I don’t understand. What exactly is the complaint here? That they’re over charging or charging at all?
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
And don’t give me this shit about how they’re evil for over charging. The middle class holds all the power all we’re lacking is organization and education.
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
You’re charging someone for you doing nothing so they can have a basic need to survive. It’s very immoral
If you’re gonna try to defend an immoral act with
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Then Ill assume you’re pro-slavery and move on
Charging for housing isn’t immoral just because it’s a necessity. By that logic, grocery stores are immoral for charging for food, and doctors are immoral for charging for healthcare. Property ownership and rental markets exist because providing and maintaining housing costs money. If your argument is that the system should be reformed, fine, let’s talk solutions. But calling all landlords inherently immoral is just lazy thinking.
Also your comment on slavery is offensive which I believe is the only reason you added it which makes you sound even more stupid.
Also your comment on slavery is offensive
So you know your argument works perfectly for slavery, can see how it applies and are embarrassed enough being called out on it to be offended, but not to rethink yourself? That response is actually why I included it: easy way to tell you’re not to be taken seriously
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
Wrong. Nobody should have extra houses to “rent out” while hardworking citizens can’t afford a single house of their own.
The reason why we don’t have enough is because they have too much.
Stop being a useful idiot. It’s falling out of fashion.
All of you are missing the point. The middle class holds all the power.
It’s out fault the world is the way it is. We let corporations dictate how much things should cost instead of not paying them what they want.
Cars are expensive because people go to the dealer and say “I’ll take what you got for whatever you want me to pay” instead of “I’ll give you 10k for that f150 take it or leave it.”
Instead people are going out of there way to secure a fucking 100k Tesla with whatever funding they got.
Same with rent. We made the market like this because those snazzy new mixed use developments are so chic. Let me give my left testical to bid on one of those condos as long as I get to tell people I live at the Avalon/halcyon/bridgeford or whatever.
We need to dictate how much we’re going to pay for shit not the other way around. Blaming people that take advantage of the system we allow to exist is the same as barking at the moon.
The type that looks up to Clarance Thomas.
And if you do really well, you might even be able to get Clarence Thomas to look up to you!
Groceries and vacations aren’t even liabilities. Fella doesn’t understand accounting well enough to fake use it properly.
All so that none of their tenants can afford any of those four things without constantly struggling!
That’s because they haven’t seen that tweet from a money genius who invented the cheat code on life. You just need more money streams for more money. Who knew? Here I was, just sitting with a gazillian dollars stuffed under my mattress nor knowing what to do with them.
To be fair, they’re exaggerating in order to scam people. Not that many people paying actual double mortgage, especially if you count any kind of upkeep.
But that’s just another way of leeching.
If it would destroy the economy if everyone did it, then it should not be doable in the first place.
That’s true for teachers, too.
If it is a lifestyle that would destroy the economy if everyone had it, then that’s another story.
This is like saying that if everyone had a small business it would destroy the economy. If you think a rental damages the economy, you have no idea what the economy is, or how it works.
It’s funny that one probably-landlord downvoted this. You know who you are, scum-sucking leech.
It’s kind of a false dilemma to say everyone should do it or nobody should do it. There are a lot of things that would destroy the economy or even the world if everyone did it. I think there is a healthy amount of small family owned rental properties like the one in the meme.
Then it should be illegal to have no children, because if everyone had no children, we would literally go extinct.
That’s just the first thing that came to mind, huh? Tell me you wasnt to control women’s bodies without telling me.
What? Your comment doesn’t make sense. If everyone did any profession solely we would destroy the economy. If everyone became doctors, there would be no engineers or pilots. We would still be doomed. A diversity of vocations are necessary regardless of which vocation.
*Edit. I was thinking maybe you mean investments. But the same holds true there. AND because of hedgefunds and private equity it’s becoming more and more of all the money funneling into a handful of companies. All the economists are sounding alarm bells on this. But considering the direction our leaders are taking us, I think this is all part of the plan.
