this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
499 points (97.3% liked)
Flippanarchy
2489 readers
1090 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes
So now they own a duplex and rent out half of it. What is the morally responsible move here? Sell it to a property management company so they are no longer an evil landlord? Push the 60 year old tenant out because he just wants to pay rent and likely isn't interested in buying a stake in half of a house, then find someone who wants to go splitskies on the mortgage and responsibilities?
How about not profiting off someone else's need for shelter?
Not charging over well over the mortgage to ypur tenant (OP's words).
OP is doing exactly the same thing as property management companies, but since he is a poor landlord, he is somewhat justified in his decisions?
Get the fuck out of here
How about not letting the tenant pay more than well over half of the mortgage?
I would wager that OP kept the biggest apartment between the two as well.
So OP gets to build equity with someone else's money and keep the appreciating value of the duplex, all that because he did the maintenance of the property, the strict minimum that society requires for a landlord?
Miss me with the fake outrage.
But but but if I don't exploit others how will I get wealthy and live in luxury while others are driven by the horrors to serve me? Did you even think of that? Did you even think of how I want a nice life without improving the world? God you communists disgust me. I'm gonna go kick my basement kid and shout at them some more because I actually care about society.
What's the appropriate split? How much do you charge?
Or I could make it an Airbnb! Screw my tenant and my neighbors, too!
You are a saint for letting your tenant pay more than half the mortgage for basic maintenance of the property. I was wrong.
So you think I should split the mortgage 50/50 and be responsible for 100% of maintenance?
Home ownership is so, so much more than a mortgage. In the past five years, I've replaced a sump pump, a water heater, both furnaces, garage door, chimney flue, garbage disposal, several windows, along with remodeling my tenants entire kitchen while mine looks like ass.
If my tenant's HVAC breaks, should I replace it, or tell him that's his responsibility now? Should I tell him he has to mow the lawn and shovel?
My tenant is in his 60s. He wants to live in a nice house with a yard. He doesn't want to be responsible for upkeep, so he pays me to do it instead.
But I guess I'm no better than a private equity firm that buys entire neighborhoods just to raise rent and increase shareholder value.
If he only paid half, you'd be charging half a mortgage to be a handyman at best. There's a huge difference because once you've paid out less than half the mortgage and he's paid out more than half, you own a duplex and he owns nothing.
It's the same assumption all landlords make. The price of sleeping under a roof is equal to the mortgage and the several-hundred-thousand dollar asset at the end is just a little treat for performing the backbreaking labor of having your name on a deed
Do you know what a mortgage is? It's a 30 year, essentially rent-to-own contract. Neither of us are planning on living here that long. My tenant isn't planning on living that long. And even if I owned it outright, I'd be paying property tax and insurance.
Sure, I could come out on top financially. I'm definitely not going to turn a profit but it might be cheaper than renting an apartment in the long run. And in the meantime, I take on all the risk and responsibility until I move and sell the house.
Not everything is a capitalist grift. I'm just trying to get by.
Wether you plan to live there or not in 30 years is irrelevant to the situation.
Your tenant pay over half the mortgage. So you get a subsidized housing, keep the appreciated value of the duplex as well and all that for the basic maintenance of the property?
Golly, what a deal.
It's absolutely relevant if you know how a mortgage works. Payments are ~75% interest in the first decade. I'm not going to have enough equity at that time to make a profit after all the money I put into the house. I'm looking at a $50k loss if the market stays steady. Still cheaper than renting, though.
Yes, my tenant subsidizes my living costs. That's the point of a duplex. I set the rent at what I thought was fair, given my expected losses and the work I put in.
There's no shortage of housing here. If my tenant wanted to, he could buy a house right now. He's waiting until he retires, specifically because he doesn't want the responsibilities of home ownership while he's still working.
I think they're not considering how the portion of rent that only goes toward the mortgage is still profit despite it not being accessible until the home is sold or a loan taken against its equity.