business transaction that both parties benefit from.
‘Abolish ownership’ is a pretty simple talking point, how would you make it work in a legal sense?
Who determines what is your responsibility vs the neighbor vs the city? How do you establish legal boundaries for purposes of theft, vandalism, or trespassing?
Laws might seem cold (because they are) or inhumane (because they are) but they are also the thing that keeps society organized. And that makes them one of the most important human inventions. Rights are the result of laws.
If you’re concerned about land prices, or people being ‘priced out’ of things, there are important alternate solutions to that kind of problem. Things like social services, improving education, breaking up super corporations, promoting healthy neighborhood design and small business, etc.
I think one main argument of people that take the ‘abolish ownership’ seriously don’t mean the concept of owning things you need and use, but the concept of claiming ownership of property that you DON’T use and use that as a way of enacting power over others. So I would say it wouldn’t be throwing people out of their homes but that owning property you are not using your self would not be legal. You could grab land or an empty house and it would be yours as long as you need it. Of cause this will not get rid of all the problems and conflict that already exists in some form now, but it doesn’t have to be total chaos and lawlessness.
You’re a bum. How dare you. You take money for nothing. You should let him live there for free. No one should own anything. I hate tipping. Fuck cars. I think that about covers it. :)
You forgot to tell him to use Linux.
Yeah, Fedora.
Gimme gimme gimme!
A company selling something I don’t like should be illegal.
ah, the typical landlord. A good example of a useless “jobs” that litter the world
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.
Indeed!
“Rent-seeking” as an economic concept is not when you collect rent, as a landlord does.
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 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.
Please suggest a solution.
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.)
Landlords fulfill their contract and do the work? I thought that was clear
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 want responding to the entire thread, only to you
So out of context and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, got it.
Don’t be so hard on yourself. Your post had value.
Image Transcription:
A drawn picture of a woman with shoulder-length blue hair and purple suit jacket over a darker purple long-sleeve button-down shirt, hanging her head dejectedly while a semicircle of fingers ring her head, accompanied by the words: “Parasite!”, “Fix my AC!”, “Tenants have rights!”, “Leech!”, “Hope you get Mao’d!”, “Let me live here for free!”, “Rent control!”, and “Rich Scum!”. Below the picture is a caption reading: No one understands the landlord struggle…
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