It has little to do with the “profession” and more to do with the distribution of goods. If everyone owned rental properties, nobody would live in these rental properties, meaning for lords to exist there must be serfs.
This is like saying that in order for business owners to exist there have to be people who want the products that that business provides. So what?
Landlording is not a profession.
Handyman is a profession. Real estate management is a profession. Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
The economy can tolerate a finite number of leaches before dying. We currently have too many. The ideal number is zero.
what’s the difference between real estate management and landlording?
Real estate Management is about rent collection, property maintenance, coordination of finding new tenants, etc. There’s labor there.
Many single property landlords are also real estate management and handymen of their own properties. And that part of the situation is actual labor.
In common parlance, people will often conflate these. But I find this dilutes the harm caused by actual landlords, which are mostly large corporations that simply own property and collect income.
Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
This actually applies to most all investments.
Getting a paycheck automatically means that someone has more money before a product, or service is delivered. So I’m gonna stretch this a little… If we like jobs that pay money then we gotta live with rich assholes. But if we want no rich assholes and truly everyone’s time is worth exactly the same amount, then we need something other than capitalism. We need socialism. But how do we prevent kings or rich politicians in either scenario? Tax them in capitalism for one. In socialism we just downright make that illegal.
Instead of a rich asshole, you can have worker owned cooperatives and such.
everyone’s time is worth exactly the same amount
That’s just objectively not the case. Some people are able to provide more essential or better quality services and labor than others. There are also more and less enjoyable activities.
Everyone’s time can be worth the same amount for the same activity at the same quality level.
how do we prevent kings or rich politicians in either scenario? Tax them in capitalism for one. In socialism we just downright make that illegal.
You will always have people in more powerful positions and some will take advantage of it. What you can do is rotate people with term limits and such. However that can also have downsides in effectiveness and efficiency.
You can also impose limits on how much stuff a person can own. There are ways to circumvent this with non profit NGOs and such.
Socialist economies also need taxes to pay for infrastructure and the operations of the state.
This is basically where not even I believe in myself.
Cooperatives… A few billion of us get together to build a rocket…never gonna happen. A few of us build a power plant…yeah right! Never gonna happen.
What about life? My life, how much is my life worth? Is it worth more than yours or less? Divided into life/second, if I’m worth the same as you are, then I should get paid the same as you no matter what I do… I could be a painter or a seamstress or a cook or a bricklayer. I should be worth the same. Even a bum who wants nothing to do with anyone should be worth the same as the most smartest person to ever live. Its a life. You don’t get to be worth more by being smarter or making more stuff.
I would definitely not want to live in a society where my kids will be homeless even though I am the hardest working worker. If my kids are lazy I still want to ensure they live better than I did. So although I don’t like this consumerism centric capitalistic society, that socialistic society sucks.
I much rather be in a society where you can own things and give them to your kids, and have those things hold some value. I don’t want the government limiting what I can and cannot do. To some extent I think this sort of capitalism is possible, but the billionaires have got to go puff. I would love living a grand life with a big house in a sunny part of California. That’s impossible now no matter what I say or do. Meanwhile some billionaire could just buy California if he wanted to. That sort of money accumulation I’m totally against.
ALL forms of making money from having money need to be abolished completely.
If you’re not creating/selling a product or providing a service, you’re not EARNING money. Furthermore, rich people getting richer through passive income is the #1 thing diminishing the returns from actually worthwhile endeavors.
I somewhat agree with you. And I 150% agree that “rent seeking behavior” doesn’t add to society.
But what if you want to sell a product you designed but can’t afford to create it or to setup a factory for it, so you want funding, so you try to get investments, maybe by selling equity in your company. Is that not valuable to society? The people that take the risk that your product may not sell?
This is mythical thinking. Frankly, there’s just not that many products that need inventing, particularly that need a factory. We are past the era where a revolutionary bread slicer will change society. Most of the actual advancements we are seeing come from grants into general scientific research. Not from some lone Einstein with a vision.
What actually is happening is some of these discoveries are very good and they ultimately get scooped up and patented by some corporate entity that thought the research was marketable.
