If someone’s grandma goes into assisted living, how does selling their house help anyone who can’t afford a house? Especially given the cost of assisted living. That’s a ridiculous criticism. It’s the people who own a dozen houses, or complexes, who are the problem.
If anyone was free to buy a house whenever they liked, renting wouldn’t be such a problem. The problem is, renting nowadays is the only solution and therefore those who own properties are free to charge what they like and people either put up with that or be homeless.
Renting should be a temporary measure, however nowadays people can’t afford to actually buy homes because renting means they don’t have money for deposits.
Renting isn’t a choice for most people, it’s a means to keep them off the streets. The landlords have the monopoly.
Except there really isn’t a choice. You pay rent or… What? Sleep on the street or in a car? Which is illegal in many places already.
“Just find a cheaper house” isn’t actually an option available to people who you know… Want to have a job. It’s just a glib thought-terminating cliche that doesn’t engage with the actual issue.
… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?
You also dont have a choice not to buy food but that doesnt mean that the farmers shouldnt be payed for it.
I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…
The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.
The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.
I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…
Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.
It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.
And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.
… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?
In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.
So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.
The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.
Exactly, as is the case with any investment.
And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.
So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?
… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?
In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.
You said you dont have a choice, and the question refers to that statement. Those are both your statements (“I dont have a choice” and “they dont deserve my money”). That doesnt mean that I agree with either of them… I still stand by my point.
Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.
So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.
So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?
Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.
Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.
That’s not my argument.
I don’t thing parasitism is healthy for society. That’s why landlords shouldn’t exist.
The fact that we don’t have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.
So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say.
(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.
About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?
I dont know anything about zoning laws but after looking it up it sounds pretty dumb, we dont have that here where I live (large city in central Europe).
(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.
Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.
About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?
Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.
It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.
“Rent to buy” already has a name. It’s called a mortgage and you get it from the bank. As a bonus, you get to do all of your own maintenance and take all of the risk. It’s awesome.
The downside is all these greedy landlords make the prices outrageous so nobody can get a deposit on a house. It’s easy when you already own one house because you can use it as collateral and also your tenants will pay off your mortgage.
But they’re entitled to the results of my labour!
Why?
Because!!!
They’re just trying to pay for their grandma in the nursing home!
Oh, what about your grandma? Fuck her, pay your rent.
If someone’s grandma goes into assisted living, how does selling their house help anyone who can’t afford a house? Especially given the cost of assisted living. That’s a ridiculous criticism. It’s the people who own a dozen houses, or complexes, who are the problem.
The “kill landlords” crowd doesn’t care for this nuance.
Because they provide something that is so valuable to you that you give them a good amount of money for it. Thats why.
You choose to give them money because their house seems to be a huge quality of life improvement, otherwise you could always find a cheaper house.
If anyone was free to buy a house whenever they liked, renting wouldn’t be such a problem. The problem is, renting nowadays is the only solution and therefore those who own properties are free to charge what they like and people either put up with that or be homeless.
Renting should be a temporary measure, however nowadays people can’t afford to actually buy homes because renting means they don’t have money for deposits.
Renting isn’t a choice for most people, it’s a means to keep them off the streets. The landlords have the monopoly.
Serious question: Cant you just take out a loan from a bank, buy a house, move there, cancel your rental apartment/house and then pay off the loan?
Of course houses are expensive but is there a genuine lack of availability?
Except there really isn’t a choice. You pay rent or… What? Sleep on the street or in a car? Which is illegal in many places already.
“Just find a cheaper house” isn’t actually an option available to people who you know… Want to have a job. It’s just a glib thought-terminating cliche that doesn’t engage with the actual issue.
… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?
You also dont have a choice not to buy food but that doesnt mean that the farmers shouldnt be payed for it. I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…
That isn’t comparable, and you know it.
The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.
The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.
Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.
It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.
And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.
In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.
So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.
Exactly, as is the case with any investment.
So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?
You said you dont have a choice, and the question refers to that statement. Those are both your statements (“I dont have a choice” and “they dont deserve my money”). That doesnt mean that I agree with either of them… I still stand by my point.
Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.
So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.
Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.
That’s not my argument.
I don’t thing parasitism is healthy for society. That’s why landlords shouldn’t exist.
The fact that we don’t have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.
(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.
About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?
I dont know anything about zoning laws but after looking it up it sounds pretty dumb, we dont have that here where I live (large city in central Europe).
Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.
Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.
It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.
Because they provided you with shelter?
Did they provide me shelter or did they sink their temporarily excess capital into the local single-family home market driving up prices?
I’m paying a fair bit to live here so it seems I’m providing my own shelter.
Both
No, you pay off their mortgage in exchange for not being homeless. All renting should be rent to buy. No renting without equity in exchange.
“Rent to buy” already has a name. It’s called a mortgage and you get it from the bank. As a bonus, you get to do all of your own maintenance and take all of the risk. It’s awesome.
The downside is all these greedy landlords make the prices outrageous so nobody can get a deposit on a house. It’s easy when you already own one house because you can use it as collateral and also your tenants will pay off your mortgage.
The landlords built those homes with the sweat of their brow?
Once the home is paid off they’ll reduce the rent to only cover the outgoings on the property?
The speculation on property as an asset class has no effect on pricing people out of the market for ownership?
HA HA HA! That’s funny!
I bought a house last year after renting for 20 years since I moved out of my parents’ house.
My kids will probably still pay for my house.
You can blame the investment landlords for that
They did not build the house, merely bought it
Someone was going to live in that home, whether they were the owner or not.