Landlords do not provide housing
ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:
Landlords do not provide housing.
They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.
Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.
What they're doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.
I honestly wouldn't be so upset about a "mom and pop" landlord that is renting their basement or garage (where I currently live...) if they weren't charging more than their fucking mortgage for it...
It's infuriating that I'm paying for their house but I have to live in a garage because I was late to the party and new loans/house prices are absolutely bat shit insane...
But but "the market!"
The market:
The Market is also why my company tells us our pay is low, our raises are terrible, and next year we have to take shitty Cigna health insurance and like it. (And is Absolutely definitely not because CIGNA is suddenly one of our single largest clients who we also just closed a new additional deal with.)
if they weren’t charging more than their fucking mortgage for it…
Disgusting freeloaders.
No one should get a second home until everyone's had their first.
The policy issue to overcome here in America is a robust pension system. Home values are obscene for a lot of reasons but one of the biggest reasons no one does anything about it is because for most non elite Americans the home they own is their most valuable asset and the growth in equity ends up becoming a significant contributor to retirement
Even with that the dream is over; the days of baby boomers buying houses and seeing explosive growth of 12-20k in 1960 to 200ish-k in 2010 or even gen x buying a house for 100k in 1995 and seeing it mature to 400k in 2020 are unsustainable. The people buying 250-400k houses now (like me) would be foolish to expect their homes to be worth millions in 30 years outside of hyperinflation.
But I bet money we will cling to it. It’s difficult having seen the past several generations retire very comfortably via the equity in their home, while we make the $2000 mortgage payment that will get us housing but not this benefit. Another way millennials get fucked out of something that every modern generation before them had. To be fair this one had to die but it just sucks all of this gets saddled on us because it’s not like there’s a strong likelihood social security is getting fixed in time
The woman I toured a few houses with last week is in her late 60s and I was telling her how frustrating it was to have lost so many houses to people offering cash deals 30k over list. She decided to tell me a long story about how she reconnected with a lost love and moved down to Florida with him. But being far from family was tough so they decided to buy a second house out here for when they travel. They got "an amazing house" by offering cash, 30k over asking. She lamented how it felt like they were taking someone's starter home but her now-husband reassured her that whatever family they outbid just has to wait 20 years.
All I could say was, "you probably did buy a young family's starter home. Maybe it was even mine."
Congrats on owning two houses, I guess.
Buying a home now requires so much money down, and will still have monthly payments higher than renting, it's not even a question for me. Home ownership isn't in the cards and may never be.
Hear hear.
Rich people: "Can I have a 4th home, just as a little treat for myself?"
I don't think he knows about the 4th home.
With homes i agree and with apartment buildings over 10 units it should be mandated to maintain 95% occupancy year round across ALL owned buildings. Only reason I say 95% is because there's gonna be highs and lows so I think 5% is very fair for unoccupied space. This would also cover the in-between of someone moving out and needing to get the unit ready for another person. If a land owner can maintain that then I think it's fair to let them continue growing and should they fail to meet the requirements then they can't buy any more properties. I would recommend also that 1 single year of 95% doesn't immediately qualify you for growth. A penalty of 2 years consistently having 95% must be required.
But a good landlord with fair prices will prevent evil landlords from price gouging tenants! /s
I mean this can happen, but nobody should have to rely on the good will of some random person. Thats one thing i learned as a kid, never trust people with money amounts of that order unless they are legally obligated to fullfill their promises. People can be super cool and nice right until they need money.
You had me in the first half, ngl..
Alright but...there actually is a legitimate service that landlords provide. If someone does not want to own and maintain a property for a long period of time, or doesn't have enough money or means to satisfy a lender that they will be able to repay a very large loan on that property over a long time, a rental agreement is beneficial. Grad students, visa holders, travel nurses, etc probably don't want to purchase the property they're temporarily staying in.
You don't have to rent from a landlord, you should have the ability to rent from a nonprofit, a co-op, etc. Housing is a human right and should never be about profit.
Landlords aren't the exclusive source for short term housing, and don't need to be defended in this way. Advocate for and support collective ownership via housing cooperatives. Landlording is the practice of leeching money from the working class.
Long-term stay hotels used to be a major source of short term housing. They mostly disappeared because of zoning law changes and in some cases fire code / housing code changes. There are problems with hotels / hoteliers. But, having a variety of solutions means various housing options have to compete with each-other, which is normally good for the person needing a place to stay.
