Probably not. They would be renting somewhere else. Because if they could afford to buy a piece of property in the first place, they would.
Yeah, landlords make a profit. But, they’re also offering a service. Sure most are fucking shit, but that doesn’t mean landlords in general should not be extracting a profit. If you want to maintain your own piece of property yourself, then go buy one.
Most people would buy if they could. But too many are forced to rent because of those landlords cutting the queue and paying through their nose because to them it is an investment and not a home.
But that’s not what’s happening in this circumstance- it’s literally just her old apartment. If she sold it and did want to move back, then she’d be competing with the landlords to buy another one. Or better yet- if she sold it, it could also be bought by a DIFFERENT landlord who might charge more.
I mostly agree with this. I guess the argument against this is that if all rent-seekers just sold their properties instead of treating them as an income stream, then theoretically there would be more properties on the market and properties would be more affordable for those who want to buy.
To me, individuals choosing to sell instead of rent-seek would have such a small impact on the market, and those properties would just be bought by corporations that will rent-seek.
It seems clear to me that if we really want to fix things, we should ban corporations from buying single family homes instead of attacking working class people who are trying to build a passive income stream.
This part is my problem.
Some people don’t want, or aren’t cut out to maintain a property of their own, so renting is theoretically a good deal for them. And the person doing the work of maintaining a property deserves to be compensated for that work.
But wtf is a passive income steam? It sounds like the landlord is hiring someone else to actually do the work, and then charging the renter enough to cover the property manager and profit the landlord. In which case, the landlord is doing exactly nothing to earn that money.
It sounds like the landlord is hiring someone else to actually do the work, and then charging the renter enough to cover the property manager and profit the landlord. In which case, the landlord is doing exactly nothing to earn that money.
They bought the property. That’s all they have to do. “Sorry, but all you’ve done is build up enough of a credit score, income, and down payment to get a loan for this property. You’re not living in the house or maintaining it, so why do you even get to own it. Please turn yourself into a charity and operate as a not for profit.”
If they want to barely profit off the property by leveraging a property management business, who the fuck cares.
If rent is too high, then the government should put controls in place. But this idea that property owners should be operating as charities is absurd.
I’m not saying they should run it as a charity, I’m saying they shouldn’t be allowed to own it passively. You say “build a credit score, income, and down payment” as if those things aren’t handed to the upper class on a silver platter. If a trust fund baby decides to buy a house for “passive income” they will have done absolutely ZERO work for that money.
Yes, a passive income stream means that I would be able to live off the investments that I worked my ass off for when I was young and healthy. How else does someone ever retire without some sort of passive income stream? Are you saying everyone should have to work until the day they die?
And yes, I’d have to pay people to maintain the properties I’m renting out, as the law in my state requires. Because I’ll be old and retired and may not be able to do it myself.
Having passive income and being able to retire is a big part of the American dream for me. I can’t count on Social Security and Medicare to even exist with the way things are going. How else would I retire if I don’t have investments that make money? Property is part of that, stocks that pay dividends are another part of that.
I guess if you’re so radical that you don’t think any investment should ever have a return to the investor, then your position makes sense.
Should our entire government and economy be geared towards profiting off investments at the expense of everything else? Definitely not.
Should people be able to retire on investments that they busted their asses for while they were young and healthy? Absolutely.
Should corporations be able to invest in residential homes and rent-seek? No, I believe this can be harmful and hurt individuals, but that doesn’t mean that we should try to prevent individuals from investing in real estate.
This was a very hyperbolic response, so let’s clarify a few things:
Not all investments are equal, and saying some thing should be ineligible to invest in for profit-seeking is not at all the same as saying Death to Capitalism, as you seem to imply. My imaginary friend is starting a landscaping business & is asking for an initial investment in exchange for a return of profits. That is not the same as investing in a fossil fuel company that’s directly contributing to the destruction of the planet. That is not the same as investing in a sanctioned Russian company responsible for war crimes. That is not the same as seeking to maximize profit off of a resource people need to survive.
As I said, I’m not advocating for all investments to be abolished. But digging into retirees a little more- you’re right, many retirees can’t work anymore. Also, many retirees don’t have enough resources to simply passively profit off of owning capital. Investing doesn’t help those people, does it? In fact the opposite- capital-owners seeking to maximize profit drive up the price of essential goods that retirees need to live. Like rent! Overall our government should be helping all retirees live to a base standard level of care.
Not all methods of profiting from an investment are moral or should be allowed. Price gouging is a thing. A hurricane is approaching the coast, and evacuees need to leave, or they will die. Gas stations jack up the price of fuel to maximize profit regardless of the harm it will do to the people. That should not be allowed. Right now, there is a housing crisis. Investors should not be allowed to maximize profit at the cost of harming entire generations of Americans.
Agreed! If you want to maintain your own piece of property you need to OUT BID YOUR LANDLORD who is trying to find their THIRD or FOURTH rental property!
Not to mention we often have such an imbalance between renters and landlords, in either direction.
Either you have state law that heavily favors the landlords with no protections for renters against exorbitant rent increases, no enforcement of the land lord’s duty to the property on the lease, and no recourse for renters.
Or you have state law that heavily favors the renters, with no easy way to evict problem tenants, caps on rent increases that don’t allow the landlord properly account for risk, and no recourse against tenants who don’t pay or cause damage to the property.
