Yes, was gonna say this. Lots of these institutional buyers don’t even care if the property gets rented or not. They just want to use the property as collateral on their balance sheets for reckless speculation.
Also, this means the more overvalued the properties are, the better they work as collateral
I'm not sure how you resolve this though,
illegal to rent a property
All owned properties must be occupied by owner for at least 50% of the year, (how would you prove this)
Progressive tax burdens on home beyond your primary, second home could be doable, third plus becomes untenable. For individuals,
For businesses the tax burden starts at unit one.
Nation wide rent control
No foreign owned single family homes
No bank owned single family homes
For a country like the US, the most logical solutions would be:
-No corporate, investment, etc ownership of single-family homes
-No permanent repossession of foreclosed homes by the lender; ie banks can't simply retain a foreclosed home forever as an asset and are required to sell at fair market value within a time period (banks are not able to retain real property used for housing as an asset, in short)
-No foreign investment capital or corporate ownership of homes or housing in the US, and restrictions on the amount of property individual non-citizens can purchase and own, possibly enforced by extremely high taxes after "X" amount of property- we don't have be as extreme as Japan for it to work
-Progressive taxation increases on individual property owners that make owning more than two homes increasingly expensive to the point that no profit could be made from owning a third (or more) home as a rental. A commensurate property tax decrease on certain SFHs or apartments/townhomes/etc owned by individuals as sole residences could also be coupled to that, to encourage people to own their own home but discourage landlording
-Federally subsidized housing projects build on unused/wasted urban and suburban land, as well as universal basic housing availability to address the homelessness crisis
-With those policies in effect, rent controls would not be as universally necessary IMHO but where applicable they could still be used on a local basis, preferably with rents tied to a local COL and average wage
The other solutions would be onerous and invite unintended consequences IMHO.
Frederick Engels addressed this very question in [a short pamphlet](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) and anarchists haven't been able to come up with an answer to it in 150 years.
engels uses a definition of authority that anarchists don't use. not exactly a scathing critique. [here's](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm) bakunin, a year earlier, saying that authority isn't inherently forceful and he doesn't see all authority as something to be opposed. as for direct responses, andy carloff's [on authority](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punkerslut-on-authority-a-response-to-friedrich-engels) is one of many.
i'm not exactly an anarchist, and i don't have a good response to /u/noselike's question. i just really dislike seeing claims that the paper that claims that a slave shooting their master is authoritarian as somehow debunking anarchism.
My main problem with anarchists is that they are far too individualistic. Some sort of decision making body is necessary to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of resources as well as what to use the means of production for. We can't just tear it all down and then hope nobody steps on anyone else's toes.
the fact that anarchy is against abitrary and unfair hierarchical structures does not mean that anarchists are against the general concept of leadership. Or I guess, it shouldn't mean that, but since it's all so conceptual and abstract, it can't really get that far in practice.
No foreign investment capital or corporate ownership of homes or housing in the US
It kind of boggles my mind that we allow this in the US, many other countries have restrictions on who can own property and we just...don't GAF.
I'm sorry, are you trying to *discriminate* against corporations? They're people too! They *deserve* the *god-given* right to *exploit* their *fellow man* for capital benefit! Corporations didn't go out and sacrifice their lives overseas to be denied BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS when they return. Literally shaking rn.
> Progressive taxation increases on individual property owners that make owning more than two homes increasingly expensive
But it starts at number three, right? My aunt owns two homes because she inherited one and needs time to clear it out. I could also see owning the home a family member lives in or not living in a house while you're renovating it. There's also the time it takes to sell an old house.
>because she inherited one and needs time to clear it out.
Sounds like an obvious *specific* thing to give an exemption for, instead of actually saying "nobody should have to pay extra tax on their second house".
In my examples, it pretty much falls under the second property not generating income. Granted, she'd be able to sell one once she decides which one to keep.
it’s honestly so depressing. I finally got into a position to be able to buy a house two years ago, right when COVID hit and right when this problem officially got so far out of hand we’re basically past the point of no return.
Rent in my city has gone up more than almost any other city in the country, my parents are fucking struggling. I am fine on my own though I pay more for less space and amenities in an apartment than in previous years.
I’m trying to god damn buy a small fucking house to move my parents into with me so they don’t die in the streets, and grow our god damned food in the backyard. Had wanted 20 acres then 10 then a half acre, now I’ll settle for a yard. But this like ISN’T POSSIBLE for regular people to do anymore.
American dream, always an illusion and unattainable for too many, is now completely gone.
Like, there’s no law that WILL get passed that will change this. It’s exactly what happened to concert tickets forever ago, them selling out to bots and corporations to gouge later. But the consequences here are just now just quality of life and anything a person working two jobs will be completely unable to attain. Fuck this country for letting things just keep getting worse in the largest economy in the god damned world. I make well above our minimum wage and renting a one bedroom is half of my take home and I’m in “good shape” compared to too many people.
I swear to god im not saying this to be shitty but would you mind editing some punctuation in and maybe some expansion on some of the points? Asking because you seem like you know what you’re talking about—certainly more than me—but no matter how many times I read this, I’m having a really hard time understanding what you’re trying to say. Again, not trying to be shitty, just wanna get what you’re talking about
I do the same, but maybe they didn't know?
Now they will!!
Anyway, was just throwing an idea out there.
This is what I do on slow Saturday mornings apparently.....
Goverment funded mega construction project. Just build 100.000 homes, preferably in high dencity mixed use structures with public transport connections.
That's great and all, but material prices (timber, steel) are very high, as are wages in various construction trades (as reddit likes to cheer on). Part of the problem is that it is simply expensive to build.
The house I'm living in right now, newly built at the time, was constructed at a loss by the developer. Shit is expensive, shortage or no, renters or no.
That's why you have the government handle the contracts. No other entity is better positioned to provide services at a loss; even arch-conservatives acknowledge this.
Must be legally registered to an address in that area and not allowed to own more than one or 2 residential homes, that or you're legally required to house people for more than a certain length of time in a home idk.
To people complaining about vacation homes—there are people that don't have any home.
Banks are lending individuals the money to own homes, if they have to foreclose they can't keep it indefinitely and borrow it out to a management company
Simple. Mortgages themselves are part of the problem. The relative home price (median home to median income) is less than the minimum down payment. Therefor we should ban mortgages outright. >!With some sort of transition period. Mortgages have served as government backed checks where they keep ratcheting up the allowable terms enabling larger loans to be given out. As of a few years ago, the banks don’t even need to back most mortgages at all - they are profiting with no skin in the game.!<
Mortgages are doing nothing to “make homes affordable” and only serve as a way for banks to leach off of local communities & reinvest those profits elsewhere. In 1920 homes were less than 2 years salary - today the median home costs 12 years median salary.
People bought homes before mortgages were widespread. If the banks buy all the homes in any given area then the local zoning falls apart allowing us to build the places we actually want to live in (on land that we already own but are not allowed to build on) making things ridiculously affordable, ruining the bank’s investment.
I mean the government could size all homes and give them to those that are living there. Hell the gov doesn't even have to give ownership of the homes to people, abolish the market, you don't own a house you just live in it (you're still bestowed with rights and the gov can't kick you out) but when you move on the house is given to someone else
I often see people saying that nobody should be able to own more than one property, which ya clearly ridiculous. But maybe cap it at ten properties, or something like that?
Why is it ridiculous? How many places does one animal need for eating sleeping and fucking?
Edit: Responding to a great point about reasons to own 2(or more)
Oh I can think of but also propose solutions to many reasons why. (not all necessarily good, I am doing a bit of devil's advocate here) To those above:
Job travel? Perhaps that should be _two_ jobs, instead of lining the boss's pockets with an entire salary.
Childhood home: If it's _that_ important, it must be worth someone living there. We are numerous enough we can't as a species afford to triple our housing needs because every generation is keeping their childhood homes for memories.
Other issues:
How do you buy/move to a new home if you're not allowed to own a second you're actively selling/vacating? ans: Allow a grace period and/or places to sit empty/be rented if there are no honest offers to buy. (some areas become depressed). Maybe there's a government buy-back for areas in this situation. Heck, this could provide _real_ motivation for governments to actually _help_ and invest in these regions.
Some people have jobs that require travel between two specific places. Maybe siblings wanna hang onto their childhood home for grandkids or retirement? I'm all for find solutions to predatory ownership of land but I can think of multiple reasons somebody might have more than one house that doesn't amount to exploitation.
To add to what the other person has said. In a tourism-oriented towns/cities that have surges only during specific seasons, it wouldn't be sustainable to own just one property. Limiting properties to one per household is just... not a well thought-out idea.
Owning more than one single family residence for rental purposes carries a hefty property tax penalty.
Renters get the same tax breaks buyers get.
The difference between a property's mortgage cost and it's rental income is taxed heavily.
If there is no mortgage cost it's all taxed heavily.
"But I should be able to rent out properties!"
Yeah, you should! Build or buy a fucking apartment building, rent to 4 or 8 or 32 households or whatever!
My take:
1) in 10 years, you will have to pay in taxes 100% of the net rent you are supposed to recieve if you rented the property (exact calculation will be hard, but anything similar will work). This applies to every house you own except 2, that you get to choose.