Recognizing that reality, that innovation basically never comes from the founders of a company, should really lead you to understand what’s broken about the US economy.
But what if you want to sell a product you designed but can’t afford to create it or to setup a factory for it, so you want funding, so you try to get investments, maybe by selling equity in your company. Is that not valuable to society? The people that take the risk that your product may not sell?
That’s where small business grants from the government comes in.
Helping people thrive without being beholden to ruthless opportunists or run the risk of bankrupting private investors is EXACTLY the kind of thing tax dollars should be spent on in stead of the MIC, subsidies for the most profitable corporations in the world, and other such enriching of the already rich.
How did anyone do anything before currency was invented?
Your comment implies that what you describe is a requirement for a functioning society
It isn’t.
Before currency was invented might be a stretch— back then, which was a long long long, time ago we likely didn’t even have professions in the same sense. Albeit Dave might have had a knack for fishing, Kendra for making canoes etc.
There was plenty of space in the wilderness you could just go live for free. Now we have a lot of people, we need agriculture to support that population; there isn’t enough land for hunter gatherer societies to exist without a large population collapse first.
Now to your point I suppose we could have a society without money; yet I think there is some freedom in currency even if everyone gets a UBI. It allows two random strangers to come together and have one person buy something without having to trade an item that the other person wants, then the seller can go buy something they want.
Without currency we would have to have a somewhat complex trading system, which inevitably would see certain items of rarity never traded, or traded for so much surplus goods that a new ironically materialistic moneyed class would develop. It would make for an interesting book, but I think so long as people have varied interests and desires, and create creative works, money is a useful thing.
Yeah, it turns out that a system that rewards people for simply having possession of something leads to behaviors that are harmful for society.
The problem isn’t landlords, that’s just the group that most people interact with directly. The problem is that our rules (primarily taxes) are setup to reward that behavior and to add burden to people who actually do work for their income.
If you’re a billionaire you can get your effective tax rate to single digits or zero. If you work for a living you pay way more taxes proportional to your income.
The fact that landlording is bad and not a profession isn’t the point.
The point is that @[email protected]’s argument failed to convincingly argue that because it was logically fallacious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
In other words, the fact that thing A would “destroy of the economy if everyone did it” is an emergent property of everyone doing it, which doesn’t apply to any single entity doing thing A.
Yes yes. Many people fail to accept hyperbole. You don’t need to explain that you don’t either.
That guy said what I was pointing out. Also, it’s not a hyperbole, it would absolutely destroy the economy if everyone did the same thing regardless of what that thing is. Even if everyone decided eating chicken would be the only protein that we eat would destroy the economy. Which is why I added my edit. It’s not just about a profession, but anything, literally anything done in unison by every other human would wreck an economy.
Are you’re saying that if an economy has an increse the concentration of farming activity then economic ouput will deteriorate as fast as if it were to have instead had the same increase the concentration of parasitic activity? Very interesting idea.
Maybe I’m dense but the only way I can see that working is if the parasites become super-effective livestock and can be turned into food that is either more nutrious or has a longer shelflife than the feedstock.
Huh? I’m saying if everyone dropped whatever it is they normally do and instead all do the same exact thing, it would ruin an economy. We need diversity regardless of whatever else is happening. We couldn’t survive if everyone became farmers and no one become engineers. So ultimately, it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything, such as landlording, the economy would be ruined.
Any reason why we can’t just change the tax code to make this thing less viable? We disincentive things all the time. Like we can carve out exemptions for situations and things I’m sure but like, this shouldn’t be how to run a society.
Yep, easiest way to solve the housing crisis is a scaling tax on property ownership and rent. The first property you own is taxed relatively low, with it scaling exponentially as you add more properties.
Increase the tax rate to 100% on all profits from renting/leasing residential properties. You can still rent out housing but you can’t make a profit on it.
Fwiw, while this would be a disincentive, the ‘real’ money from this is the ability to leverage at a high amount.
