this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

memes

20580 readers
1350 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website
3
The system is broken (lemmy.zip)
submitted 2 years ago by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

never understood this sentiment. For single family homes the market sets the price. It's not like when you buy a house and use it for a rental all of sudden it's cheaper or more expensive in some way. You could make a price/demand argument but then again the underlying demand is housing not money hungry landlords. If there was not an underlying housing demand, no one would rent and it would fail as an investment.

Close. You're right there's no profit without demand. Now, consider what happens when certain entities with way more money than most of us comes along and decides they want to induce artificial scarcity by buying up and leaving empty a ton of houses.

Lastly, 2 of my rentals were foreclosures. If anything I'm performing the city a service by buying these properties and adding value. If you had to choose, would you rather live next to a vacant house or a rental?

They both kinda suck. I'd rather live next to someone who is invested in the property.

To answer your question, it's fair for a renter to not build equity because they don't pay for upkeep or have the risk associated with the loan. You have to put skin in the game at some point.

I could agree with this if rent was pegged to a percentage of the mortgage value. The issue is that the landlord makes a purchase and now owes, let's say, 1k/mo for everything. Rent, taxes, fees, etc.

They want to rent that place out, great. Maximum rent should be LESS THAN that 1k, because the landlord is already getting theirs, they're getting equity, and the only thing they have to do is upkeep they'd have to do regardless.

[–] sharkaccident@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Close. You’re right there’s no profit without demand. Now, consider what happens when certain entities with way more money than most of us comes along and decides they want to induce artificial scarcity by buying up and leaving empty a ton of houses.

That's a building shortage problem and/or developmental cycle problem. I want to live in New York next to central park. I have a job why can't I?

They both kinda suck. I’d rather live next to someone who is invested in the property.

You didn't answer my question.

I could agree with this if rent was pegged to a percentage of the mortgage value. The issue is that the landlord makes a purchase and now owes, let’s say, 1k/mo for everything. Rent, taxes, fees, etc.

As I stated before, I do exactly this. But landlords have to make a profit. So landlords can only expect appreciation as upside? That's now creating more of a bubble than what's currently going on.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not invested in this conversation from 2 years ago, but I'll simply reject the premise that landlords have to make a profit. That's a big maybe at best.