There is a legitimate service being provided there. It just shouldn't be "lords" who provide it.
The problem is that the "lord" is earning tens of thousands of dollars per year for essentially no work. This makes it essentially similar to how a "lord" worked in a Feudalist system. This isn't even capitalism where someone owns capital and uses that capital to generate profit. This is just demanding a payment for being in a place.
Since being a landlord requires essentially no work, landlords can accumulate wealth, buy more property, get even more income, buy more property, etc. More wealth / property means more political power. The main thing that political power will be used for is to gain and retain more wealth, which is equivalent to more power.
Imagine how different would be if nobody could ever rent out more than one property, especially combined with a vacant units tax. You'd still have "landlords" but they would be much less lord-like.
Land Contract (sometimes called "contract for deed") provides all of those same benefits, from the same people, to the same people, as renting. It is a bit of a misnomer in that it applies to any real property, and not just "land".
The difference from renting is that with the land contract:
Grad students, visa holders, travel nurses, etc. might not necessarily want to purchase the property they are staying in, but they might also find themselves living in that area for longer than they expect. A land contract gives them the security of fixed housing costs and the flexibility of being able to walk away at any time and for any reason. They also allow the occupant to begin earning equity while still living in "temporary" housing, allowing them to save more for the future.
But, in our current market, renting is more lucrative to the landlord.
So how do we drive landlords to offer land contracts instead of rental agreements? We provide property tax exemptions to owner-occupants. We increase the nominal property tax rate: run it sky high. But, the owner-occupant exemption means the effective tax rate for homeowners (including land contract buyers) doesn't actually increase. Only investors - people who own housing they don't live in - will be paying that punitively-high tax rate.
With that sky-high tax on investment properties, today's landlords will be incentivized to become private lenders. They will be taking the exact same financial risk on the exact same people, but now those people will be called "buyers" instead of "tenants".
The only "renting" that will still remain is from landlords who live in one unit of a 2-4 unit property, or a roommate agreement, or short-term use like hotels and motels.
Home ownership is the single best predictor of financial prosperity in the US. Every housing contract should include some sort of provision for equity.
I rent my house to military who don't want to buy because they'll leave in 2-3 years
And my dear grandma rents her old flat to a single mum and her kids, who's down on her luck, for so little that she's practically paying them to live there, until she can find a place to buy. My grandma hasn't been able to stay there since pops past away while saving a bunch of babies from a fire.
Therefore, landlordism is justified.
I agree. I had a period where I moved very frequently and would not have wanted the headache of having any financial stake in the apartments I lived. Being able to just say I wasn't renewing the lease and never having to think about the place again was very convenient. You also don't appreciate how nice it is to not have to worry about maintenance until it's your responsibility.
Exactly, if renting wasn't a thing, that means everyone unable or unwilling to buy a whole house has no other choice but to live on the street.
The middle ground should be there. It, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, quite the opposite.
It's weird that people conflate renting or temporary but long term housing with "landlord".
Public housing accomplishes this without transferring money to a landowning class
Sure, how many people do you think you'd walk up to who are renting who would say that that's their situation?
Why are you talking about the exception not explicitly the problem that this is supposed to be trying to address?
The issues are people who want to purchase cannot while people have more than one.
Are you saying we prioritize those renters over homeowners? Is that better for the economy of the country to have people who are renting as opposed to people who own?
Edit: also how does this work if a country cares about their citizens and absolutely any of their citizens are homeless while someone has extra and empty housing?
Don't ever call what landlords do a service. They do it for profit. It's not a service.
Where the cinnamon toast fuck do you live where a service exchanged for money is not done for a profit? Does your town have a grocery store selling goods at exactly cost?
So does a lawyer, a mechanic, a doctor or a delivery guy. They offer a service in exchange for money.
As opposed to everyone else who actively seeks to make trades that are detrimental to them?
"Service" and "for profit" are not antonyms, nor mutually exclusive.
Oh my god, tell me about it.
Even when you want to rent a place and can afford to do so, landlords make the situation really difficult because many of them put up places supposedly for rent, but make it as difficult as possible for someone to actually qualify to rent it, since they're only doing it to inflate their net worth and having someone living there apparently devalues it. It took me over a year to find a place that actually was willing to let me rent it because most others would cook up bullshit reasons to reject me (my personal favourite being one that got mad at me and put me in their blacklist for... asking too many questions about their property???).