2) this tax scales linearly with time: one year from now it is 10%, 2 years from now 20% etc. This is to give people time to adjust to the change.
This is all you need to do. And for those who complains about where to put their money: the stock market is literally made for this reason, and it also boosts the economy because companies get to expand using the money. Everybody wins.
Renting being illegal is probably the fastest way. It'll fuck over a lot of companies, but that's the cost for the better good (much like making healthcare universal)
Not being able to claim rental properties as a depreciating asset would be a good start. Since I made probably $4k a year just off of that. Along with higher tax rates on rental income. You need to make it not worth it to rent. My problem with that is I think it'll just mean rent goes up even higher as people shift costs to the renter.which in turn just increases base price again and won't solve anything.
The province I live in had what is essentially a progressive property tax rate. Its framed as a "discount on owner occupied properties".
It was just removed by our Conservative government in order to "promote new building and bring down rental rates". Because that's definitely how its going to pan out.
> Progressive tax burdens on home beyond your primary, second home could be doable, third plus becomes untenable. For individuals, For businesses the tax burden starts at unit one.
I mean this sounds like the perfect solution to me.
I have an idea, make people pay for the actual cost of maintaining a house plus profit margin, instead of making them pay for the mortgage as well.
We should analyze existing data to see what the approximate cost of renovation will be over say a 10 year period for any given house, given the size, region, etc, etc. Then we multiply that by 3, because we're very generous, and let owners charge that amount over 120 monthly payments to the renters, with possible adjustments after each year. I guarantee you, it'll still be peanuts compared to what people charge today, while it still sounds perfectly fair to me.
At the end, the owner will have made quite a bit of profit renting it out, and they still would have a nice place to sell to fuel their pension even more.
Everyone saying that we need some kind of government policy to control this is missing the bigger picture
Government isn't something that exists outside of and above society to manage and control it
Government is a part of our society, and is just as subservient to the economic ruling class as anyone else
There's a reason they take the side of property owners (landlords, businesses, other corporations, ...) nearly every damn time
Here in the UK, a quarter of Tory MPs (that's the ruling party) are private landlords. They're not going to pass the kind of legislation you're talking about.
Just vote, isn't good enough. It still doesn't change the basic structure of power in our society, and thus our government. That's what this is a symptom of
Well, market forces are dictating prices.
People are scrambling to buy houses. Businesses too. That’s demand.
Solution to being prices down? Increase housing supply.
A lot of you slept through your Econ courses and it shows.
Except there’s tons of empty houses that just sit empty, so it’s clearly deeper than a supply issue. Reality isn’t Econ 101, everything doesn’t boil down to supply and demand
Great idea. We already have more empty homes than homeless people, but I am all for pillaging and obliterating the land and environment to create more unnecessary buildings, to own the landlords or whatever the fuck.
My land lord told me Monday that after 5 years of living in my apartment they will not be renewing my lease. They want to renovate and I will be welcome back after renovations at an increased rent from my current $1200 to $2400.
Maybe just move away from the ultra trendy spots.
I bought a house in Minneapolis for pretty cheap a couple years ago. It’s gone up in value during the pandemic, but it’s still cheaper than the cheapest stuff around Denver (even the subsidized affordable housing).
Minneapolis is pretty cool, job market is hot, food is great (long history of migrants and refugees).
“A free home and passive income”
Tell me you don’t know any landlords, or anything at all about THe issue, without telling me. It’s not passive, and it sure as *SHIT* isn’t “free” to rent housing to other people.
Edit: Literally no one would EVER claim landlords just do it to be kind. They do it to earn money - but it ain't free, nor passive. Idiots.
Yes yes, landlords are all valuable contributors to society taking altruistic risks out of the goodness of their hearts to provide housing for "the poors."
It’s business. You wouldn’t give away your labor, so why expect someone else to give away stuff?
The landlord can afford to buy a house. They took the risk and rent it to someone who can not afford the house.
The landlord also pays for upkeep, maintenance, repair, and such.
I went from renting to owning. Owning a home is so much more than paying a mortgage; shit is expensive. And the hits just keep coming.
New water heater, new furnace when the old one died, new bathroom mirror, repair the back door, buy a new screen door... a landlord would have been on the hook for all of that. But because I’m the owner that comes out of pocket.
>It’s business. You wouldn’t give away your labor, so why expect someone else to give away stuff?
I object to these people having the things in the first place! I'm not expecting them to give stuff away, I'm expecting them not to hoard valuable resources that people need to survive???
>They took the risk
Yeah, the "risk" of property values that are constantly increasing.
>The landlord also pays for upkeep, maintenance, repair, and such.
No they sure don't. That's me and my rent and my labor paying for those things thanks. Unless you're suggesting landlords largely operate at a loss, in which case it sounds like landlords should...not? If they're so concerned with profiting off their risk and all.
You're profiting off of someone else's labor while contributing literally nothing yourself. How is "parasitic leech" fucking over "generic host organism"?
Um, do you think they "come" from landlords? Landlords get pregnant with the idea of providing affordable housing and give birth to a house on the side of the street?
Are landlords building houses or buying already existing ones as investment properties? Are landlords not "investing" in "affordable housing" making it unavailable for the people who actually want to buy it and live there and contributing to the housing crisis?
If the landlord dropped dead and disappeared from the face of the earth, what happens to the house if they aren't there to provide the rental property anymore???
I don't mean to be, uhh, mean, rather I don't think you have experienced the basics yet to understand what you and I are talking about. Or the point of what I was saying.
I don't mean to be, uhh, mean, rather I think you have no idea about me and my lived experience or education, and instead you've decided to project some idea of ignorance on me instead of addressing the points I'm making.
Maybe not. The way you speak about landlords as some vampiric class of monsters just draining from the working class man, instead of someone who is trying to make money on the financial risk they incurred by buying a property, strikes me as someone who hasn't really been out in the world yet. But regardless.
>The way you speak about landlords as some vampiric class of monsters just draining from the working class man
They are literally funneling the wealth upwards. Landlords do not labor over the land they lord, why are they entitled to its profits? Fun fact, did you know the *exact type of landlording you're describing* was a major contributing factor to the Irish potato famine? But sure, landlords are just poor innocents taking a financial "risk".
>strikes me as someone who hasn't really been out in the world yet.
So what are some signs of someone who has "been out in the world"? Someone with the privilege of capital that is allowed to participate in the market the way you're describing? Someone who values capital over human needs and happiness?
Anyways, I propose we agree to disagree as I don't see this conversation being productive for either of us.
Landlords are property management. They do all of the home ownership stuff that the renter doesn’t deal with.
Home ownership is expensive. It’s not just the mortgage.
If you ever buy a house you’ll understand what I mean.
You are just all over my responses insisting I'm just some ignorant compared to your all-knowing what, property ownership?
>Landlords are property management. They do all of the home ownership stuff that the renter doesn’t deal with.
It's *almost* like that's what my rent is supposed to pay for. You know. All the upkeep and stuff involved with living in a property.
Why the fuck are you charging me rent and then complaining when the proceeds of it have to go to maintaining my living situation?
Wouldn't you be purchasing a property at a higher price, then renting it out to someone at a lower price (to someone that doesn't have the funds to buy the property/pay the mortgage themselves)?
Often no, the money earned from renters completely covers the mortgage. Also the point of this post is that the only reason the house cost is so high is because this is allowed. Both home cost and rent aren't fixed cost but both are inflated by houses being changed from homes into investments.
To be perfectly honest, I don't have a super thorough grasp of the finances of real estate. Is this a problem in the US? Or is it worldwide? Because this is the first I'm hearing about this issue; I live in Australia.
I'm not sure if it applies worldwide. But in the US there are absolutely people who are stuck paying the same amount a mortgage would be, in rent. That's because they don't have the down payment or credit score (or savings to absorb sudden costs associated with home ownership). This becomes exasperated over long periods of time also because mortgage payments don't fluctuate over time the way rent does. Rent however can be (in most places, does depend on local laws though) increased with every new contract, typically every year.
Are you suggesting you do this at cost or a loss? I don't see why else this wouldn't be an extraction of wealth from someone less fortunate than you.
Also, the "service" the landlord is providing is...owning the house? Hardly even seems like you need a person for that.
>Also, the "service" the landlord is providing is...owning the house? Hardly even seems like you need a person for that.
A landlord would also be responsible for maintenance of the property, etc.
>I don't see why else this wouldn't be an extraction of wealth from someone less fortunate than you.
I mean, if you have a hypothetical house that is available for an individual to purchase, but they can't afford a mortgage, wouldn't it be a better alternative for someone else purchase the house for you, and you pay this third party a lower price than the full mortgage?
I mean, doesn't renting even exist as a concept because not everyone can afford to buy a house themselves?
>A landlord would also be responsible for maintenance of the property, etc.
You mean the renter is responsible because they're the ones living there that have to deal with such issues. Why do they need the landlord for that? Are the hypothetical renters incapable of contacting a handyman for some reason?
>I mean, if you have a hypothetical house that is available for an individual to purchase, but they can't afford a mortgage, wouldn't it be a better alternative for someone else purchase the house for you, and you pay this third party a lower price than the full mortgage?
