• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    010 months ago

    The vast majority of landlords don’t do that. They just buy one someone else built and then make others pay for it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      110 months ago

      They just buy one out of thin air? Or is it with the wealth they’ve created through their own skills?

      If it’s so easy to own a house, go buy one.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        We’re talking about landlording, not what they did to afford to start landlording.

        They didn’t make the building and, while they put down the first payments, their tennants are the ones paying for it.

        That’s not creating wealth. That’s not work. That’s living off the wealth created by others.

        If it’s so easy to own a house, go buy one

        Like all other passive income, the challenge is having enough money to start with.

        Once you get past that point, it IS easy, but due to the inherent inequities of capitalism, getting there is literally impossible for the vast majority of people.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          It’s clear there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the amount of capital required to own an investment property without first living in it as a primary residence for a few years.

          If one were to purchase a property with the expressed intent of immediately renting it, most banks will require at least 25% down with no option to pay PMI to cover the difference. That’s an insane amount of money to put down just so the landlord can make a negative cash flow for the first 10 years. If an investor has that kind of money, and still want to be involved in real estate, they should buy a share in an apartment complex where the margins are more favorable, and the property actually has a positive cash flow.

          Thus nearly ever single family home was purchased initially as a primary residence, with the intent to live there. But then by some circumstance one way or another they needed toove away. Selling a home will cost you 10% of the home’s value in fees. So if that person has any intent to return to the home in the future, it’s better to eat the temporary loss and rent out the property.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            However you dress it up, charging others for shelter isn’t creating anything. It’s profiting off others.

            Besides, the vast majority of tennants rent apartments, not houses, so don’t pretend that your very specific example is the norm.