Like... I have money. They are offering a good in exchange for money. I am willing to spend money in exchange for this good. It shouldn't be this hard.
I'm in a similar situation. Add disability (which means at least 80% of properties aren't suitable without serious adaptation) and benefits to the equation, and I'm considered "too big a risk" (even though having me as a tenant means funnelling government money directly in to landlord's pockets). The polite landlords and agents will play along and pretend to take me seriously before they very obviously put my aplication at the bottom of a pile and never call me back, while some feel comfortable enough to openly discriminate against me, because despite the law saying they can't, no one actually enforces it, and they know they can get away with it. The ratio of applicants per property are so obscenely out of whack, they can place as many illegal conditions as they like, and people will continue to flock, borderline beg, to be allowed to spend 75% of their income on a shitty little hellhole.
I realised that I had to limit myself to only applying to places that are at least £100 less a month than I pay now, and even those automatically reject me on grounds of "affordability", meanwhile my landlord just keeps putting my rent up in an attempt to push me out so they can then charge the next person even more, and I keep paying it because I simply can't find anywhere else suitable to go.
To say it's distressing would be the understatement of the century.
Corporate landlords specifically.
Single Family Houses – The 5 Biggest Buyers In America
As SFH investors and property managers we may find ourselves bidding on the same property as a major fund. You might get a call from a fund that wants to buy your portfolio. You could end up partnering with a fund as its local operator. You never know.
Phoenix was the first city that had just about all the major private equity firms investing in single family houses. Private equity helped drive prices in Phoenix up by 34% as you can read about in this Bloomberg article here. The next city that attracted just about all the major private equity firms was Atlanta GA. Other popular markets are CA, Chicago and Florida. PE firms are looking for markets that have experienced the biggest bubbles that have resulted in the biggest swings in values.
We call those non-linear markets. The goal is to hold properties as rentals and wait for a housing recovery. These funds are averaging about an 8% return on investment where most major multi-family / apartment funds return about 5 or 6%. Linear markets like Tulsa OK, Louisville KY, Indianapolis IN, Fort Worth TX, Columbus OH, and Kansas City have been some what over looked by the biggest players. However, there are plenty of funds coming into the linear markets with up to $50 million (which is considered a small fund) to spend on houses.
Ok but where's the punchline? Why is this even a comic?
Not all sequential art is meant to be funny.
Side note: One of the best non-fiction books of all time is Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud.
Yeah, comic only laugh. Funny funny or else why? Why comic if no funny? Funny pages, comics, funny /s
Dude, comics can be whatever the fuck you want. Want to make a comic that's just four panels of an unmoving rock? Still a comic. And there's no reason why anyone should question otherwise.
Between this and all the "how is this a meme?" comments. Most inane, useless comments. Maybe, just maybe, it wasn't meant for you? Clearly it's getting upvotes
Want to make a comic that’s just four panels of an unmoving rock? Still a comic.
Sure, except that would be a somewhat shitty comic and anyone would have the right to say that if that's their opinion.
Between this and all the “how is this a meme?” comments. Most inane, useless comments. Maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t meant for you? Clearly it’s getting upvotes
Maybe my comment wasn't meant for you if it bothers you this much? Just move on bro.
There is a solution for landlords that we've known about for a long time.
And its doesn't involve the a massive, powerful state controlling where people can live.
Its a 100% tax on the value of land. It would stop the landowning class from unfairly stealing huge amounts of money from the poor in the form of rent. It could fund the government (allowing us to decrease taxes that hurt labor, like an income tax), or be redistributed as UBI.
Seriously, if you are at all interested in potential solutions to the housing crises and wealth inequality, please, please, google Land Value Tax and Georgism.
I live in a city where property values have increased by an order of magnitude over about 40 years.
Yes, we have a lot of speculators and wealthy landowners who need to be taxed out of existence.
But we also have a problem where seniors on fixed incomes who have owned their homes for 30 - 50 years cannot afford their property taxes because the land their homes are sitting on has exploded in value.