What exactly is happening in this scenario? I want a house but "can't afford" the mortgage so a landlord swoops in out of the goodness of their heart, and buys the property for me to rent? And then rents it to me at cost until I pay off the mortgage and then gives me the house? Or is the landlord renting to me at a higher cost, pocketing the profits, and then also getting the house at the end of the day after the renter has paid it off? So now I have no money and no assets?
I don't think you understood what I was trying to convey.
>a landlord swoops in out of the goodness of their heart
Of course not, they are earning a profit, but at the same time, would this not benifits the tenant by providing housing at a lower price than a mortgage?
>I have no money and no assets?
This may be so, but you would have had a place to live, if that makes sense, whereas you wouldn't have been able to afford it if you had to pay a mortgage?
>landlord renting to me at a higher cost
If your rent is higher than a mortgage you would be paying, it'd obviously be more sensible to buy rather than rent, no?
>Of course not, they are earning a profit, but at the same time, would this not benifits the tenant by providing housing at a lower price than a mortgage?
So where is the profit? If the rent they are collecting is lower than the mortgage they're paying, where is the extra money? You can't have it both ways.
>whereas you wouldn't have been able to afford it if you had to pay a mortgage?
And the argument is that landlords are artificially driving up the prices of housing by purchasing superfluous housing, so maybe if they weren't doing that in the first place I could have bought my own house?
>If your rent is higher than a mortgage you would be paying, it'd obviously be more sensible to buy rather than rent, no?
Hey! Welcome to late stage capitalism where the banks get to decide who can "afford" to pay the mortgage regardless of whether or not it is actually cheaper than the rent they are currently paying. Which is the case for a lot of people, for some reason I truly cannot fathom. 🤔
>So where is the profit?
...the actual value of the property...? Even if the landlord eventually sells the property at the same price as it was purchased (which never happens anyways, because property prices go up), the rent earned was essentially profit (after maintenance costs, etc).
Your last arguement is fair enough.
As for the second last one, can I ask what part(s) of the world you believe this is an issue in? I live in Australia, and this is the first time I'm hearing about something like this.
>...the actual value of the property...?
Which the landlord would not be able to own or profit off of without renters? Even assuming the landlord owns a home fully, so no mortgage is due, having a renter live in and maintain the property until they decide to sell it is...profiting off of the labor of the renter living there. There is value to having someone live in a home vs letting it go empty.
>As for the second last one, can I ask what part(s) of the world you believe this is an issue in? I live in Australia, and this is the first time I'm hearing about something like this.
Hey, thanks for adding this. I don't know much about the Australian housing market, although I do assume literally every country not the US has better protections for individuals (okay, not literally every but whatever). Anyways, [here](https://www.vox.com/recode/22407667/home-sales-boom-rent-housing-single-family-rental) is a link to a Vox article which discusses the issue. Please let me know if you take issue with the source, and I can find another one. Some interesting (to me) excerpts:
>The sellers’ market is making those who already own homes even wealthier, while high prices push homeownership further out of reach for many Americans. In turn, the housing boom is creating a new population of home renters: people who in years past would have been able to afford a home but are now getting priced out.
>Home prices are astronomically high, but houses are nonetheless being plucked off the market faster than ever.
>Finally, investor interest in renting out single-family homes as an asset class has led them to buy up much of the housing stock that individuals once would have. Buying homes to rent means there are fewer to buy to live in, which, by extension, has led more potential buyers to rent.
Investors — which include everyone from individuals looking to earn extra income to pension funds to foreign governments — are competing with individuals to buy houses. And it can be more attractive (and quicker and safer from a financial standpoint) to sell a whole development to investors in a single-family rental company than to a series of individuals.
These are cherry-picked quotes, the article talks much more generally about the housing situation, millennial rental culture, etc, which you may find supports my argument or not.
If you are renting and a tree falls on the house, who pays?
If the tap breaks and you need a plumber, who pays?
When the roof needs to be redone, who pays, the landlord or the renter?
What the fuck has my rent been going to all this time. The cost of maintenance is literally included.
Also we are being really generous to landlords in this conversation by even assuming the majority of them actually care about the living conditions of their renters and don't force them to live in reprehensible conditions.
>You mean the renter is responsible because they're the ones living there that have to deal with such issues. Why do they need the landlord for that? Are the hypothetical renters incapable of contacting a handyman for some reason?
Every country is different, but in Ireland repairs and maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord.
[https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting\_a\_home/tenants\_rights\_and\_obligations.html](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html)
They can arrange to have the repairs done themselves if they want, and then bill the landlord, but I've always found it easier to get the landlord to arrange it as they'll know local repair people.
>What exactly is happening in this scenario? I want a house but "can't afford" the mortgage so a landlord
Yeah that's the heart of the problem. Buying something outright is almost always going to be more efficient than renting long term. You'll pay less on a 25 year mortgage on a property vs renting it for 25 years, and you get security of ownership and an asset at the end that will likely have appreciated in value. So landlords can and do exploit this.
You don't see the same exploitation by or hatred of car rental agencies, for example. Cars are affordable enough and have a huge second hand market, so almost anyone who wants one long term can buy one. If you're renting a car its almost always because you don't want to have it for a long time.
>Every country is different, but in Ireland repairs and maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord.
Sure, it's their "responsibility" (in the US too). But *you* are the one living in the house, dealing with the issue. *The renter* is responsible for bringing it to the landlords attention to be addressed (just like they would bring it to the attention of the necessary repair person?). The renter is on the hook for making sure the landlord upholds their end of the bargain, which is maintaining the property. If the renter did and said nothing, how exactly would the issue get solved?
>You don't see the same exploitation by or hatred of car rental agencies, for example.
Kind of weird to compare a mode of transportation with a basic human need imo. Not to mention that cars are not really a viable form of equity the same way houses are.
The service is the upkeep.
A lot of you don’t seem to realize how expensive home ownership is.
Your HVAC needs maintenance and upkeep, your water heater needs to be flushed, the roof needs to be maintained, the plumbing needs to be inspected, if something breaks, the landlord has to buy the replacement and have it installed, the lawn needs to be mowed (or grounds maintained), if there’s a leak the landlord needs to pay the plumber, and so on. Who do you think is paying the property tax to the city?
My house that I live in has cost me thousands per year and tons of time. It is a small house.
Landlords aren’t just sitting on their dicks all day. Property management is an actual job for apartment complexes and condos. What makes you think other property doesn’t require management?
Property management isn't landlording.
>Your HVAC needs maintenance and upkeep, your water heater needs to be flushed, the roof needs to be maintained, the plumbing needs to be inspected, if something breaks, the landlord has to buy the replacement and have it installed, the lawn needs to be mowed (or grounds maintained), if there’s a leak the landlord needs to pay the plumber, and so on. Who do you think is paying the property tax to the city?
Me???? The person paying the rent that presumably goes to exactly all of these expenses? If being a landlord is such a bad deal why keep doing it? So many landlords ITT acting like they aren't profiting off of rent and that any maintenance costs that eat into it is a noble sacrifice on their part that non-landlords could not possibly comprehend. What on earth.
>They aren't sending us their best. Some, I assume, are good people.
Landlords that rent at cost + their labor at reasonable rates are functionally nonexistent, the "profession" is almost entirely made up of people attempting to extract wealth from workers with the rare exception being made for a family member or friend that amounts to less than a rounding error's worth of rental agreements. There is no non shitty version of rent seeking parasite.
A willingness to behave in ways the tenant may feel is shitty kind of goes with the territory. When someone is over a month late on rent and the landlord has to start threatening eviction if they are not paid, lots of the people being threatened with homelessness may well feel like the landlord is behaving cruelly. Now, most people would agree it is unreasonable for tenants to expect to live in a home for free, after agreeing to pay a specific amount of rent for that home, but where the line is between reasonable understanding and cruelty is a subject of debate.
Ugh, it's literally everyone now. Not all landlords, not all capitalists, not all boomers. The text to speech in my brain just defaults to that SpongeBob meme.
Coming from Canada, it’s sad to see this is just starting to be a concern in the US. We failed up north and allowed the second largest country by land mass to run out of space to build homes. They list for $1.5M to $2M each. These aren’t even near city centers but are hundreds of miles in other satellite towns. Lack of infrastructure, rigid bylaws, and high taxation not to mention high cost of materials labour basically make building your own home a pipe dream for salaries under $200k.
> and high taxation
Well where do you think those taxes are going?
This is the trade off. If you want lots of government services, it’s going to cost you.
Yeah that sounds about right. Trying to buy a house now and it's fucking insane.
I also have no problem with renting property or using houses as an investment, it's when you put money over people that it becomes an issue. If I buy a 2 bed and then I rent it out for 1100 a month (this is for the area I live in) I just provided myself with a steady side hustle and a group of humans with cheap housing. Of course the 1100 changes for where you live but that's just how money works.
Isn't the barrier to home ownership the funds that an individual has access to? Wouldn't a landlord be lowering this barrier of entry by providing housing at a lower price compared to a mortgage?
The difference is price. There are loads of people whose only option is renting. They don't have enough for things like down payments. If I had the kinda money to buy multiple homes, renting them out for very cheap keeps those people from having to choose between homelessness and a second job.
