My last renter texted me and told me the toilet wouldn’t flush. She said she “took it apart” but couldn’t fix it so it needed to be snaked out. I go there and a neighbor told me she set a can of cat food on the tank for her kitten to eat and it knocked the can into the bowl. She tried to flush it down. Her boyfriend shows up and tells me the same story. She only took the tank off (nowhere near where a clog would be) and she replaced it without replacing the gasket so it had been leaking water. Once I knew what the problem was I fixed it in 30 minutes. Her keeping the truth from me made it take a lot longer and cost more. I charged her $300 less rent than the property next door in a trendy neighborhood because I didn’t want to be "part of the problem ". Long story short, not everyone is cut out to be a home owner.
Your claim to be a worker because you did half an hour’s work in a month for a landlord’s income that’s so large you can afford to discount it by £300 a month isn’t the winning argument you think it is.
I own a house. I work and I hire people if I can’t fix something myself. So far I’ve only had to do that once in 4 years. Owning a house is not a job. Landlord literally has “LORD” in the name… kinda hard to defend, friend.
That’s the strangest argument I’ve heard in a while. Owning a house isn’t a job but maintaining one is. Plumbing, electrical, carpentry, roofing, HVAC are all jobs and if you don’t think so you must be one of these Republicans that think a person who gets their hands dirty doesn’t deserve a living wage.
A plumber or a sparky doesn’t just maintain one house, and if they’re just doing maintenance, probably work on hundreds of houses a year. Maintaining your own house takes a fraction of the time and effort of working a housing-related trade full time.
I’m pretty sure you mean that you’d like a world with no landlords and not a world where short term housing solutions don’t exist. No rent would imply the latter. Unless you know of a way to do it without paying rent?
How did that work when it came to deciding who gets the more desirable housing versus the less desirable ones? Or those who are not from the area and don’t pay taxes to cover the housing?
Let’s work on getting people housed before faffing about with pointless nonsense like more or less desirable housing. When even the victorians has lower homelessness rates you don’t get to worry about desirability.
Second point, who cares? If they’re living there now they pay tax there now. It does not matter they didn’t pay tax before they lived there, that’s how all other services work. You don’t pay for the roads in a town you just moved to until you’re moved in.
It’s not pointless. Depending on where you live, there’s a good chance you do have an abundance of cheap housing available. They’re just not in desirable locations, so many would opt to either pay extra for the privilege of living in more desirable homes or even living on the streets.
Regarding taxes, I’m talking about those who haven’t previously paid taxes, are not currently paying taxes while living in the area, and have no plans to pay taxes after they leave the area.
This man has never had renters
Oh do go get fucked.
My last renter texted me and told me the toilet wouldn’t flush. She said she “took it apart” but couldn’t fix it so it needed to be snaked out. I go there and a neighbor told me she set a can of cat food on the tank for her kitten to eat and it knocked the can into the bowl. She tried to flush it down. Her boyfriend shows up and tells me the same story. She only took the tank off (nowhere near where a clog would be) and she replaced it without replacing the gasket so it had been leaking water. Once I knew what the problem was I fixed it in 30 minutes. Her keeping the truth from me made it take a lot longer and cost more. I charged her $300 less rent than the property next door in a trendy neighborhood because I didn’t want to be "part of the problem ". Long story short, not everyone is cut out to be a home owner.
Your claim to be a worker because you did half an hour’s work in a month for a landlord’s income that’s so large you can afford to discount it by £300 a month isn’t the winning argument you think it is.
And yet, you’re still a landlord… 🤔
I guess the greed won over, eh?
My toilet and drain is maintained well enough that it would flush some cat food if needed.
Thanks to my landlord that is Mountainbiking all day.
It’s a good thing we’ve got people like you making that choice instead of leaving it to everyone to decide
Sounds like a moron, but fixing a toilet once doesn’t make it a job. It’s passive income like an investment
Own a house then get back to me
I own a house. I work and I hire people if I can’t fix something myself. So far I’ve only had to do that once in 4 years. Owning a house is not a job. Landlord literally has “LORD” in the name… kinda hard to defend, friend.
Pay income tax rather than capital gains tax on your house.
Then get back to me.
That’s the strangest argument I’ve heard in a while. Owning a house isn’t a job but maintaining one is. Plumbing, electrical, carpentry, roofing, HVAC are all jobs and if you don’t think so you must be one of these Republicans that think a person who gets their hands dirty doesn’t deserve a living wage.
A plumber or a sparky doesn’t just maintain one house, and if they’re just doing maintenance, probably work on hundreds of houses a year. Maintaining your own house takes a fraction of the time and effort of working a housing-related trade full time.
I think you just agreed with each other a little bit.
I own a house, got a plumber for replace a cistern was like 30 mins of work, and I did that whilst working!
Your comment doesn’t make sense and is confusing. Are you AI?
Illiterate and a landlord? That does check out, you pathetic excuse for a parasitic infection somehow confused for a human.
Care to explain to me how anyone replaces a cistern in 30 minutes? Either this guy got his terminology mixed up or they got ripped off
Could you imagine a world where the word rent never existed. I bet it would be awesome.
I’d rather the word homeless never existed
Then how about you stop contributing to the problem by hoarding properties you don’t live in and exploiting those who can’t afford to, for profit?
No?
I didn’t think so…
I’m pretty sure you mean that you’d like a world with no landlords and not a world where short term housing solutions don’t exist. No rent would imply the latter. Unless you know of a way to do it without paying rent?
Community housing that’s fully tax funded. Common houses or public houses have been around for millenia, until the last couple hundred years really.
Oh and “the tragedy of the commons” is literally propaganda made up by a literal feudal lord.
How did that work when it came to deciding who gets the more desirable housing versus the less desirable ones? Or those who are not from the area and don’t pay taxes to cover the housing?
Let’s work on getting people housed before faffing about with pointless nonsense like more or less desirable housing. When even the victorians has lower homelessness rates you don’t get to worry about desirability.
Second point, who cares? If they’re living there now they pay tax there now. It does not matter they didn’t pay tax before they lived there, that’s how all other services work. You don’t pay for the roads in a town you just moved to until you’re moved in.
It’s not pointless. Depending on where you live, there’s a good chance you do have an abundance of cheap housing available. They’re just not in desirable locations, so many would opt to either pay extra for the privilege of living in more desirable homes or even living on the streets.
Regarding taxes, I’m talking about those who haven’t previously paid taxes, are not currently paying taxes while living in the area, and have no plans to pay taxes after they leave the area.