There is a solution to this: homestead exemption. A lot of states already implement implement this with their normal property tax. If a property is your primary residence, then the tax you pay on it cannot increase by more than x% a year. Some states also give preferential tax treatment to senior's primary residence. Their is no reason we couldn't implement these same breaks on a LVT.
So they wouldn't be able to afford their taxes with a LVT, but they can't afford their taxes under the current property tax regime (in which land value is also a factor). I don't see how this is an argument against LVT.
But, zooming out, is it beneficial to society to have empty-nesters, and elderly single people, living in 3- or 4-bedroom houses when there's a critical housing shortage for young families? Is it even good for them to live in a big house, when a nearby, smaller dwelling that's cheaper, and easier to clean and keep up? The problem in the United States is that those smaller dwelling units don't exist at all in most neighborhoods, and about the only option is to move to an "independent living" facility on the edge of town, away from family an neighbors, for $3,000 a month.
It could be a win-win: Elderly owners of high-value land could realize the cash value that's currently locked up in their houses, while the city could benefit by intensified development of that same land, increasing nearby land values even more. We need to change the zoning code to allow building that missing-middle housing in the same neighborhoods, but if we did that, a land-value tax would help incentivize its construction.
What does this mean? It sounds like paying rent to the government using different words. A better solution I see is limiting the amount and type of property an individual can own before taxes are raised significantly or more severe steps are taken.
I'd be willing to consider it if there was an extreme homestead exemption.
USA government is far too greedy and won't ever do it.
Especially if it helps old people or people living off of 'benefits'.
Landlords would just raise rent and claim the taxes as an expense. If they couldn't claim it as expenses they'll just increase rent even more.
So because other landlords will be trying to raise money to pay the land value tax, they will be more desperate for renters, and will offer a lower price. So if your landlord tried to raise the rent, you would have a lot of cheaper options to leave to. It would make landlords compete against each other.
See here for theory and empirics, including an example from Denmark
so are you advocating for zero private ownership of houses?
like what's the policy proposal?
I do kind of like that other comment, " nobody gets a second house until everybody gets their first".
All of it should be public property.
This is a socialist sub so yeah no more private ownership of property would be nice
100% tax on the value of land is the policy proposal. It makes economic sense, would let us abolish regressive taxes on labor and sales, would incentivize more abundant housing. Seriously. This is the solution.
Landlords provide serfdom, and they are needed because of the serfdom the worst offenders impose on society.
If you live in a house long enough you should begin to have a claim on it. Most landlords add zero value to it, they only harvest it.
I don't really want to pay for a house and experience all the expenses that come with it. Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you, and it doesn't involve paying whoever comes to fix your stuff.
Additionally, owning a house would basically anchor me to one location, which gives me less flexibility as a digital nomad.
If you value home equity then buying a house is definitely ideal. But this isn't the case for everyone.
...oh, sorry. I forgot this is Lemmy and that you can't have a different opinion under any circumstance. My bad!
It's okay that you don't want to own a house. Those are legitimate practical concerns that you bring up. Certainly renting comes with some conveniences, like being able to move, not having to worry about utilities, repairs etc. (although, if you have a bad landlord, you may still have to worry about that stuff)
But at the end of the day, you are still paying for someone else's ownership of an asset and thereby increasing their wealth at the expense of your own. They are leveraging your need for shelter to increase their own personal wealth. It's not about the pros and cons of renting vs buying. It's about the inherently unequal material relationship between you and your landlord.
If there are alternate options for renting a place, then I'm open to hear it. As of now, though, simply walking up to someone and asking to rent their place seems like the easier and more straightforward option.
I am only speaking from experience here. I understand the situation varies from person to person. I'm not personally concerned with my own wealth. I have found apartments with comfortable monthly rent, and I have found places that don't seem to have a fair rent that I've quickly moved out of. I can afford groceries and save a bit for some personal expenses. So far, I have had no negative experiences with any landlord I've rented from despite the rent pricing.
If it's the idea of landlords owning places and offering them for rent that people here are bothered about, then I'm not sure I understand their perspective. I respect it nonetheless, but I suppose I am just not as frustrated as most people are with the situation
Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you, and it doesn’t involve paying whoever comes to fix your stuff.
Those costs are almost certainly built into your rent. It's not free. You also risk the landlord just not fixing things.
True, although likely spread over a longer period of time and over multiple tenants. You're not paying for the new roof after just renting a couple of years for example.