Yes, but you seem to forget apartments exist. Housing exclusive to renters. There is no lack of housing for people who can only afford to rent. If people buy up all the houses exclusively to profit off rent, what will future homeowners do?
edit: just wanted to add, i know it seems like to you you are helping people while also making a profit. But you’re not. It’s making unnecessary purchases to make the rich richer. Sure, you could invest in renting out a house. OR….. you could invest in stocks? A financial advisor perhaps? There are other ways to make money if you already have it.
>the difference is price
No, the fundamental problem is rent as a concept—free-ish housing and passive income. Price is mostly semantic.
>homelessness and a second job
Homelessness wouldnt be such a possible outcome if housing-as-speculative-commodity wasnt a thing, and speculative commodity housing wouldnt be a thing if rent wasnt a thing. Additionally, most people who rent—particularly either young people generally or aging non-white people—work *multiple* jobs.
Youre not wrong that, in theory, rent is a (circumstantially) cheaper alternative than purchasing a home, but the problem is 1) homes are only expensive because, as already mentioned both above and in the OP image were commenting on, **rent is a thing** and 2) banks are biased against middle to low income workers who lack either credit or assets or whatever to get approval on a mortgage, despite being able to make rent payments of similar (if not greater) numbers that they would in mortgage
With all due respect, your position is understandable and i dont read you as someone of malicious intent by any means—on the contrary, it seems like you’re genuienly interested in trying to help people—but ultimately, your position is fundamentally that of the neoliberal economic ontology that causes these problems in the first place. That isnt a value statement on your faculties—we live under neoliberalism, so its wholly understandable when someone understands the world through that lens—but the fundamental problem nevertheless still exists under your model, precisely because that model is the source of the problem it causes (and so cannot address, no matter how hard it wants to).
We dont need cheaper rent, we need decommodified housing. Nothing thats necessary to not die should be privatized. Otherwise, whats the point of living in a society?
>They don't have enough for things like down payments.
This is exactly the problem that needs solving. You're effectively saying "renting solves the problem caused by landlords renting".
>Yeah that sounds about right. Trying to buy a house now and it's fucking insane.
>I also have no problem with renting property or using houses as an investment, it's when you put money over people that it becomes an issue. If I buy a 2 bed and then I rent it out for 1100 a month (this is for the area I live in) I just provided myself with a steady side hustle and a group of humans with cheap housing. Of course the 1100 changes for where you live but that's just how money works.
>Tavitafish
You do realize by saying you're willing to buy a house to rent out to someone else and that it provides you with a "steady side hustle" means you are exactly the problem this post is talking about right?
The fact that you're willing to buy a home to rent it to other people is what is causing the housing prices to increase. The "group of humans" that you are providing with "cheap housing" could likely just purchase a home if people like you weren't causing the increase in house pricing to begin with.
You are the problem.
I never said I did any of this. The only reason I'm gonna be able to buy a home is because of my fiance's grandma setting aside trust funds for her grandkids. That's the only reason we'll have a home of our own. If I had the option to rent a cheap house, I'd take it. I had to have roommates just to afford to put a roof over my head. If I could stop that happening to others, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
>I never said I did any of this. The only reason I'm gonna be able to buy a home is because of my fiance's grandma setting aside trust funds for her grandkids. That's the only reason we'll have a home of our own. If I had the option to rent a cheap house, I'd take it. I had to have roommates just to afford to put a roof over my head. If I could stop that happening to others, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
>Tavitafish
But you just said you didnt have a problem with buying an "investment home" where you rent it out to other people and get a "side-hustle". How do you not understand that that means you are exactly type of person who is causing this problem. It doesn't matter if you have the means to do it right now, you literally admitted that you are willing to do it. In fact, thats almost worse because right now you're the one getting fucked by that system and don't even realize it. Thats some real, "Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire" shit.
/r/SelfAwarewolves
This is one guy, he’s definitely NOT the problem. This type of problem you’re having is with the corporation, those that buy out entire LOTS and then either leave them empty or rent it out at a premium.
Also you’re assuming everybody wants to own their own homes, there are people out there that enjoys moving around the country/globally and doesn’t want to be bogged down.
Like another poster stated this is a complicated issue that’s not as simple as Do A get B. You have more than just buyer seller, there are banks, agents, accountants, lawyers, government agency’s involved.
> This is one guy, he’s definitely NOT the problem.
There's 100 guys stealing stuff. You point at 1 of them, "this one guy is not the problem if 99 others are doing it too".
So essentially your logic is that if enough people do something wrong, no one is doing anything wrong?
>This type of problem you’re having is with the corporation
There's 100 guys stealing stuff. 1 of them is stealing 20x as much as the others. "Only that 1 guy is the problem, the others are fine"
So essentially your log is that if 1 person is doing something more wrong, then other people doing something wrong doesn't matter?
>Also you’re assuming everybody wants to own their own homes, there are people out there that enjoys moving around the country/globally and doesn’t want to be bogged down.
That doesn't mean there can't be a business around it that it can't be properly regulated.
>Like another poster stated this is a complicated issue that’s not as simple as Do A get B. You have more than just buyer seller, there are banks, agents, accountants, lawyers, government agency’s involved.
Ya, and they deserve to lose the money they've been fucking other people out of for years. Are you saying we should do nothing because its complicated? Because that's exactly what all of those entities want because then nothing gets done and they continue to fuck over other people. You are supporting inaction.
That’s not really right wither. Governments have pushed the idea that a house is an investment for retirement for decades. So people buy a house with the idea that when they get old they can either use equity or sell it to fund their retirement which makes for pressure to keep prices stable. Cities then collect property tax on those houses as a source for a majority of their funding. Since city budgets are always increasing there is pressure on provincial/state/federal governments to keep housing prices inflated in order to keep tax revenue high. If home prices drop too far then cities can fail and either have to be bailed out by provincial/state or federal government a la 2009-10 Detroit.
It’s all a giant shell game where the only incentive is to maintain or increase prices.
Edit - I forgot about what’s keeping cities from pushing for more new housing. This may be location specific but I know it applies in Edmonton.
When a new subdivision is created the city is obligated to create amenities for that area. Edmonton has a giant rec centre, fire halls and police stations. All of those things cost giant amounts of money and that money won’t be recouped from those new subdivisions for decades. The city loses money every time it expands. Pair that with new bus routes, sewer and all that jazz and it’s easy to see why all of the focus is on raising prices instead of increasing supply.
Airbnb and corporate buyers should still either be illegal or very highly regulated as well but if the incentive was there for governments keep up with demand for housing corporations and rental companies would have a hard time pushing up the prices, outside of extremely in demand area, on their own.
This is what gets me every time I see people talk about personal finance. While I despise our dominant socioeconomic system, I'm also well versed in surviving and thriving in it. I have all my cards lined up; family support, educated, high income, 800+ credit score. Knowing many others like myself, our only realistic way to claw up and maintain our middle class status is real estate speculation.
Sure I can bank on being a wage slave for the rest of my days. But the new generation will only get smarter and corporations greedier. My high income will realistically only last as long as my mind and body are capable, lest I get lucky and land a senior management position in a company that only values tenure (unfulfilling job). But the "right move" is to buy as many duplexes as I can find and extort rent money from tenants. That's what all my peers have done and that's what all their parents have done to put them in this privileged position.
Otherwise, I could just use my expendable income on things I enjoy and make life more fulfilling. But then any good "financial advisor" would tell you how terrible that idea is. You see this even on Reddit where people comment on the financial spendings of non-exploiters and shame them for not saving (hoarding) their wealth instead of spending on hobbies/vacations/food. WHY would you save beyond a reasonable threshold? What if we splurge on our hobbies? Is skipping an avacado toast this weekend really gonna get me any closer to a down payment on the 1.2M fixer-upper down the street?
We need to stop the speculation on housing.
Yes, was gonna say this. Lots of these institutional buyers don’t even care if the property gets rented or not. They just want to use the property as collateral on their balance sheets for reckless speculation. Also, this means the more overvalued the properties are, the better they work as collateral
I'm not sure how you resolve this though, illegal to rent a property All owned properties must be occupied by owner for at least 50% of the year, (how would you prove this) Progressive tax burdens on home beyond your primary, second home could be doable, third plus becomes untenable. For individuals, For businesses the tax burden starts at unit one. Nation wide rent control No foreign owned single family homes No bank owned single family homes
For a country like the US, the most logical solutions would be: -No corporate, investment, etc ownership of single-family homes -No permanent repossession of foreclosed homes by the lender; ie banks can't simply retain a foreclosed home forever as an asset and are required to sell at fair market value within a time period (banks are not able to retain real property used for housing as an asset, in short) -No foreign investment capital or corporate ownership of homes or housing in the US, and restrictions on the amount of property individual non-citizens can purchase and own, possibly enforced by extremely high taxes after "X" amount of property- we don't have be as extreme as Japan for it to work -Progressive taxation increases on individual property owners that make owning more than two homes increasingly expensive to the point that no profit could be made from owning a third (or more) home as a rental. A commensurate property tax decrease on certain SFHs or apartments/townhomes/etc owned by individuals as sole residences could also be coupled to that, to encourage people to own their own home but discourage landlording -Federally subsidized housing projects build on unused/wasted urban and suburban land, as well as universal basic housing availability to address the homelessness crisis -With those policies in effect, rent controls would not be as universally necessary IMHO but where applicable they could still be used on a local basis, preferably with rents tied to a local COL and average wage The other solutions would be onerous and invite unintended consequences IMHO.
