“All I want to do is exploit struggling people for far more than my property is worth. Is that so wrong?!”
You guys are joking and everything, but that’s what they actually think
I bet. Mine inherited 17 houses and never works. He also talks to all his customers like he is doing us a favor.
I know a guy at college who basically uses this as a pick-up line to get girls. He said if you’re with him you’re basically set because he’ll inherit a lot of house from his landlord parents so you won’t need to work anymore.
Here is hoping he attracts someone that would work on.
I never understood why people do that. Who wants to be together with a gold digger?
Probably people who can only “attract” that way.
Women like money this is nothing new.
They might not even be a gold digger but with money comes opportunities.
The joke falls kinda flat for me because I hear this too much already, but not as a joke…
Someone I know is like this, unironically.
Historically people with the title “lord” have had it so hard.
Even if you try being a good landlord, dealing with some tenants can really darken your soul…
It’s also not as lucrative as most would think. I have a few rentals and it’s certainly not enough to quit my day job in IT. It’s maybe an extra $15-20k in my pocket at the end of the year after expenses and taxes and such, and I spend at least 10-20 hours a week doing accounting, maintenance tasks, coordinating contractors, legal stuff, etc. Sure, the equity is nice too, but it doesn’t do a whole lot for me until retirement age.
As far as whether landlords can be “good”, I see myself as providing a valuable service to those who cannot or don’t want to become homeowners. In a perfect world, those who cannot but want to become homeowners should, but the cost of housing has little to do with rentals and almost everything to do with zoning, development restrictions, and tax structure. Until that world exists, someone has to offer rental properties to these people, otherwise where would they live?
What’s a “good” landlord? Someone that upholds all of their obligations that the law says they have to do in order to make money off of the actual work of others? Still a parasite.
deleted by creator
So does the person who made your coffee this morning not deserve a place to live? What about the person who delivered your dinner? The person who delivers your mail? The one who picks up your trash? The people who built your house? The person who stocks your groceries?
wHaT dO yOu Do FoR a LiViNg?
What does that have to do with your right to a roof over your head?
What do you do for a living?
I sell drugs to minors and bribe police to allow me to keep doing it.
No, I’m a construction worker building houses and units.
No, I’m a construction worker building houses and units.
So you, the mastermind behind the housing crisis, blame the victim?
Why do people have to rent? Because they cannot buy because construction workers refuse to build enough housing.
Why do landlords charge so much rent? Well, the biggest contributor to that is mortgage costs, driven up by out of control labor costs for construction.
The rest of the rent goes into savings by the landlord. The reality is, most renters are not as gentle with their homes as owners are and when something breaks, they demand that the landlord fix it and threaten to withhold rent until it is fixed. Facing financial ruin if they cannot make mortgage payments, the landlords are forced to turn to greedy construction workers preying on people backed into the corner. The construction workers take all of the set aside “excess rent” and more.
So really, we should stop blaming land lords and start blaming construction workers. They could, literally, build a free house for everyone.
…
I am joking, if that was not clear.
For a moment there, I thought your second sentence was going to be confessing that you were also a landlord.
No such thing as a good landlord.
Your know, I guess experiences vary widely, but the landlords I know don’t fit all the hate. For instance, one of my employees decided to rent her house instead of selling it when her family needed a bigger one. They’ve been renting to the same family for a decade or more without ever raising the rent. The family could not afford to buy any house, let alone the one they’re in, so renting allows them to live in a kind of place they couldn’t afford otherwise. My employee has let them skip rent a few times when times were hard.
I know a few similar stories. Maybe it’s different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever, but I just don’t see being a landlord as inherently bad. Like anything else, you can do it ethically or unethically.
Sounds like a problem with the price of housing, which is a not entirely unrelated issue.
Yeah, for sure - I live in southern California, which has about as high a cost of real estate as you’re going to find, but that isn’t caused by landlords. I mean, if you bought a new car and were selling your old one, you’d probably sell it for whatever the market would pay, right? Maybe if you’re really well off you’d just give it to someone, but most of us are going to sell for the going rate. It’s the same with houses. If I can easily get $500k for my house, I’m not going to list it for $400k just to be nice - I could use the money.
Do people feel like it’s inherently more laudable to sell their house than to rent it? It seems like, as long as they’re not gouging, they’re doing more of a service by renting to people who can’t afford to buy, and also covering all the costs of repairs and risk of damage that renters don’t have to worry about.
I just don’t get the hate broadly, though the management company who ran my daughter’s apartment complex were assholes.