Where I live, the break-even point is about 3 years last I checked where it's cheaper to rent assuming you could buy if you wanted to (realtor fees are a part of this since they essentially run a cartel, speaking of parasites...). That's assuming no major maintenance needed otherwise that changes the math.
If the landlord doesn't fix things you stop paying rent. At least in countries with strong regulations (Mietminderung in Germany).
You don't need landlords for non-ownership and temporary housing solutions to exist.
The problem isn't Lemmy, the problem is your insistence on remaining under a boot, and clear unwillingness to explore options beyond your existing and narrow (E: and indoctrinated by capitalism) view of the world.
For what its worth, they are not speaking on the same subject as you and I doubt they have even thought about material relationships in the same way you have. They just see buying vs renting and the practicalities of each, but not the implications on the relationship between renter and owner.
I doubt they see themselves as under a boot (I mean, I know I didn't think that when I started renting) or that they are indoctrinated by capital. We all gotta start learning this shit somewhere. I mean I get it: Once you realize that the rat race is bullshit, it's easy to get upset at others who are still running as if it is legitimate. But most of us were running at one point. When you lead people out, it's gotta come from a softer place than "you are indoctrinated and live under a boot."
You don't need landlords for non-ownership and temporary housing solutions to exist.
For example...
Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you
Your rent is quite literally paying for the maintenance. You think landlords are just losing money on maintenance out of the good of their own hearts? Of course not, it's just all bundled up and averaged out into one price with your rent.
owning a house would basically anchor me to one location, which gives me less flexibility as a digital nomad.
Cool, that's one of many benefits of housing cooperatives. They can act similarly to a landlord in terms of you sharing the cost of repairs with the whole building, which reduces risk, and they don't have a profit motive, since they're non-profits, so rent is lower than with a landlord. Some even let your rent buy you equity in your unit, which you can then sell later to get some of your money back if you decide to move, much better than the for-profit landlord that will give you nothing. The only issue is, these cooperatives are repeatedly outbid by corporate landlords, which means there's far fewer of them than would be ideal.
Additionally, I've seen some startups like Cohere that seem like they'll eventually be able to give you even more flexibility, allowing you to move between units in various locations without having to sell the old one or file annoying paperwork to start a new lease, with at least somewhat cooperative ownership. (although, of course, this is a for profit company, which isn't as ideal)
I can definitely understand wanting flexibility, but there are ways to get that which don't involve overpaying to a for-profit landlord. I can understand not caring much about equity, but of course, that's why non-ownership housing cooperatives exist.
But to actually make those things more widely available, you need to reduce the market power held by for-profit landlords. If they did not exist, these alternatives, primarily the cooperatives, could fill back in the gaps, but provide lower prices, better service, actual equity for those who want it, and still keep the flexibility you get from renting.
You’re not wrong, you’re just not participating in the same conversation.
Like if someone says “Hey, Disney World is an abusive and corrupt enterprise” and you reply “But I like going to Disney World and I don’t want to close it down”.
There should be a way to address the problems without abolishing the whole thing.
But if we can’t even admit the problems because we’re afraid of where it will lead, we’re never going to improve anything.
Fuck off, landlords don't do shit and look for every opportunity to screw you out of your deposit. sounds like you're defending your own scummy kind.
Correct, how dare you! Landlord bad! They want something in return for providing something, how dare they!
Providing what?
Yes, landlord bad for invariably doing a low quality repair job repeatedly, the money they make off multi tenant units is way more than they pay for a lowest bidder service call.
That's some low quality thinking, @Eheran@lemmy.world
The main driving factor is this "down payment" shit. A person who has a bunch of money can just go get a house and not actually pay for it fully. They can still loose all that money, there's risk there if they can't pay. And that's the difference. Everyone else can't put down that much money. So they can pay a landlord more money than the landlord pays monthly, but they don't have 2 or $300,000 bucks at risk each and every day. I mean, the landlord is payed for the risk they incur.
So a renter only loses a small amount of money if they fail to keep paying rent. However, they pay more each month and also, they loose relatively more when they loose housing and become homeless. So the situation is fucked up. You could for example barely own a house and then stretch and buy a second house with not much left in savings. If you're in that situation, you're a different landlord than a bank who basically only incurs a monetary risk and not a loosing everything you got risk.