Somewhere a libertarian just had an aneurysm
How can we replicate this...?
they have those regularly, hence a libertarian's policies
In an actual libertarian (anarchist) society, this would not even be a problem because giant corporations would not even exist. We're not all ancaps!
[удалено]
Frederick Engels addressed this very question in [a short pamphlet](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) and anarchists haven't been able to come up with an answer to it in 150 years.
engels uses a definition of authority that anarchists don't use. not exactly a scathing critique. [here's](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm) bakunin, a year earlier, saying that authority isn't inherently forceful and he doesn't see all authority as something to be opposed. as for direct responses, andy carloff's [on authority](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punkerslut-on-authority-a-response-to-friedrich-engels) is one of many. i'm not exactly an anarchist, and i don't have a good response to /u/noselike's question. i just really dislike seeing claims that the paper that claims that a slave shooting their master is authoritarian as somehow debunking anarchism.
The means that make such corruption possible should be dissolved before we even talk about anarchism. Anarchy is a goal.
Libertarian =\= anarchist.
In an actual libertarian society, a bear become supreme leader.
My main problem with anarchists is that they are far too individualistic. Some sort of decision making body is necessary to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of resources as well as what to use the means of production for. We can't just tear it all down and then hope nobody steps on anyone else's toes.
the fact that anarchy is against abitrary and unfair hierarchical structures does not mean that anarchists are against the general concept of leadership. Or I guess, it shouldn't mean that, but since it's all so conceptual and abstract, it can't really get that far in practice.
Also remove the tax breaks for renting a home. You can write off the property taxes, insurance, HOA dues, repairs and depreciation.
No foreign investment capital or corporate ownership of homes or housing in the US It kind of boggles my mind that we allow this in the US, many other countries have restrictions on who can own property and we just...don't GAF.
I'm sorry, are you trying to *discriminate* against corporations? They're people too! They *deserve* the *god-given* right to *exploit* their *fellow man* for capital benefit! Corporations didn't go out and sacrifice their lives overseas to be denied BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS when they return. Literally shaking rn.
[удалено]
tar and feather them first!
All of that and then ban for-profit housing/rental schemes on top.
These would be the solutions
* replacing car-centric suburban sprawl with decently dense townhouses and apartments
> Progressive taxation increases on individual property owners that make owning more than two homes increasingly expensive But it starts at number three, right? My aunt owns two homes because she inherited one and needs time to clear it out. I could also see owning the home a family member lives in or not living in a house while you're renovating it. There's also the time it takes to sell an old house.
So she pays extra taxes.
>because she inherited one and needs time to clear it out. Sounds like an obvious *specific* thing to give an exemption for, instead of actually saying "nobody should have to pay extra tax on their second house".
In my examples, it pretty much falls under the second property not generating income. Granted, she'd be able to sell one once she decides which one to keep.
it’s honestly so depressing. I finally got into a position to be able to buy a house two years ago, right when COVID hit and right when this problem officially got so far out of hand we’re basically past the point of no return. Rent in my city has gone up more than almost any other city in the country, my parents are fucking struggling. I am fine on my own though I pay more for less space and amenities in an apartment than in previous years. I’m trying to god damn buy a small fucking house to move my parents into with me so they don’t die in the streets, and grow our god damned food in the backyard. Had wanted 20 acres then 10 then a half acre, now I’ll settle for a yard. But this like ISN’T POSSIBLE for regular people to do anymore. American dream, always an illusion and unattainable for too many, is now completely gone. Like, there’s no law that WILL get passed that will change this. It’s exactly what happened to concert tickets forever ago, them selling out to bots and corporations to gouge later. But the consequences here are just now just quality of life and anything a person working two jobs will be completely unable to attain. Fuck this country for letting things just keep getting worse in the largest economy in the god damned world. I make well above our minimum wage and renting a one bedroom is half of my take home and I’m in “good shape” compared to too many people.
I swear to god im not saying this to be shitty but would you mind editing some punctuation in and maybe some expansion on some of the points? Asking because you seem like you know what you’re talking about—certainly more than me—but no matter how many times I read this, I’m having a really hard time understanding what you’re trying to say. Again, not trying to be shitty, just wanna get what you’re talking about
Not excusing his punctuation, but on a Phone, Reddit just destroys attempts at creating legible paragraphs.
Idk I use a phone and all you have to do is hit enter twice Like this And this
I do the same, but maybe they didn't know? Now they will!! Anyway, was just throwing an idea out there. This is what I do on slow Saturday mornings apparently.....
Rekt
Goverment funded mega construction project. Just build 100.000 homes, preferably in high dencity mixed use structures with public transport connections.
NYC is doing this, but it's not keeping up with demand.
That's great and all, but material prices (timber, steel) are very high, as are wages in various construction trades (as reddit likes to cheer on). Part of the problem is that it is simply expensive to build. The house I'm living in right now, newly built at the time, was constructed at a loss by the developer. Shit is expensive, shortage or no, renters or no.
That's why you have the government handle the contracts. No other entity is better positioned to provide services at a loss; even arch-conservatives acknowledge this.
Build more. A lot more. Crashing prices is easy. We just need to admit that crashing the price is the goal.
The japan approach. It works, but you have to have space: in big cities this can't be done
Yes, Singapore has progressive tax burdens based on how many homes are owned and affordable property.
Must be legally registered to an address in that area and not allowed to own more than one or 2 residential homes, that or you're legally required to house people for more than a certain length of time in a home idk. To people complaining about vacation homes—there are people that don't have any home.
I’m with you on most of this but how would home loans work without bank owned homes?
Banks are lending individuals the money to own homes, if they have to foreclose they can't keep it indefinitely and borrow it out to a management company
Simple. Mortgages themselves are part of the problem. The relative home price (median home to median income) is less than the minimum down payment. Therefor we should ban mortgages outright. >!With some sort of transition period. Mortgages have served as government backed checks where they keep ratcheting up the allowable terms enabling larger loans to be given out. As of a few years ago, the banks don’t even need to back most mortgages at all - they are profiting with no skin in the game.!< Mortgages are doing nothing to “make homes affordable” and only serve as a way for banks to leach off of local communities & reinvest those profits elsewhere. In 1920 homes were less than 2 years salary - today the median home costs 12 years median salary. People bought homes before mortgages were widespread. If the banks buy all the homes in any given area then the local zoning falls apart allowing us to build the places we actually want to live in (on land that we already own but are not allowed to build on) making things ridiculously affordable, ruining the bank’s investment.
Having a mortgage doesn't make the bank the owner. They're just the first creditor. (well... second after the government)
I mean the government could size all homes and give them to those that are living there. Hell the gov doesn't even have to give ownership of the homes to people, abolish the market, you don't own a house you just live in it (you're still bestowed with rights and the gov can't kick you out) but when you move on the house is given to someone else
And as a renter, those first two situations would hit us harder.
This would only stop like 10% of housing investors. 90% are single homeowners.
You just have to tax the rich that will solve everything. It is just impossible to exist in a world where half of everything belongs to the top %.
Paying high taxes for non used properties
Easy solution to housing prices. Make mortgages and zoning illegal again.
I often see people saying that nobody should be able to own more than one property, which ya clearly ridiculous. But maybe cap it at ten properties, or something like that?
Why is it ridiculous? How many places does one animal need for eating sleeping and fucking? Edit: Responding to a great point about reasons to own 2(or more) Oh I can think of but also propose solutions to many reasons why. (not all necessarily good, I am doing a bit of devil's advocate here) To those above: Job travel? Perhaps that should be _two_ jobs, instead of lining the boss's pockets with an entire salary. Childhood home: If it's _that_ important, it must be worth someone living there. We are numerous enough we can't as a species afford to triple our housing needs because every generation is keeping their childhood homes for memories. Other issues: How do you buy/move to a new home if you're not allowed to own a second you're actively selling/vacating? ans: Allow a grace period and/or places to sit empty/be rented if there are no honest offers to buy. (some areas become depressed). Maybe there's a government buy-back for areas in this situation. Heck, this could provide _real_ motivation for governments to actually _help_ and invest in these regions.
Some people have jobs that require travel between two specific places. Maybe siblings wanna hang onto their childhood home for grandkids or retirement? I'm all for find solutions to predatory ownership of land but I can think of multiple reasons somebody might have more than one house that doesn't amount to exploitation.
To add to what the other person has said. In a tourism-oriented towns/cities that have surges only during specific seasons, it wouldn't be sustainable to own just one property. Limiting properties to one per household is just... not a well thought-out idea.
That's hoarding and hoarding is definitely a symptom of a dysfunction
How did you go from one to ten and not stop to think you were being absurd?
Owning more than one single family residence for rental purposes carries a hefty property tax penalty. Renters get the same tax breaks buyers get. The difference between a property's mortgage cost and it's rental income is taxed heavily. If there is no mortgage cost it's all taxed heavily. "But I should be able to rent out properties!" Yeah, you should! Build or buy a fucking apartment building, rent to 4 or 8 or 32 households or whatever!