I’m a land lord, did exactly what people say we all did. 15 years ago I bought two 200k homes for 30k each… they are an income plan for my kids so they don’t have to necessarily worry about taking a better paying job instead of something they want to do. Probably a little naive now. But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit just so the government won’t come after me due running a loss on my taxes. I have raised rent only enough to do that. I pay for a property management firm to take care of the properties so that the tenants have 24 hour response to issues. I’ve had the same tenants for 12 years in both properties. Every 4 years or so I have one of the rooms that the tenants want renovated. It’s a right off so doesn’t costa fortune ava the house gets slowly updated. Not every landlord is an asshole. Some of us play the long game without screwing people. But I realize that I am part of the problem. I am part of the reason for less supply in the market. But selling my properties will make my children’s lives less secure and I’m not willing to do that. So i do partially deserve some of the blame.
I don’t see you having any blame. Supply and demand for housing includes everything, including rentals. You would be part of the problem if you bought those places and left them empty as vacation spots or something. You didn’t, you’re supplying them to people who I’m guessing wouldn’t be able to buy them themselves. You’re not driving up the cost of housing. I’d argue that, since you’re charging less than you could, you’re actually lowering it.
He literally is driving up the cost of housing. Rental markets are quite seperate to the actual housing market and people who own 3 houses, drive up the cost of buying a house. There is a good chance they can’t afford to rent, yes, but only because of people like him buying housing they dint need to make a profit, they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.
they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.
Have you purchased a house? Because this part is simply not true. You have to have a percentage of the cost up front. The more you have, the smaller the payments. Lots of folks who are renting out places put a lot down so the mortgage payments (and what they charge for rent) are much smaller than a first-time buyer can afford. Then you have the cost of property tax, maintenance, and repairs that the renter isn’t liable for.
This is very much the problem with the Canadian real estate bubble. People are paying rental prices now that absolutely could have paid for a house 5 years ago. But now they are paying a dangerously high portion of their income. The problem is that their rental prices that they pay now wouldn’t make the payments on the house today.
Not for myself, but yes, I have. And that’s kind of my point. You have these arbitrary barriers to entry on home ownership that are designed to keep poor people out, since the can’t afford these costs upfront, and can’t save for them because they are either paying their landlords mortgage instead, or are paying money directly to the bank/asset manager/ whoever owns their rental. So it’s in the banks best interest to not give them a mortgage.
And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn’t landlords wouldn’t be making money, so would raise rent
I think “designed to keep poor people out” is way off. People selling a product want nothing more than for other people to buy their product. The sellers of the house aren’t the ones setting the mortgage details - they have nothing to do with it, they just want to sell the house.
But few people can afford to buy a house outright, so they have to borrow money. The bigger the percentage of the purchase price you have to borrow, the more the payments are going to be. That’s not to punish poor people, it’s because they’re putting up their money so you can buy something, in return for them making a profit on their money.
And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn’t landlords wouldn’t be making money, so would raise rent
You’re still not getting it. Let’s say I want to live in a house that costs $600k, but I don’t have it. If I were to find a lender who would finance the whole thing (doubtful), the mortgage payments would probably be around $3k a month, and I can’t afford that either. But let’s say you have $300k to put down, so only have to finance another $300k, and your payments are more like $1500 a month, which I can afford. I pay you the amount that covers your mortgage, you end up paying property tax and other costs, but my rent is going into your property. If I live there for three years, you’ve gotten $54k in equity, even if the house’s value itself didn’t go up any, for just the cost of taxes and maintenance. Meanwhile, I got to live in a house that I flat out couldn’t afford.
I was not blaming the people selling the house, I was blaming the banks for putting an arbitrary down payment on getting a mortgage to keep poor people out of home ownership, which benefits the banks as they are all heavily involved in property investment so benefit from more people renting either by directly being the landlords or simply from the increased housing demand from landlords wanting to buy as many properties as possible, thus driving up housing prices, which drives up mortgages and makes them more money.
Like you say, the banks male their money from interest on the loan, so the 20k down-payment they require is an arbitrary barrier to entry.
No, I get it, you’re just making up a scenario that doesn’t really happen. Like sure a landlord could in theory pay half the price of a house just to reduce mortgage costs so they can rent it out at half the market rate AND pay property tax and maintenance out of pocket, out of thr kindness of their golden hearts. They could also just buy the house outright and let you live in it for free and just make their profit off of the increase in house value. But obviously they won’t. The landlord is going to charge you market rate for that 600k house which will almost certainly be more than 3k, because why wouldnt they? And even if they did, are the going to rent directly to you? Or are they going to advertise it and get a slew of offers of people wanting to live in a house for half price and so someone a little bit richer than you will offer them, say 1,750 for the house, because of supply and demand. And the vast majority of people aren’t trying to live in houses they can’t afford, they are just trying to live.