Because of this. Maybe we should bring down the "down payment" bar shit. I mean the house could be destroyed by a renter or an owner, but the house will still be there. Banks literally can only lose a little bit of time between ownerships. So if you could purchase a house with just $5000, for example, that would be pretty easy to do for most people who have a job. At least relatively much easier to $300k. You can sell your house to the bank and get yourself a new house. Literally nobody loses if the down payment level is lowered to something reasonable. Ultimately, the banks will always own houses. So why not just state it clearly....you don't own this house but if you had 3 lifetimes, you could. And bring down the payments accordingly to people's income. Keep it locked at 10%. If we did this, what would prevent you from owning a mansion? Okay limit housing to reasonable sizes? Control traffic by only allowing people to own near where they work? So you live 1 mile from work and then you find a new job, congratulations! Now you can be part of the people who can buy near that area.
I don't know nothing. I'm just posting some stupid ass ideas.
Housing is still wildly speculative in pricing: detangle housing from investment, and people could actually afford to own homes
Youre right and, to add insult to injury, everyone, including those who do not own property, ensures that house prices always rise.
We're all paying for the increase in value but fewer and fewer are enjoying the rewards.
And the main factor driving down payments is housing prices, which are driven by landlords. Less landlords > less scarcity > lower prices > lower down payments.
On top of that, housing cooperatives exist, which can provide the benefits of renting (lower monthly payments than a mortgage, economy of scale for repairs & construction, less financial liability for the individual) without the negative effects of a for-profit landlord. (you progressively own more of your unit over time instead of never owning any of it, you pay lower monthly rates than you would to a for-profit entity)
They even have different ownership models, which could give more choice for pricing. For instance, the non-ownership model means you pay a lower rate, just the cost of continuing the providing and upkeep of the housing, with no additional profit margin, but you don't end up owning any of the unit you live in. But the ownership model means often paying a bit higher pricing, but in turn, getting to actually own the unit you live in, and later sell it off if you wish to move. (some cooperatives have caps on how much higher you can sell it for compared to your purchase price, others do not)
But in the end, the one thing that makes housing more expensive, that outbids cooperatives for housing, and that increases the scarcity of the market, is for-profit landlords.
The only way you get any true positive change on down payments, housing prices, or housing availability, is to completely ban all for-profit landlording.
If we could ban the for profit landlording that still leaves one big ass hole...asshole if you will. People keep making more people, so who builds their houses? Who pays for their land so they can start their own progressive path to ownership? And I totally agree with this. You should only make enough money to re-paint or re-roof etc. Maybe these things could be a type of insurance like the insurance you buy when you purchase a house with a low down payment.
It parallels the Vimes Boot Theory. I like where your head is at.
Losing* :/
Georgism, distributism, communitarianism.
Words.
landl*rds
I don't understand how would a 100% land tax work? If you own a 300k house you'd have to pay 300k in taxes every year? So basically making housing unaffordable except for the ultra rich?
Also why would anyone build apartments if they weren't going to make a profit? What's the incentive? No one would do anything if they couldn't make money doing it.
If landlords are bad or too expensive why not move, another building another state another lower cost of living area? Agreed rents are super high but that's mostly in dense urban areas. You're paying a premium for location.
I'm really not seeing any honest answers here about how to fix this problem. Besides the government should provide everyone free housing? How would that work how would you decide who gets to live where? Who gets the apartment on the lake vs next to the airport/oil refinery?
Like I get it housing is expensive but I haven't seen anything here that would actually help fix that? Ironically more landlords and more apartments would probably help.
You would only pay tax on the unimproved value of land. You pay no tax on everything built on it. So an empty 1-acre lot next to an apartment building providing 100 homes on a 1-acre lot would both pay the same taxes.
So landlords would earn a profit but they wouldn't earn rent (in the neoclassical sense).
Its almost like anybody who wants exclusive access to land (for their housing or their business) has to pay society for the right to use it. And if a business (like an apartment) tried to pass on costs to customer (their renters) without providing more or better services, they are essentially just admitting their land got more valuable, so they would just pay more in land value tax (thereby providing more funding for UBI or public services)
Okay that kind of makes sense. There is a problem though, well three.