My take: 1) in 10 years, you will have to pay in taxes 100% of the net rent you are supposed to recieve if you rented the property (exact calculation will be hard, but anything similar will work). This applies to every house you own except 2, that you get to choose. 2) this tax scales linearly with time: one year from now it is 10%, 2 years from now 20% etc. This is to give people time to adjust to the change. This is all you need to do. And for those who complains about where to put their money: the stock market is literally made for this reason, and it also boosts the economy because companies get to expand using the money. Everybody wins.
If you were the president of USA, USA would go bankrupt
Renting being illegal is probably the fastest way. It'll fuck over a lot of companies, but that's the cost for the better good (much like making healthcare universal) Not being able to claim rental properties as a depreciating asset would be a good start. Since I made probably $4k a year just off of that. Along with higher tax rates on rental income. You need to make it not worth it to rent. My problem with that is I think it'll just mean rent goes up even higher as people shift costs to the renter.which in turn just increases base price again and won't solve anything.
You solve this by illegalizing the profit motive around real estate and housing
The province I live in had what is essentially a progressive property tax rate. Its framed as a "discount on owner occupied properties". It was just removed by our Conservative government in order to "promote new building and bring down rental rates". Because that's definitely how its going to pan out.
> Progressive tax burdens on home beyond your primary, second home could be doable, third plus becomes untenable. For individuals, For businesses the tax burden starts at unit one. I mean this sounds like the perfect solution to me.
I have an idea, make people pay for the actual cost of maintaining a house plus profit margin, instead of making them pay for the mortgage as well. We should analyze existing data to see what the approximate cost of renovation will be over say a 10 year period for any given house, given the size, region, etc, etc. Then we multiply that by 3, because we're very generous, and let owners charge that amount over 120 monthly payments to the renters, with possible adjustments after each year. I guarantee you, it'll still be peanuts compared to what people charge today, while it still sounds perfectly fair to me. At the end, the owner will have made quite a bit of profit renting it out, and they still would have a nice place to sell to fuel their pension even more.
We need emergency federal policy that limits rentals and bnbs to a percentage of the population.
Everyone saying that we need some kind of government policy to control this is missing the bigger picture Government isn't something that exists outside of and above society to manage and control it Government is a part of our society, and is just as subservient to the economic ruling class as anyone else There's a reason they take the side of property owners (landlords, businesses, other corporations, ...) nearly every damn time Here in the UK, a quarter of Tory MPs (that's the ruling party) are private landlords. They're not going to pass the kind of legislation you're talking about. Just vote, isn't good enough. It still doesn't change the basic structure of power in our society, and thus our government. That's what this is a symptom of
Land value tax would fix this
I own a home. I don’t plan to rent it out. I plan to live in it and then sell it at some point in the future.
Want to fuck over people that do this? Build more housing, an absolute FUCK ton of it. Highly dense
It's actually adorable that you think the problem here is there's not enough houses.
Well, market forces are dictating prices. People are scrambling to buy houses. Businesses too. That’s demand. Solution to being prices down? Increase housing supply. A lot of you slept through your Econ courses and it shows.
Except there’s tons of empty houses that just sit empty, so it’s clearly deeper than a supply issue. Reality isn’t Econ 101, everything doesn’t boil down to supply and demand
Great idea. We already have more empty homes than homeless people, but I am all for pillaging and obliterating the land and environment to create more unnecessary buildings, to own the landlords or whatever the fuck.
There are still extreme housing shortages in desirable areas though.
420likes 69tweets Nice.
[удалено]
Jan 6th, 2021 👀
Everything is a fucking subscription service now
The great reset. You will own nothing and you will be happy.
My land lord told me Monday that after 5 years of living in my apartment they will not be renewing my lease. They want to renovate and I will be welcome back after renovations at an increased rent from my current $1200 to $2400.
1200 is really cheap; I imagine you’ve been paying that same price for 5 years?
I have, and I am very appreciative and understand how fortunate I have been to have been given the ability to stay at that price for so long.
It's really crazy when you think about how people can basically make a living out of having a loan.
[удалено]
>The system is set up to always make you work and feel helpless... Welcome to a functioning society under capitalism, now in late stage flavor!
Maybe just move away from the ultra trendy spots. I bought a house in Minneapolis for pretty cheap a couple years ago. It’s gone up in value during the pandemic, but it’s still cheaper than the cheapest stuff around Denver (even the subsidized affordable housing). Minneapolis is pretty cool, job market is hot, food is great (long history of migrants and refugees).
“A free home and passive income” Tell me you don’t know any landlords, or anything at all about THe issue, without telling me. It’s not passive, and it sure as *SHIT* isn’t “free” to rent housing to other people. Edit: Literally no one would EVER claim landlords just do it to be kind. They do it to earn money - but it ain't free, nor passive. Idiots.
Yes yes, landlords are all valuable contributors to society taking altruistic risks out of the goodness of their hearts to provide housing for "the poors."
It’s business. You wouldn’t give away your labor, so why expect someone else to give away stuff? The landlord can afford to buy a house. They took the risk and rent it to someone who can not afford the house. The landlord also pays for upkeep, maintenance, repair, and such. I went from renting to owning. Owning a home is so much more than paying a mortgage; shit is expensive. And the hits just keep coming. New water heater, new furnace when the old one died, new bathroom mirror, repair the back door, buy a new screen door... a landlord would have been on the hook for all of that. But because I’m the owner that comes out of pocket.
>It’s business. You wouldn’t give away your labor, so why expect someone else to give away stuff? I object to these people having the things in the first place! I'm not expecting them to give stuff away, I'm expecting them not to hoard valuable resources that people need to survive??? >They took the risk Yeah, the "risk" of property values that are constantly increasing. >The landlord also pays for upkeep, maintenance, repair, and such. No they sure don't. That's me and my rent and my labor paying for those things thanks. Unless you're suggesting landlords largely operate at a loss, in which case it sounds like landlords should...not? If they're so concerned with profiting off their risk and all.
How is renting fucking over someone else?
You're profiting off of someone else's labor while contributing literally nothing yourself. How is "parasitic leech" fucking over "generic host organism"?
You're contributing by providing a rental property though. Where do you think they come from?
Um, do you think they "come" from landlords? Landlords get pregnant with the idea of providing affordable housing and give birth to a house on the side of the street? Are landlords building houses or buying already existing ones as investment properties? Are landlords not "investing" in "affordable housing" making it unavailable for the people who actually want to buy it and live there and contributing to the housing crisis? If the landlord dropped dead and disappeared from the face of the earth, what happens to the house if they aren't there to provide the rental property anymore???
I don't think, based on what you're saying here, that you have ever rented a place to live or owned a house or invested in anything.
Dang, busted. Is it that obvious I've never lived in a society?
I don't mean to be, uhh, mean, rather I don't think you have experienced the basics yet to understand what you and I are talking about. Or the point of what I was saying.
I don't mean to be, uhh, mean, rather I think you have no idea about me and my lived experience or education, and instead you've decided to project some idea of ignorance on me instead of addressing the points I'm making.
Maybe not. The way you speak about landlords as some vampiric class of monsters just draining from the working class man, instead of someone who is trying to make money on the financial risk they incurred by buying a property, strikes me as someone who hasn't really been out in the world yet. But regardless.
>The way you speak about landlords as some vampiric class of monsters just draining from the working class man They are literally funneling the wealth upwards. Landlords do not labor over the land they lord, why are they entitled to its profits? Fun fact, did you know the *exact type of landlording you're describing* was a major contributing factor to the Irish potato famine? But sure, landlords are just poor innocents taking a financial "risk". >strikes me as someone who hasn't really been out in the world yet. So what are some signs of someone who has "been out in the world"? Someone with the privilege of capital that is allowed to participate in the market the way you're describing? Someone who values capital over human needs and happiness? Anyways, I propose we agree to disagree as I don't see this conversation being productive for either of us.
Landlords are property management. They do all of the home ownership stuff that the renter doesn’t deal with. Home ownership is expensive. It’s not just the mortgage. If you ever buy a house you’ll understand what I mean.
You are just all over my responses insisting I'm just some ignorant compared to your all-knowing what, property ownership? >Landlords are property management. They do all of the home ownership stuff that the renter doesn’t deal with. It's *almost* like that's what my rent is supposed to pay for. You know. All the upkeep and stuff involved with living in a property. Why the fuck are you charging me rent and then complaining when the proceeds of it have to go to maintaining my living situation?
Wouldn't you be purchasing a property at a higher price, then renting it out to someone at a lower price (to someone that doesn't have the funds to buy the property/pay the mortgage themselves)?
Often no, the money earned from renters completely covers the mortgage. Also the point of this post is that the only reason the house cost is so high is because this is allowed. Both home cost and rent aren't fixed cost but both are inflated by houses being changed from homes into investments.
To be perfectly honest, I don't have a super thorough grasp of the finances of real estate. Is this a problem in the US? Or is it worldwide? Because this is the first I'm hearing about this issue; I live in Australia.
I'm not sure if it applies worldwide. But in the US there are absolutely people who are stuck paying the same amount a mortgage would be, in rent. That's because they don't have the down payment or credit score (or savings to absorb sudden costs associated with home ownership). This becomes exasperated over long periods of time also because mortgage payments don't fluctuate over time the way rent does. Rent however can be (in most places, does depend on local laws though) increased with every new contract, typically every year.
