Does having an AirBNB setup make someone deserving of the guillotine or does that only apply to owners of multiple houses? What about apartments?

Please explain your reasoning as well.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    418 months ago

    Another thing that pisses me off is that I’m literally paying >100% of the cost of the property over time, yet they retain full ownership. It’s an investment with essentially zero risk, if you have a tenant that isn’t a racoon.

    Not sure I have a good solution for that issue, honestly, but the idea of it irks me.

    My overall position boils down to: Housing should never generate profit. A landlord can take pay for the work they do, and put money aside for maintenance, but there should never be a profit made on rent.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -108 months ago

        This is the main issue. There’s not enough skilled workers to actually make enough houses and homebuilding supplies. It’s so expensive and the average person can’t do it up to code.

        Before, if you had some small amount of money and a lot of time you could just buy a small plot and build a house yourself. Now you’d be an idiot to waste time doing that. No one will buy your handmade house even if it’s up to code.

        Apartments in cities used to be cheap because the city stank of horse manure and smoke, and there were no elevators. Basically we’ve made the world much nicer and realized people will pay an arm and a leg for a nice place to live.

        • @fireweed
          link
          98 months ago

          Actually the housing crisis has gotten so bad that I’ve seen quite a number of “handmade houses” sell in my region (US Pacific Northwest). And they’re selling for way more than just land value…

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
      link
      148 months ago

      there absolutely should be a profit for rent. Being a good landlord is work, work should be compensated. Taking the risk of ownership (low though it might be) should be compensated.

      The issue isn’t profit. The issue is a) artificial lack of supply driving up prices b) greed and exploitation of basic needs.

      In some countries, like some of the USA, you get clean drinking water pumped into your house for your toilets. However you do the math a) people need to work on the system to keep it working and they should get paid a living wage b) water is a need even more than housing. We pay for water, and people make profit on it. How you pay for it - taxes, city rates, privately - whatever, you pay for it.

      that isn’t the issue, just like paying rent isn’t the issue. it’s the amount which is.

      the solution is simple and already exists: universal basic income, and make basic needs like water and rent limited by this amount.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        88 months ago

        Pay and profit are not the same thing, though. A landlord can be compensated for work without making a profit.

        Agreed on UBI though.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
          link
          18 months ago

          you should be paid enough to make a profit. profit = money left over from being paid after expenses.

          If you spend some time - any time - you should be compensated an amount that allows you to do things you actually want to do.

          I’m not sure you knew what the word “profit” means, but hopefully you do now, or can find a better way to express what you mean.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Compensation for work - even if that work is performed by the owner - is an expense, not profit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        Tap water is not really a for-profit enterprise. Even Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, though there are some well paid lawyers and engineers on staff, has to justify their rates and re-invest it all into water supply reliability. No shareholders making a profit on tap water.

        UBI would not prevent landlords from profit. If we can afford to spend trillions on concrete bridges, we could build public housing in every city.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
          link
          18 months ago

          “shareholders” have nothing to do with any part of this conversation.

          UBI has nothing to do with preventing profit. Which is good, because we shouldn’t be preventing profit. We should be preventing exploitation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      78 months ago

      Even if you own your home mortgage free, you’re going to be paying >100% of its value in maintenance and opportunity cost over the first ten years.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        Sure, let’s assume that’s true. The difference though is, I own the property. I get something out of the deal other than a temporary roof over my head - something I would argue is a human right.

        If I were renting, I would be paying all those same costs, plus a profit margin - and I wouldn’t own anything at all. Someone else gets to cash out on the investment that I entirely paid for.

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

          You misunderstand. The comparison I’m trying to make is this:

          • Scenario 1: You own a home mortgage-free. You pay maintenance costs and taxes on that property.
          • Scenario 2: You own the value of the same home in cash. You rent a home to live in.

          How high does rent need to be before it becomes a better financial choice to choose scenario 1 over scenario 2? The break-even point is around the price where you would end up paying off the entire value of the home over ten years.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            There are some interesting scenarios I’ve seen contracted out that you might be interested in.

            Scenario: Co-op housing, you lease a lot with housing (based on your desired price point) with a 100-year lease. You may “purchase” a portion of the capital that the co-op housing has on your leased property (lets say 100k value property). The invested money can be used for loans or other means (like how capital can be used for leverage) through the co-op (think State-employee-credit-unions which are co-ops themselves). Any interest or value accrued while maintaining that lease is passed onto the signer of that lease. Aka, 100k property sold 20 years later for 200k you receive a 100k “buyout” from the co-op if you’re leaving.

            Heavily regulated with plenty of stipulations of course so nefarious actors and “flippers” don’t buy. The co-op retains the property for future housing even if you die at 118. Have seem family clauses so it can be passed down as well. There’s just so many versatile and victimless situations that can be created which have the community and the individual in mind for fairness.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        28 months ago

        Also, I would just like to point out that I have very rarely had a landlord do maintenance on the property I live in. One building hadn’t seen a lick of maintenance in over 30 years, until I finally convinced them to replace the oven.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
          link
          18 months ago

          it would surprise you to learn that many business owners are shit at their jobs. You’ve never heard of mechanics ripping off people for headlight fluid? Or shoddy construction work?

          This isn’t a landlord problem. it’s a human one.