And even then, it’s still not ethical, you’re still exploring people for profit for their basic needs without adding any value to the system.
How the heck did you find not one but two 200k houses for 30k? Or are you saying you bought them for 30k and now they’re worth 200k? Either way holy balls I wish I could do either of those lol
I assumed they meant they were just worth $30k when they bought them. That is a pipe dream that probably won’t happen again in any of our lifetimes.
This shows one of the most common things landlords tell themselves to justify it.
But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit
You tell yourself this, to make you feel better, but you don’t acknowledge that almost all the money your tenants pay you is profit, since they are paying for the mortgage. Even if you rented at 0 immediate profit, for the entire time until you paid off the houses, you would have actually made 1.2million in profit, since you now own 2 houses at 600k each.
And those families, instead of paying a mortgage and ending with hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, that they could refinance, or use to buy a better house or leave as inheritance for their kids, now have nothing, as all that money has gone to you.
There is no such thing as an ethical landlord. Even the “”“good”“” ones are still exploring people’s basic need for shelter to make them rich.
If you really wanted to be a “good” landlord offer those families the chance to buy the house with the 15 years of down payments they already made to you to start it off. But as you said they’re an “income plan” for your kids I don’t think you would do that.
I mean, I get what you’re saying. And perhaps if my financial situation was better I could consider the option to offer the houses to the tenants. But as you suspect I will not trade my children’s financial security just to be charitable. The rent I charge is 30%-40% below market value. I suspect if you were in my position you wouldn’t be so inclined to give away your wealth either.
I was in your position, when my grandparents died I inherited a house, that people encouraged me to rent out. Instead I sold it and invested the money (specifically into a green energy fund.) As that way I still have my financial security, without being a landlord.
I realize you aren’t going to agree, but these two situations aren’t the same thing.
Why not?
Because to start with, I invested and risked my own money a much less bubbled deal estate market with a significant amount of my available capital. You invested someone else’s money. I took all the risk, and you want me to give away all the profits from that risk. Even your “green” investments take advantage of workers, buy off shore parts, cost people their jobs. Why don’t you donate all your profits to those people. Your entire argument is so steeped in hypocrisy that it’s hard to even know if you’re not just a troll.
My last land lord raised rent by 2.5x after the first year. When we moved out he kept the full security deposit because “the inside of the oven was dirty”
Your mileage may vary
4 beautiful words that worked wonders with my shitty landlord who tried to keep my deposit “normal wear and tear”.
As soon as I stated that, the lady changed her tune completely.
This is the whole “not all cops are bad a guy I know is a cop and he’s nice” argument just for landlords.
Or you could phrase it about slave owners “my freind owns slaves, but he just owns the one and he treats them really well!”
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe “”“ethical”“” the landlord is.
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe “”“ethical”“” the landlord is.
That’s what I’m not seeing. Can you explain what makes it inherently immortal?
The explanation depends on how deep or philosophical you want to go on this conversation, but basically you are exploiting someone’s basic need for shelter for massive profit, keeping trapped in the poverty cycle as they are having to pay rent to the landlord to pay their mortgage for them and so is much harder to save for their own house. As well as reducing supply of housing on the market, thus increasing prices and making it more innacessible.
Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town’s supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup. They don’t grow it, they don’t transport it, cook it or chsnge it, they don’t do anything that ads value, just buy it and sell it at a higher price, to the people that would have otherwise bought it for themselves. Do you consider that ethical?
Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town’s supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup.
Okay, that’s clearly exploitative and unethical, but that’s not inherently what landlords do. Anyone who sells products or services can do it in a way that’s fair or is unfair. The mere act of selling something itself isn’t unethical. Look at the conversations we have about drug companies. I don’t think anyone argues that drug companies shouldn’t be able to sell medication, or even make some profit for their research investments. The problem is when they price their drugs way above what’s reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.
Renting out a house isn’t different from renting out anything else. You go on vacation and you need a car while there, but you don’t want to buy one for a short time, so you rent one. The rental agency used their money to buy the car, then they rent it to you for something you’re willing to pay for a week, and they make a profit from all the people who rent the car over its life. You both win. Why is it any different with a house?
The problem is when they price their drugs way above what’s reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.
This is exactly the problem with landlords. The argument for landlords being that some people can’t afford to own a home becomes a bit moot when landlords buy up all the houses and rent them back at unaffordable prices.
Why is it any different with a house?
Because you rent a car for, like you said, a vacation. That’s like renting a hotel room. You rent a home to live in. If you could afford a mortgage, you’d buy a home. But landlords basically go “hey, the bank doesn’t think you make enough money to make regular payments, so make those payments to me instead.”
