Get rid of landlords... : aboringdystopia

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

What do families do, that only want or need to live in a place or area for like a year or so? Buy a house, pay thousands in closing costs and inspections, lose several thousand to realtors, and then have to go through the trouble of trying to sell the place a year later?

We very much need landlords. What's screwing everything up is corpos doing it as a business or individuals with like 20 homes instead of one or two. Renting a house is a viable need for some people and it would actually suck if it was an option that didn't exist at all.

[–] Specal@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There's no reason that local governments can't do this job, there's no need for middle men leaching money.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Based on the way they maintain infrastructure, I'm not certain that's going to work out well either, but then again the status quo ain't working either.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But you could replace just about any product with that statement.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Now, you’re getting it…

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I love the theory of a really effective government that can produce things that are consistently better than private corporations. But that's just never been my experience. In fact, it feels like the bigger a government gets the worst it operates. So how would you imagine a government that produces all the products and services for a society better than a free market?

[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Just look at most developed countries in Europe and you will find government operated services that are much better than what the free market came up with the in the US. Namely health services and transportation for instance. Postal services as well.

I just did a week long trip in the USA and all the National Parks were a joy to visit. I actually thought about and commented that it would be a totally different experience, read worse, if those things were privatized.

Honestly the whole argument that private entities are run better is bullshit. There’s nothing stopping any government from hiring the same managers and you just eliminated a certain % that would be the middle men. And now the main objective isn’t profit at all costs, so it will very easily be a better service for us, the consumers.

[–] LaVacaMariposa@mander.xyz -1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, Venezuela tried that and it didn't work at all.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The only reason costs of houses are so high in the first place is because they are lucrative investment objects, along with the fact that the most important part of city (and rural) planning, building homes, is largely left to private companies. You are assuming houses would be just as inaffordable without landlords, which is a problem of the current paradigm and not the one proposed.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A couple of years ago, my boss' father (who founded the company and still worked there on and off) and I had a chat over lunch. I'm not sure how the topic of house prices came up, but he mentioned that when he and his wife bought their house, a car cost more than a house, so you knew that someone was really well off if they had two cars in the driveway.

I think that's the first time I've actually gotten my mind blown. The idea that a car could cost more than a house just didn't compute, and it still doesn't quite sit with me.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Of course, the general standard of houses decline the further back in time you go, but houses were a lot cheaper back in the days. Below is a figure of housing prices in Norway relative to wages at the time (mirroring the situation almost everywhere in the west):

Factoring in the increased production capabilities over the same period of time, the construction cost of houses are not that much higher. If we designed our communities better and had a better system for utilizing the increased labour power, we could have much more affordable housing and more beautiful and well functioning societies.

Do not let it sit right with you. This future was stolen from you.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Some of the biggest law breakers and abusive landlords are independent landlords. They're also the ones who don't seem to realize that being a landlord is a full time job where you are the handy man, maintenance, property manager, etc. It's not just collecting a cheque every month, you actually have to earn it.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But OP just said it's not a job in the meme. Which is it?

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I'm not op, and the thing is that 99% of independent landlords don't do shit. I was a model tenant at my last place and I'm a handy man by trade so I would actually do every minor repair in my apartment, I would keep that place tip top and never bothered the landlord. He still thought I was a shit tenant and kicked me out as soon as he could because he wanted to charge more for the place.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago

Not really. I don't have to fix things on a monthly basis at my own house. When my parents rented the landlord would have to do something maybe twice a year.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No, there are plenty of landlord's that are scumbags. It's emphatically not just corporations.

There are countless solutions to your problem, they just don't exist because we have landlord's.

This is a reminder that society as we know it is a mishmash at best, it's not the evolution of humanities best ideas and practices.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The problem is that these socalled "viable needs" are treated as and acted upon like they are elective priviledges by charging exhorbitant prices for the properties that are being made available. Blaming the market for it is just passing the buck and not owning up to your own choices in what you charge. I get that the 'market' has some effect on your rates but making it the main driver for your price that reflects the cost of the entire mortgage on the property is what makes you look like a parasite. If you and your tenants shared the cost of a mortgage in a more equitable fashion, i bet there would be fewer complaints.

[–] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We started out with a small house. But when my family grew, we decided to move to a bigger house and rent out our small home to generate some income. Our goal is to eventually move back into the small home when we no longer need the space of our big home.

Our tenants so far have been people from out of town that needed a place temporarily before they commit to buying a home. We are on our 4th set of family/tenants now. Every family have successfully moved out and purchased a home after renting from us, usually 1 or 2 years. Its a stepping stone for people. Without landlords and places to rent, as you said, it would be prohibitively expensive for people to be mobile and to improve their lives (I mean, that's the main reason people move around: new opportunities.) The anti-landlord crowd doesn't understand this, and those type of posts are ridiculous.

When someone live in a home, there are wear and tear on the home. When we first moved out, we spent a good chunk of money to renovate our old home to make it nice, presentable, and livable. A place that is desirable to live in. Then we continuously maintain the landscape, and fix anything that broke. Because one day we are planning to move back in, so we going to keep it in as best shape as possible. So charging a high enough rent to cover the costs and a bit more to make the time worthwhile is totally reasonable.