Imagine you live in a small town. Something happens (COVID for instance) and your town becomes popular and your land value goes up. Yesterday your house was worth 100k but now it's worth 500k+. Your saying those people should essentially be forced out of their homes? To be bought up by rich people?
Additionally this means only the super rich would be able to afford homes? This tax would essentially mean only the top 1% could have a home and basically give them a free for all on any land they want. Why would we want that?
Lastly if you increased land tax by that much landlords would have to increase rent prices to offset this? So even with a govt subsidy the renter is still the person paying this increase.
Honestly I'm intrigued by this idea but once you start thinking about how it would work it falls apart. There is probably some variation of this that could work. Maybe in cities they'll be an extratax if you don't build some sort of minimum housing? But this is already pretty similar to just basic property taxes.
Why not just move? Yeah I'm gonna tell my childrens mother that I'm taking off. Just can't afford this shit anymore, sorry. Then get hit with the inevitable child support payments that will end you up in jail in no time anyway.
Just toss all that shit aside and move somewhere rural and shitty so you can afford it! (Oops, forgot to mention that pay is also significantly lower now so you still can't afford anything )
This is maybe true for landlording corpos.
In general though? Sorry, fuck you guys. When I can buy and rent an extra house or two for passive income, bet your titties I'm doing it and I'm not going to feel bad about it.
It's not that passive. If you want passive income get an ETF. We are selling our old apartment because of all the hassle of renting.
I guess what I really eventually want is an accessible vacation house near some water and a reasonable way to offset the cost without just letting it sit empty half a year at a time. Living in a college town now, it seems like the short term rental demographic might be a decent choice depending what and where you pick.
Landlords do not create the false scarcity.
Government does, by constantly suppressing new construction.
Government does this via:
Having no landlords is not a viable option. There are a lot of reasons that people want or need to rent a house for a while. People who know they're only living in an area temporarily exist in pretty large numbers.
The problem is that there's too many people who have made it a business that have over 5 houses on companies with hundreds or more doing it. People having one or two rentals isn't an issue at all in my book. It's the ones who made it a million dollar business that are the issue.
Say a renter starts doing good job and money wise for themselves. They invest their surplus in investment options like mutual funds and deposits and so on. Then their surplus is enough to invest into real estate. Should they not?
No. Housing is a human right, not a commodity. A renter going on to invest in real estate is being the crab in a bucket climbing over others then pulling back the ladder that capitalism wants them to be.
If by "invest in real estate" you mean purchase a property that they will then live in while it appreciates in value, effectively making that property a hedge against inflation, then yes absolutely.
And if after doing that they decide to purchase a second property to rent out, then sure, why not?
But no individual should be allowed to own more than two, maybe three properties.
No corporation (or any legal entity other than a person) should be allowed to own a single-family home or any other classification of single-unit residential property.
And banks should not be able to deny someone a mortgage if the monthly payment would be equal to or less than what that person is paying in rent.
literally
Downvote.
Did you literally downvote them?
If the landlords do not provide a service, you're welcome to go to the bank to approve your loan, buy or build a house, maintain it, pay back the loan and deal with delinquent renters and sell it when it's time for you to move out. None of which concerns you as a renter.
It is a massive PITA and it's a so-so store of value at best. That there are assholes who charge you through the nose for the rent doesn't mean it's a landlord problem. It's an asshole problem.
My landlady just put my rent up fifty quid. She owns (and rents out) 23 other properties. She's raking in everyone else's money. Fuck landlords.
Bull-fucking-shit.
20 years ago, houses in my neighborhood were selling for around $50k. Those same houses today hold a current market value of over $800k.
For comparison, the value of the USD has lost roughly 40% in value over the last 20 years, meaning if the houses in my neighborhood were only a "so-so store of value" (tracking inflation) they would be worth roughly $80k today, 10x less than the current market value.
For another comparison, if you put $50k into an index fund that tracked the S&P500 20 years ago, it would be worth roughly $350k today. That's not even half of the return houses in my neighborhood are getting over the same time period.
Sure it costs a lot of money to maintain a house and pay taxes and insurance over that 20 years and that's going to eat into those returns. But I can guarantee you I'm paying more than that to rent a similarly-sized property, which you would be doing anyway if you didn't have the capital to own a home.
I live a college town. Most students don’t want to buy a house to live in for four years and many don’t want to live in dorms either.