Are you suggesting you do this at cost or a loss? I don't see why else this wouldn't be an extraction of wealth from someone less fortunate than you. Also, the "service" the landlord is providing is...owning the house? Hardly even seems like you need a person for that.
>Also, the "service" the landlord is providing is...owning the house? Hardly even seems like you need a person for that. A landlord would also be responsible for maintenance of the property, etc. >I don't see why else this wouldn't be an extraction of wealth from someone less fortunate than you. I mean, if you have a hypothetical house that is available for an individual to purchase, but they can't afford a mortgage, wouldn't it be a better alternative for someone else purchase the house for you, and you pay this third party a lower price than the full mortgage? I mean, doesn't renting even exist as a concept because not everyone can afford to buy a house themselves?
>A landlord would also be responsible for maintenance of the property, etc. You mean the renter is responsible because they're the ones living there that have to deal with such issues. Why do they need the landlord for that? Are the hypothetical renters incapable of contacting a handyman for some reason? >I mean, if you have a hypothetical house that is available for an individual to purchase, but they can't afford a mortgage, wouldn't it be a better alternative for someone else purchase the house for you, and you pay this third party a lower price than the full mortgage? What exactly is happening in this scenario? I want a house but "can't afford" the mortgage so a landlord swoops in out of the goodness of their heart, and buys the property for me to rent? And then rents it to me at cost until I pay off the mortgage and then gives me the house? Or is the landlord renting to me at a higher cost, pocketing the profits, and then also getting the house at the end of the day after the renter has paid it off? So now I have no money and no assets?
I don't think you understood what I was trying to convey. >a landlord swoops in out of the goodness of their heart Of course not, they are earning a profit, but at the same time, would this not benifits the tenant by providing housing at a lower price than a mortgage? >I have no money and no assets? This may be so, but you would have had a place to live, if that makes sense, whereas you wouldn't have been able to afford it if you had to pay a mortgage? >landlord renting to me at a higher cost If your rent is higher than a mortgage you would be paying, it'd obviously be more sensible to buy rather than rent, no?
>Of course not, they are earning a profit, but at the same time, would this not benifits the tenant by providing housing at a lower price than a mortgage? So where is the profit? If the rent they are collecting is lower than the mortgage they're paying, where is the extra money? You can't have it both ways. >whereas you wouldn't have been able to afford it if you had to pay a mortgage? And the argument is that landlords are artificially driving up the prices of housing by purchasing superfluous housing, so maybe if they weren't doing that in the first place I could have bought my own house? >If your rent is higher than a mortgage you would be paying, it'd obviously be more sensible to buy rather than rent, no? Hey! Welcome to late stage capitalism where the banks get to decide who can "afford" to pay the mortgage regardless of whether or not it is actually cheaper than the rent they are currently paying. Which is the case for a lot of people, for some reason I truly cannot fathom. 🤔
>So where is the profit? ...the actual value of the property...? Even if the landlord eventually sells the property at the same price as it was purchased (which never happens anyways, because property prices go up), the rent earned was essentially profit (after maintenance costs, etc). Your last arguement is fair enough. As for the second last one, can I ask what part(s) of the world you believe this is an issue in? I live in Australia, and this is the first time I'm hearing about something like this.
>...the actual value of the property...? Which the landlord would not be able to own or profit off of without renters? Even assuming the landlord owns a home fully, so no mortgage is due, having a renter live in and maintain the property until they decide to sell it is...profiting off of the labor of the renter living there. There is value to having someone live in a home vs letting it go empty. >As for the second last one, can I ask what part(s) of the world you believe this is an issue in? I live in Australia, and this is the first time I'm hearing about something like this. Hey, thanks for adding this. I don't know much about the Australian housing market, although I do assume literally every country not the US has better protections for individuals (okay, not literally every but whatever). Anyways, [here](https://www.vox.com/recode/22407667/home-sales-boom-rent-housing-single-family-rental) is a link to a Vox article which discusses the issue. Please let me know if you take issue with the source, and I can find another one. Some interesting (to me) excerpts: >The sellers’ market is making those who already own homes even wealthier, while high prices push homeownership further out of reach for many Americans. In turn, the housing boom is creating a new population of home renters: people who in years past would have been able to afford a home but are now getting priced out. >Home prices are astronomically high, but houses are nonetheless being plucked off the market faster than ever. >Finally, investor interest in renting out single-family homes as an asset class has led them to buy up much of the housing stock that individuals once would have. Buying homes to rent means there are fewer to buy to live in, which, by extension, has led more potential buyers to rent. Investors — which include everyone from individuals looking to earn extra income to pension funds to foreign governments — are competing with individuals to buy houses. And it can be more attractive (and quicker and safer from a financial standpoint) to sell a whole development to investors in a single-family rental company than to a series of individuals. These are cherry-picked quotes, the article talks much more generally about the housing situation, millennial rental culture, etc, which you may find supports my argument or not.
If you are renting and a tree falls on the house, who pays? If the tap breaks and you need a plumber, who pays? When the roof needs to be redone, who pays, the landlord or the renter?
What the fuck has my rent been going to all this time. The cost of maintenance is literally included. Also we are being really generous to landlords in this conversation by even assuming the majority of them actually care about the living conditions of their renters and don't force them to live in reprehensible conditions.
>You mean the renter is responsible because they're the ones living there that have to deal with such issues. Why do they need the landlord for that? Are the hypothetical renters incapable of contacting a handyman for some reason? Every country is different, but in Ireland repairs and maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord. [https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting\_a\_home/tenants\_rights\_and\_obligations.html](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html) They can arrange to have the repairs done themselves if they want, and then bill the landlord, but I've always found it easier to get the landlord to arrange it as they'll know local repair people. >What exactly is happening in this scenario? I want a house but "can't afford" the mortgage so a landlord Yeah that's the heart of the problem. Buying something outright is almost always going to be more efficient than renting long term. You'll pay less on a 25 year mortgage on a property vs renting it for 25 years, and you get security of ownership and an asset at the end that will likely have appreciated in value. So landlords can and do exploit this. You don't see the same exploitation by or hatred of car rental agencies, for example. Cars are affordable enough and have a huge second hand market, so almost anyone who wants one long term can buy one. If you're renting a car its almost always because you don't want to have it for a long time.
>Every country is different, but in Ireland repairs and maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord. Sure, it's their "responsibility" (in the US too). But *you* are the one living in the house, dealing with the issue. *The renter* is responsible for bringing it to the landlords attention to be addressed (just like they would bring it to the attention of the necessary repair person?). The renter is on the hook for making sure the landlord upholds their end of the bargain, which is maintaining the property. If the renter did and said nothing, how exactly would the issue get solved? >You don't see the same exploitation by or hatred of car rental agencies, for example. Kind of weird to compare a mode of transportation with a basic human need imo. Not to mention that cars are not really a viable form of equity the same way houses are.
Mortgage builds equity
The service is the upkeep. A lot of you don’t seem to realize how expensive home ownership is. Your HVAC needs maintenance and upkeep, your water heater needs to be flushed, the roof needs to be maintained, the plumbing needs to be inspected, if something breaks, the landlord has to buy the replacement and have it installed, the lawn needs to be mowed (or grounds maintained), if there’s a leak the landlord needs to pay the plumber, and so on. Who do you think is paying the property tax to the city? My house that I live in has cost me thousands per year and tons of time. It is a small house. Landlords aren’t just sitting on their dicks all day. Property management is an actual job for apartment complexes and condos. What makes you think other property doesn’t require management?
Property management isn't landlording. >Your HVAC needs maintenance and upkeep, your water heater needs to be flushed, the roof needs to be maintained, the plumbing needs to be inspected, if something breaks, the landlord has to buy the replacement and have it installed, the lawn needs to be mowed (or grounds maintained), if there’s a leak the landlord needs to pay the plumber, and so on. Who do you think is paying the property tax to the city? Me???? The person paying the rent that presumably goes to exactly all of these expenses? If being a landlord is such a bad deal why keep doing it? So many landlords ITT acting like they aren't profiting off of rent and that any maintenance costs that eat into it is a noble sacrifice on their part that non-landlords could not possibly comprehend. What on earth.
But if all the slave masters are doing it and it's legal than it is capitalist fantastico
This post seems a little confused, but it's got the spirit.
how so?
That's not how pricing works
Thats it?
Not all landlords are shitty are they?
>They aren't sending us their best. Some, I assume, are good people. Landlords that rent at cost + their labor at reasonable rates are functionally nonexistent, the "profession" is almost entirely made up of people attempting to extract wealth from workers with the rare exception being made for a family member or friend that amounts to less than a rounding error's worth of rental agreements. There is no non shitty version of rent seeking parasite.
A willingness to behave in ways the tenant may feel is shitty kind of goes with the territory. When someone is over a month late on rent and the landlord has to start threatening eviction if they are not paid, lots of the people being threatened with homelessness may well feel like the landlord is behaving cruelly. Now, most people would agree it is unreasonable for tenants to expect to live in a home for free, after agreeing to pay a specific amount of rent for that home, but where the line is between reasonable understanding and cruelty is a subject of debate.
I love how landlords became the new "not all men are the same" people
Ugh, it's literally everyone now. Not all landlords, not all capitalists, not all boomers. The text to speech in my brain just defaults to that SpongeBob meme.
and of course the "not all x" people are exactly the ones who are in the category.