If you mortgage a property you effectively get to leverage your capital 5:1, and your return is made by someone else paying the interest on your margin, any below the line profit is a bonus.
So if it’s costing my business $100 month (mortgage, losses) and the tenant is paying $100 (rent, profits), your net profit is 0 but you are effectively earning $80 on that $100.
So you would need to also reclassify what it means to be a real estate professional, to prevent business from being able to claim real estate expenses as a loss. (As well as the tons of other aspects like depreciation which give you time value of money over the life of the property, depreciation of assets within the house, and other tax benefits.) in fact it’s possible to take a ‘loss’ on a house and rent it for less than your mortgage, and still come away making money
Just sayin there is more to it than just black and white P/L
If you took every property that individual people owned and gave every one of them other people, we would still have a housing shortage with insane prices for a home. Shitty as most landlords are, the real problem is massive companies that buy up houses.
Any reason why we can’t just change the tax code to make this thing less viable?
99% of state and federal level politicians are owned by these leeches and/or ARE these leeches.
In other words, almost all of the people with the power to do anything about it have a vested interest in NOT doing anything about it.
this shouldn’t be how to run a society.
Ramen.
If nobody is allowed to own more than one property, should everyone be forced buy? Where would renters get apartments from?
Yeah some people desire to be exploited! Send those kids back into the mines! /S
Can you give me a serious answer without the /s
If I inherit my grandmas apartment, can I put it up for rent since it’s a small apartment in a college town and there will be takers.
Or should I sell it so I don’t become a “landlord”, which is bad?
Should all students just buy an apartment for the 4-5 years they spend in the city or will the city be the landlord for them somehow collectively? Or is it less bad if the college is the landlord by offering student housing?
You could donate it? You could turn it into a shelter. You could let someone live there rent free… Why is selling the only option you can think of?
“Rent free” so I’d pay the costs and someone could just be there for free? I can’t afford that.
No… I specifically said “rent free” instead of “free”… You can charge them what it costs to upkeep with no profit, that’s my point.
…so now being a landlord is ok if you don’t make too much profit?
I seriously can’t keep up.
It’s really not hard. Basic shelter is a human right. Making a profit from providing someone with basic shelter is immoral and unethical.
Yes landlords shouldn’t exist. Colleges shouldn’t exist either talk about a cash scam and purely for profit leaches, don’t get me started on student athletes only a real scumbag would take a billion dollar industry and not pay the “workers”.
A functioning government?
Ah, so the government is your landlord now?
It’s good, because Americans have so much trust in their government right now.
Look into public housing in Finland.
I am from Finland and public housing is shit.
For the SUM of your tenants’ rent to pay for your mortgage and most of the upkeep? Probably fair.
For ONE tenant to cover the whole mortgage? Geez, that’s not nice, to put it softly.
It dpends. I rented out my old house for about 5 years because I couldn’t afford to sell it (underwater) mortgage was ~$500 rent was $650.
Well okay if one tenant is renting the whole building it’s different.
The appropriate criticism here is about corrupt markets resulting from restricted/scarce housing supply. Fair markets that encourage abundant housing supply, are ones that would lead to “perfect competition” and fair ROI on capital. The oligarchist/capital supremacy model of US/west corrupts markets against abundance, because extortionist profits fund politicians to protect extortionist profits.
UBI, not democracy, is the important freedom that can address structural corruption, but still the option to rent still needs to pay for the capital/expense investment in allowing you to rent.
Born on third base. Thinks they hit a triple.
In reality, you would have needed to own these rental properties for decades to have enough cash flow in them to make you enough to live on AND pay for their mortgages, maintenance, insurance, taxes, and property management. Even if you do manage to get a rental property, it will likely initially lose money. These people are likely selling something else, which is the dream of that life. So, they want you to buy their course or something. These people are all the same. “Let me show you how I make X passive income, by selling courses about making passive income.”
Let me show you how I make X passive income, by selling courses about making passive income
Coaches selling training courses to train new coaches and then for consulting to grow their coaching business is a whole thing as well.