Probably not. They would be renting somewhere else. Because if they could afford to buy a piece of property in the first place, they would.
Yeah, landlords make a profit. But, they’re also offering a service. Sure most are fucking shit, but that doesn’t mean landlords in general should not be extracting a profit. If you want to maintain your own piece of property yourself, then go buy one.
I’m trying man, I’m trying. It’d be nice to not have to maintain someone else’s for once in my life.
Most people would buy if they could. But too many are forced to rent because of those landlords cutting the queue and paying through their nose because to them it is an investment and not a home.
But that’s not what’s happening in this circumstance- it’s literally just her old apartment. If she sold it and did want to move back, then she’d be competing with the landlords to buy another one. Or better yet- if she sold it, it could also be bought by a DIFFERENT landlord who might charge more.
I mostly agree with this. I guess the argument against this is that if all rent-seekers just sold their properties instead of treating them as an income stream, then theoretically there would be more properties on the market and properties would be more affordable for those who want to buy.
To me, individuals choosing to sell instead of rent-seek would have such a small impact on the market, and those properties would just be bought by corporations that will rent-seek.
It seems clear to me that if we really want to fix things, we should ban corporations from buying single family homes instead of attacking working class people who are trying to build a passive income stream.
This part is my problem. Some people don’t want, or aren’t cut out to maintain a property of their own, so renting is theoretically a good deal for them. And the person doing the work of maintaining a property deserves to be compensated for that work.
But wtf is a passive income steam? It sounds like the landlord is hiring someone else to actually do the work, and then charging the renter enough to cover the property manager and profit the landlord. In which case, the landlord is doing exactly nothing to earn that money.
They bought the property. That’s all they have to do. “Sorry, but all you’ve done is build up enough of a credit score, income, and down payment to get a loan for this property. You’re not living in the house or maintaining it, so why do you even get to own it. Please turn yourself into a charity and operate as a not for profit.”
If they want to barely profit off the property by leveraging a property management business, who the fuck cares.
If rent is too high, then the government should put controls in place. But this idea that property owners should be operating as charities is absurd.
I’m not saying they should run it as a charity, I’m saying they shouldn’t be allowed to own it passively. You say “build a credit score, income, and down payment” as if those things aren’t handed to the upper class on a silver platter. If a trust fund baby decides to buy a house for “passive income” they will have done absolutely ZERO work for that money.
Yes, a passive income stream means that I would be able to live off the investments that I worked my ass off for when I was young and healthy. How else does someone ever retire without some sort of passive income stream? Are you saying everyone should have to work until the day they die?
And yes, I’d have to pay people to maintain the properties I’m renting out, as the law in my state requires. Because I’ll be old and retired and may not be able to do it myself.
Having passive income and being able to retire is a big part of the American dream for me. I can’t count on Social Security and Medicare to even exist with the way things are going. How else would I retire if I don’t have investments that make money? Property is part of that, stocks that pay dividends are another part of that.
I guess if you’re so radical that you don’t think any investment should ever have a return to the investor, then your position makes sense.
Should our entire government and economy be geared towards profiting off investments at the expense of everything else? Definitely not.
Should people be able to retire on investments that they busted their asses for while they were young and healthy? Absolutely.
Should corporations be able to invest in residential homes and rent-seek? No, I believe this can be harmful and hurt individuals, but that doesn’t mean that we should try to prevent individuals from investing in real estate.
This was a very hyperbolic response, so let’s clarify a few things:
Not all investments are equal, and saying some thing should be ineligible to invest in for profit-seeking is not at all the same as saying Death to Capitalism, as you seem to imply. My imaginary friend is starting a landscaping business & is asking for an initial investment in exchange for a return of profits. That is not the same as investing in a fossil fuel company that’s directly contributing to the destruction of the planet. That is not the same as investing in a sanctioned Russian company responsible for war crimes. That is not the same as seeking to maximize profit off of a resource people need to survive.
As I said, I’m not advocating for all investments to be abolished. But digging into retirees a little more- you’re right, many retirees can’t work anymore. Also, many retirees don’t have enough resources to simply passively profit off of owning capital. Investing doesn’t help those people, does it? In fact the opposite- capital-owners seeking to maximize profit drive up the price of essential goods that retirees need to live. Like rent! Overall our government should be helping all retirees live to a base standard level of care.
Not all methods of profiting from an investment are moral or should be allowed. Price gouging is a thing. A hurricane is approaching the coast, and evacuees need to leave, or they will die. Gas stations jack up the price of fuel to maximize profit regardless of the harm it will do to the people. That should not be allowed. Right now, there is a housing crisis. Investors should not be allowed to maximize profit at the cost of harming entire generations of Americans.
Agreed! If you want to maintain your own piece of property you need to OUT BID YOUR LANDLORD who is trying to find their THIRD or FOURTH rental property!
Not to mention we often have such an imbalance between renters and landlords, in either direction.
Either you have state law that heavily favors the landlords with no protections for renters against exorbitant rent increases, no enforcement of the land lord’s duty to the property on the lease, and no recourse for renters.
Or you have state law that heavily favors the renters, with no easy way to evict problem tenants, caps on rent increases that don’t allow the landlord properly account for risk, and no recourse against tenants who don’t pay or cause damage to the property.
Either situation leads to higher rents.