I was a renter once. It is the same situation for myself when I moved to this city. New job, new opportunity. I rented an apartment, saved up money, and then made a purchase a few years later. Among my friends, there's always a discussion of rent vs. buy. Some of my friends believed that they could save and invest and earn more money by never owning a home. I think if you do it right, it will work out either way. I am on the buy camp and it worked out. He was in the rent camp, and it also worked out for him. He is single and doesn't need a lot of space. And he is extremely mobile, and is able to move to another city for a grad degree and a new job in a very short notice. Without a place to rent, it makes it very difficult for people to do that.

[–] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Mao was right about many things. But he was most right about Landlords.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (9 children)

I am a landlord and also have a full time job. I also spend my time fixing my units.

With the maintenance cost and taxes, I'm actually losing money or breaking even depending on the year.

My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn't be able to afford on their own in today's market. Being able to live near their work.

So why am I the bad guy?

[–] Apollo42@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Those people are able to live in the house you took off the market (thus driving up the price of housing) and pay off your mortgage.

[–] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

Are we talking about eliminating renting altogether?

Cause that is what it sounds like in this thread. Folks wanting to completely eliminate renting and drive folks to buy a house Everytime they move.

This ignores things like closing costs, realtor fees, really high property taxes, expensive home repairs, and temporary work assignments.

Maybe you really need a job but don't want to straight up buy a house and instead rent something until you can find a job back in your local area or you decide it's time to take the plunge and move for good.

Sure there are many a-hole companies and landlords that try to squeeze their tenants for every dime and treat their tenants like crap (lord knows I've run into those), but on the other hand there are folks who need a place to live but haven't decided where they want to settle down and people who can rent their old property at a decent date based on the low interest they themselves were able to lock down.

Some are folks (like me) who moved but couldn't afford to keep their house empty for an extended period of time to put it on sale while they're paying rent or a mortgage in another state. So renting, even if you're barely breaking even, makes sense.

Better to rent your old house for barely above the costs for the property taxes, homeowners insurance, and mortgage interest, and maintenance costs than to take a 6-12 month hit where you have to pay the above while not living in the house because your new job is in a different state. And that is if you sell in 12 months and don't take a big hit on the sale.

If you're buying/selling a house every 3 years then you're really going to get screwed. I personally went from living in a home I owned (and paying a mortgage on) to renting for 3 years just to understand where I wanted to live in a new state, which areas had the best employers, and wait out on a low APR and decent buyers market.

If I had to buy a house instead of having the option to rent, then I would have ended up buying a house near that employer which would have been over an hour commute from the better job offers I got after I moved here.

[–] teejay@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Are we talking about eliminating renting altogether?

I've asked this very question before on reddit in a genuine attempt to understand what alternative the anti-landlord crowd is advocating for. Aside from the onslaught of personal attacks on my character, the best I could decipher was some sort of system where a landlord could only rent at actual cost of their mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. No profit could be earned. I said no one would be a landlord for free, especially considering the risks of owning land (natural disasters not insured, market crash, etc).

Their "landlords shouldn't profit off of renters" argument fell apart when I asked profit for who? Was the bank allowed to make a profit on the home loan? Was the insurance company allowed to make a profit on the policy? Could the maintenance and repair folks earn a profit on their services? Could the home remodeling companies make a profit if the home needed updating? Or is every person and entity involved in home ownership allowed to profit from the rental except the landlord? They stopped responding.

[–] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

Seeing the same thing here. Apparently I'm scum because I'm renting my previous home for -10%/+10% of: mortgage on the lower price I paid 10 years ago, plus property taxes, plus home owners insurance, plus repairs and maintenance.

Apparently I would no longer be scum if I stopped renting it and refused to renew my tenants lease, sold the house and made a huge profit now, and the next person will have to pay brand new closing costs plus a mortgage on double the home value and double the APR.

I'm guessing most folks down-voting the sane responses saying rentals aren't needed have never tried selling a house (and gone 6+ months paying the mortgage for a house you no longer live in) or don't know there's a "break even" calculation that tells you how many years you have to live in the same house before you're better off than having just rented (realtor fees to sell the house, closing costs, time to sell the home where you'll still be paying your mortgage + taxes + insurance, time to close, getting credit approval for a mortgage, etc).

Hell, I did the calculation when I had to move to a new state and I was able to rent a house for less than it would have cost me to pay for closing costs and realtor fees when I would have sold the house 3 years later. Not to mention the time to come up with 20% down payment.

But fuck me for not taking the easy way out, kicking out my tenants and cashing in on the current huge property values to sell my old home.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'll just copy paste my response from above.

Nobody is saying to “get rid” of home rentals, but they are saying get rid of landlords.