Agreed. I know people who own rentals and barely make enough to cover the cost of constant repairs. Rental properties are only lucrative if yer a piece of shit landlord. People probably make more money offering courses on how to do it than actually doing it.
Not entirely true everywhere.
If you go into the poorest places in the county you can own apartments and have them paid for in no time. You can charge HUD twice the going rate and make life miserable for everyone by destroying the market in those areas.
Take where I live. The average rent in 2012 for a three bedroom, two bathroom home was 400 bucks. Now 13 years later it is 800-1000. Way higher than inflation.
How did this happen? Well, landlords exploited a program designed to help poor people by overcharging it and causing the rent to go up everywhere. Why rent to steady job Steve when meth head Molly’s check is always there because HUD pays her rent?
I know the three men who bought up all the property in this entire area.
One I know very well, so I’ll focus on what he did.
In 2010 he bought 3 apartment buildings for 115k each. They were all built by the same people in the 50s and are nearly identical with three bedrooms in each unit, but one of those bedrooms (in the downstairs apartments) has no window so can’t be categorized as a bedroom, only a closet.
So HUD pays 800 for the ones downstairs, 1,050 for the ones upstairs.
Each building has 4 apartments.
That’s 6300 a month for the upstairs apartments. 4800 a month for the downstairs.
That’s 133,000 a year for apartments he paid 115k for. The previous landlord only charged 200 a month. He has changed nothing about them. They were only fixed up enough to qualify for hud with the cheapest materials available. Nearly no upkeep. Pay a local drunk to redo the roof every few decades. Bam.
I’ve been living here for 8 years. I have nearly paid for the apartment myself.
How did dude get money? You guessed it. Dad helped him start businesses and everything grew from there. He has always paid his workers minimum wage and recently started selling off his businesses because being a landlord is easy peasy.
In the 8 years I’ve lived here, the only thing he ever had to fix was a leak outside.
Before he took it over, the entire building was on the same water and electric bill. First thing he did was separate all that so people handle their own bills and he gets as much as he can get.
NONE of the original tenants are here now. They all got priced out and replaced with easy money HUD recipients.
I’m the only one left who actually pays my rent in full. I’d say he’d be stoked if I moved out. I would, but I’m just too damn lazy and my upstairs neighbor is amazing. If she ever leaves it might motivate me.
I would like to say that many many outsiders have been buying up property here for the last decade and a half. They’re stopping now they they’ve made it impossible for us natives to buy a home.
This place is so poor that I almost had a house for 5,000 dollars in 2003. You could get homes crazy cheap here back then. That same house recently sold for 130k. It has been remodeled, but that was around 2009.
One county over things are still like that if you’re brave enough to live there. I had a problem once over there and had to call the police around 1 AM. “All of our officers are asleep at the moment, but if it turns out to be a big problem call us back and we’ll wake one up.”
“Let’s lynch Mel and Dave” will be a song title for my next music project. I think my favorite one so far is “The president must die” from my upcoming LP.
Step one: Have a shitton of money to buy property to rent out.
Oh, you don’t have enough money? Hhm, have you tried not being poor?The meme specifies Mortgage which means they also don’t have any money. They obtained a loan that they will be paying back for 15 to 30 years, at which point the property will deteriorate to a much lower value if any at all. If they sell the properties then they will owe depreciation recapture which works similar to a capital gains tax, as if it were additional income on top of the actual capital gains tax on the sale of the property itself. Plus closing costs to realtors.
it’s about suggesting that the social order that propped you up and elevated you basically arbitrarily based on birth is a reason you’re cool, and not just some shit that happened. none of this is about actually helping anyone. if they actually believed this shit from the bottom of their hearts, breathing a word of it would be fucking stupid.
That’s the question. Are they dumb and mean it or are they just assholes? I also tend to think it’s the second.
they’re trying really hard to believe it, and seeing others struggle to achieve it validates them. they want to believe. they need to believe. but some part of them doesn’t, or it would be kept on the down-low.
Here’s a tip poor people; just have money!