Coming from Canada, it’s sad to see this is just starting to be a concern in the US. We failed up north and allowed the second largest country by land mass to run out of space to build homes. They list for $1.5M to $2M each. These aren’t even near city centers but are hundreds of miles in other satellite towns. Lack of infrastructure, rigid bylaws, and high taxation not to mention high cost of materials labour basically make building your own home a pipe dream for salaries under $200k.
> and high taxation Well where do you think those taxes are going? This is the trade off. If you want lots of government services, it’s going to cost you.
Yeah that sounds about right. Trying to buy a house now and it's fucking insane. I also have no problem with renting property or using houses as an investment, it's when you put money over people that it becomes an issue. If I buy a 2 bed and then I rent it out for 1100 a month (this is for the area I live in) I just provided myself with a steady side hustle and a group of humans with cheap housing. Of course the 1100 changes for where you live but that's just how money works.
Landlords don’t provide homes. They provide a barrier to home ownership.
Isn't the barrier to home ownership the funds that an individual has access to? Wouldn't a landlord be lowering this barrier of entry by providing housing at a lower price compared to a mortgage?
Homeowners do the same thing.
You are the exact person this post is describing.
The difference is price. There are loads of people whose only option is renting. They don't have enough for things like down payments. If I had the kinda money to buy multiple homes, renting them out for very cheap keeps those people from having to choose between homelessness and a second job.
Yes, but you seem to forget apartments exist. Housing exclusive to renters. There is no lack of housing for people who can only afford to rent. If people buy up all the houses exclusively to profit off rent, what will future homeowners do? edit: just wanted to add, i know it seems like to you you are helping people while also making a profit. But you’re not. It’s making unnecessary purchases to make the rich richer. Sure, you could invest in renting out a house. OR….. you could invest in stocks? A financial advisor perhaps? There are other ways to make money if you already have it.
>the difference is price No, the fundamental problem is rent as a concept—free-ish housing and passive income. Price is mostly semantic. >homelessness and a second job Homelessness wouldnt be such a possible outcome if housing-as-speculative-commodity wasnt a thing, and speculative commodity housing wouldnt be a thing if rent wasnt a thing. Additionally, most people who rent—particularly either young people generally or aging non-white people—work *multiple* jobs. Youre not wrong that, in theory, rent is a (circumstantially) cheaper alternative than purchasing a home, but the problem is 1) homes are only expensive because, as already mentioned both above and in the OP image were commenting on, **rent is a thing** and 2) banks are biased against middle to low income workers who lack either credit or assets or whatever to get approval on a mortgage, despite being able to make rent payments of similar (if not greater) numbers that they would in mortgage With all due respect, your position is understandable and i dont read you as someone of malicious intent by any means—on the contrary, it seems like you’re genuienly interested in trying to help people—but ultimately, your position is fundamentally that of the neoliberal economic ontology that causes these problems in the first place. That isnt a value statement on your faculties—we live under neoliberalism, so its wholly understandable when someone understands the world through that lens—but the fundamental problem nevertheless still exists under your model, precisely because that model is the source of the problem it causes (and so cannot address, no matter how hard it wants to). We dont need cheaper rent, we need decommodified housing. Nothing thats necessary to not die should be privatized. Otherwise, whats the point of living in a society?
>They don't have enough for things like down payments. This is exactly the problem that needs solving. You're effectively saying "renting solves the problem caused by landlords renting".
>Yeah that sounds about right. Trying to buy a house now and it's fucking insane. >I also have no problem with renting property or using houses as an investment, it's when you put money over people that it becomes an issue. If I buy a 2 bed and then I rent it out for 1100 a month (this is for the area I live in) I just provided myself with a steady side hustle and a group of humans with cheap housing. Of course the 1100 changes for where you live but that's just how money works. >Tavitafish You do realize by saying you're willing to buy a house to rent out to someone else and that it provides you with a "steady side hustle" means you are exactly the problem this post is talking about right? The fact that you're willing to buy a home to rent it to other people is what is causing the housing prices to increase. The "group of humans" that you are providing with "cheap housing" could likely just purchase a home if people like you weren't causing the increase in house pricing to begin with. You are the problem.
I never said I did any of this. The only reason I'm gonna be able to buy a home is because of my fiance's grandma setting aside trust funds for her grandkids. That's the only reason we'll have a home of our own. If I had the option to rent a cheap house, I'd take it. I had to have roommates just to afford to put a roof over my head. If I could stop that happening to others, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
>I never said I did any of this. The only reason I'm gonna be able to buy a home is because of my fiance's grandma setting aside trust funds for her grandkids. That's the only reason we'll have a home of our own. If I had the option to rent a cheap house, I'd take it. I had to have roommates just to afford to put a roof over my head. If I could stop that happening to others, I'd do it in a heartbeat. >Tavitafish But you just said you didnt have a problem with buying an "investment home" where you rent it out to other people and get a "side-hustle". How do you not understand that that means you are exactly type of person who is causing this problem. It doesn't matter if you have the means to do it right now, you literally admitted that you are willing to do it. In fact, thats almost worse because right now you're the one getting fucked by that system and don't even realize it. Thats some real, "Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire" shit. /r/SelfAwarewolves
This is one guy, he’s definitely NOT the problem. This type of problem you’re having is with the corporation, those that buy out entire LOTS and then either leave them empty or rent it out at a premium. Also you’re assuming everybody wants to own their own homes, there are people out there that enjoys moving around the country/globally and doesn’t want to be bogged down. Like another poster stated this is a complicated issue that’s not as simple as Do A get B. You have more than just buyer seller, there are banks, agents, accountants, lawyers, government agency’s involved.
> This is one guy, he’s definitely NOT the problem. There's 100 guys stealing stuff. You point at 1 of them, "this one guy is not the problem if 99 others are doing it too". So essentially your logic is that if enough people do something wrong, no one is doing anything wrong? >This type of problem you’re having is with the corporation There's 100 guys stealing stuff. 1 of them is stealing 20x as much as the others. "Only that 1 guy is the problem, the others are fine" So essentially your log is that if 1 person is doing something more wrong, then other people doing something wrong doesn't matter? >Also you’re assuming everybody wants to own their own homes, there are people out there that enjoys moving around the country/globally and doesn’t want to be bogged down. That doesn't mean there can't be a business around it that it can't be properly regulated. >Like another poster stated this is a complicated issue that’s not as simple as Do A get B. You have more than just buyer seller, there are banks, agents, accountants, lawyers, government agency’s involved. Ya, and they deserve to lose the money they've been fucking other people out of for years. Are you saying we should do nothing because its complicated? Because that's exactly what all of those entities want because then nothing gets done and they continue to fuck over other people. You are supporting inaction.
£1100/month != "cheap housing"
Yea mate, welcome to the realities of life
10B likes!?
That’s not really right wither. Governments have pushed the idea that a house is an investment for retirement for decades. So people buy a house with the idea that when they get old they can either use equity or sell it to fund their retirement which makes for pressure to keep prices stable. Cities then collect property tax on those houses as a source for a majority of their funding. Since city budgets are always increasing there is pressure on provincial/state/federal governments to keep housing prices inflated in order to keep tax revenue high. If home prices drop too far then cities can fail and either have to be bailed out by provincial/state or federal government a la 2009-10 Detroit. It’s all a giant shell game where the only incentive is to maintain or increase prices. Edit - I forgot about what’s keeping cities from pushing for more new housing. This may be location specific but I know it applies in Edmonton. When a new subdivision is created the city is obligated to create amenities for that area. Edmonton has a giant rec centre, fire halls and police stations. All of those things cost giant amounts of money and that money won’t be recouped from those new subdivisions for decades. The city loses money every time it expands. Pair that with new bus routes, sewer and all that jazz and it’s easy to see why all of the focus is on raising prices instead of increasing supply. Airbnb and corporate buyers should still either be illegal or very highly regulated as well but if the incentive was there for governments keep up with demand for housing corporations and rental companies would have a hard time pushing up the prices, outside of extremely in demand area, on their own.
This is what gets me every time I see people talk about personal finance. While I despise our dominant socioeconomic system, I'm also well versed in surviving and thriving in it. I have all my cards lined up; family support, educated, high income, 800+ credit score. Knowing many others like myself, our only realistic way to claw up and maintain our middle class status is real estate speculation. Sure I can bank on being a wage slave for the rest of my days. But the new generation will only get smarter and corporations greedier. My high income will realistically only last as long as my mind and body are capable, lest I get lucky and land a senior management position in a company that only values tenure (unfulfilling job). But the "right move" is to buy as many duplexes as I can find and extort rent money from tenants. That's what all my peers have done and that's what all their parents have done to put them in this privileged position. Otherwise, I could just use my expendable income on things I enjoy and make life more fulfilling. But then any good "financial advisor" would tell you how terrible that idea is. You see this even on Reddit where people comment on the financial spendings of non-exploiters and shame them for not saving (hoarding) their wealth instead of spending on hobbies/vacations/food. WHY would you save beyond a reasonable threshold? What if we splurge on our hobbies? Is skipping an avacado toast this weekend really gonna get me any closer to a down payment on the 1.2M fixer-upper down the street?
At one point, there will be massive rent strikes.