Particularly for SFR homes, there’s no reason for a person who is not living there to ‘own’ the property and extract rent. For those who are transient -as you described- there are community land trusts, cooperative housing, limited equity housing coops, and municipal housing that can all fill the role that would traditionally be done by private landlords. Those of us who advocate eliminating private home rental’s for profit do so knowing it wouldn’t happen by choice, and that alternate arrangements for housing would need to be established alongside any legislation that bans for-profit rentals.

Private landlords are systemically problematic because it inflates home values and locks an increasing portion of the population from the option of building equity (or benefiting from community equity, as it were). Nobody is saying you’re a bad person, only that landlords (the category of private capital ownership that collects rent for the use of property) are perpetuating a huge problem and ought to be banned as a matter of benefiting society as a whole. Just like how towns or neighborhoods are democratically governed, homes should be too.

[–] teejay@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You still didn't answer the question. So get rid of the landlords means what exactly? You realize there's about two dozen or so industries whose entire commercial existence is tied to landlords and rental properties, right? Do we get rid of all of them? Or just some? Or just the landlord, who is one small cog in a very big capitalist renting wheel?

Everyone is so oddly and furiously fixated on the landlord as some sort of big bad, and therefore assert that getting rid of the landlord position entirely will just magically make everything awesome. It's odd to observe otherwise intelligent people stop so outrageously short of the complete picture.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Apollo42@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Housing should be socialised, with any profits being put back into expanding housing stock.

[–] teejay@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Whose profits? See my post above:

profit for who? Was the bank allowed to make a profit on the home loan? Was the insurance company allowed to make a profit on the policy? Could the maintenance and repair folks earn a profit on their services? Could the home remodeling companies make a profit if the home needed updating? Or is every person and entity involved in home ownership allowed to profit from the rental except the landlord?

If your answer is "anyone and any entity making a profit", then that's about two or three dozen different industries (including banks, insurance agencies, title companies, all kinds of home builders, repair folks, etc.). Regardless of my opinion on that argument, your problem isn't with the landlord, it's with a huge swatch of industries who are all tied to and profit from renting.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 years ago

including banks, insurance agencies, title companies, all kinds of home builders, repair folks

It's only the profit derived from ownership that's of concern here, none of these other industries (aside from the bank, arguably) apply to the critique.

[–] AgileLizard@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Your question is literally answered in a sibling comment.

[–] Apollo42@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fuck no, just the landlords. Housing should be socialised.

Its important to remember that in your example of "barely breaking even" some poor schmuck is paying off your mortgage. So it doesn't make you a martyr to barely break even, it still makes you a parasite.

[–] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Buying house for say 100k at 3% APR, renting it because you were laid off and cant afford moving expenses, rent in a different city, plus paying a mortgage on an empty house for 6 months to a year while it sells. Then years later you still keep it because, while you could sell it and cash in, with the low APR you got on it you can afford to rent it for less than the corporate scum suckers who try to monopolize housing = Parasite

Kicking out your renters and selling said house you bought at 100k for 200k to corporate scum suckers who will turn around and sell it at an even higher price or rent it at really high rates OR someone else who will end up paying way more than the rent I was asking for the place because interest rates are about double and the house has also doubled in price = internet hero

No room for nuance, got it.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz -1 points 2 years ago

If you're losing money with your properties, why not just sell them to your tenants for an affordable price?

[–] zaphod@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn't be able to afford on their own in today's market.

Yes, but: why is the market in the state it's in? It couldn't be because a large supply of housing is locked up by landlords, thereby artificially curtailing supply and driving up prices...

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] stanka@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Rental income is considered income, and taxed assuming reasonable tax brackets much higher than investment income (That is to say, caiptal-gains. Interest/Dividends are also taxed at the higher income rate)

The cost of maintaining a livable home, property taxes, insurance, property depreciation, and renter interactions eat into the supposed windfall that landlords make.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck sometimes and that certainly these formulas are out of whack in some situations, but there are no easy answers.

[–] Bricriu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I would argue that a live-in landlord that does maintenance work or acts as a building super is in fact doing a job.

Otherwise, agreed.

[–] Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How has no comment in this thread yet mentioned Georgism or Land Value Tax? That is the solution to Landlordism

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

A land value tax is a good tool to help ease the transition away from landlords, but it alone is not enough.

Regardless, we definitely should be primarily relying on LVT for government income.

[–] Euphorazine@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Landlords existing isn't a boring dystopia. Pick a different community for the meme.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Found the landlord

[–] RedditEnjoyer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Landphobia on my Lemmy? It's more likely than you think.

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Folks, there's a difference between a slumlord and a decent landlord. I've owned a house for ten years now, and in addition to the mortgage and taxes and insurance I pay every month for the privelege, I've had to spend tens of thousands replacing the roof and doing other regular maintenance tasks. I'm actually about to dump thirty percent of the original purchase price into more deferred repairs and maintenance to get it back to a point where all the finished space is habitable again. Owning a house is expensive in ways that I did not fully understand until I bought mine, and decent property managers are taking care of all that for you, and if that's not a job I honestly don't know what is.

Slumlords and corporate landlords can fuck right the hell off, though.

[–] GreenTacklebox@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

There is no such thing as a decent landlord.

A Boring Dystopia