The problem most people have is their credit, not the mortgage payments. Both my mortgages (I’m not a landlord, but I do airbnb 3 months out of the year) are $1500/month, and most people pay that and more just for rent.
Nevermind the fact that some people are eligible to buy a home, but think they won’t qualify so they dont try. I was in that group with a credit score of 680, which is acceptable for the first time home owners program. I was accepted, and now I own 2 homes.
This is exactly the problem with landlords. The argument for landlords being that some people can’t afford to own a home becomes a bit moot when landlords buy up all the houses and rent them back at unaffordable prices.
You make it sound like that’s the normal case, but it’s just not so. Here’s a Pew research article.
72.5% of single-unit rental properties are owned by individuals, while 69.5% of properties with 25 or more units are owned by for-profit businesses.
I don’t mean to minimize it as a problem - it’s a big one - but the vast majority of rental house landlords aren’t big corporations buying up all the available places and jacking up prices, it’s individual’s who decided to rent their place out instead of selling it.
Drug companies produce the actual drugs though. They are creating value by making the drug and the money they make from selling it is their reward for creating value. Landlords do not build the house, so they do not create value.
And renting a car is different because its not something you need to simply survive and less importantly we don’t have a car shortage. And also you typically don’t rent a house just for a week most people rent houses for years and years until they can afford to buy a house, at which point their landlord has made 10s or maybe even hundreds of thousands off of them, while doing little work and adding no value. Like I’m not arguing against hotels or even renting in general, I’m against landlording for private homes, because its inherently unethical, just like buying all the food in a supermarket and selling it to the same supermarket customers at a markup to make profit for no work.
I guess we just disagree. I’ve said why I think they can be providing a useful service and create a win/win situation, but you don’t see it that way. Good discussing with you.
Idk I feel like there’s also something to be said to have the freedom to just buy another house after saving a bit. It sounds so easy, but most families would have to sell their house in order to upsize.
Never moved but my mom was in credit unions and the trade in of the house was pretty common. In all fairness, there were many “multiple apartment complex owners” at that same CU, they were notably colder and exclusively about numbers (i.e. throwing a fit and sending another appraiser to their barely functional building to get a dozen k).
Yeah, there are honestly a lot of reasons to rent instead of buy. One of the main ones is uncertainty about the market. Lots of times people think that the prices in an area are inflated and likely to come down. If you buy, you risk taking a big loss. The landlord, in that case, is the one with the risk. Similarly, if you don’t plan to stay in an area for several years, it can be more trouble (and even cost) than it’s worth. I’ve also known people who simply don’t want to be bothered with the upkeep, even if they can afford to buy. There’s a real freedom in being able to just pick up the phone when anything isn’t working, there’s a leak, or whatever.
You’ll get your rent when you fix this damn door!
Yeh I support LGBT…
Landlords
GOP
Billionaires
The police
😎
Removed by mod
Damn rentoids
Ours put our rent up 25% so just because I was upset I paid this month’s rent a week late and they were complaining they needed the money to pay their montgage… Bitch please I don’t wanna hear about your financial problems
I run a small senior living complex in a rural town. We have the cheapest rent in town. We scrape by, trying to make improvements here and there. They are maintained though. We seriously charge hundreds of dollars less than the next closest complex in the area. We refused to raise our rent in the past 4 years dispite rising taxes and utility bills. Most our tenants are widows/widowers living off a fixed income. We are either too nice or bad business owners because that “fix my AC” One always stings and reaches into my personal budget. And by “personal budget” I mean I eat ramen for a couple weeks.
Anyway, I actually feel like this meme. Other than my tenants are usually happy. Occasionally we get someone who is just never happy no matter what you do. I know all the other complexes are owned by one company essentially creating a monopoly and they have exploited this town. We get calls from people crying because they will be homeless.
It’s the model of housing as a business that is the problem, no matter how benevolent an operator may try to be. The market is designed to eliminate you as competition and reward the exploitative monopolistic company.
More importantly is whether or not you are or would ever act as a firewall against competing (or at this point any) housing development.
Like if a subsidized public housing for seniors opened up next door to your complex offering rates at or below your own: would you support it given this persistent at risk population?
We would support it. We only have 24 units, we field at least 50 calls a day. We would be fine. We have turned down an offer from the company that owns the other complexes. The offer was 3 times what we paid 10 years ago and had a few more zeros on the end of what we still owe. But these tenants have become family. Also from a business owner perspective I would rather have this steady income than the BS of a quick payday then having to reinvest somewhere else and work are butts off to get that sustainable without turning into a scumbag landlord. Landlording is easy if you charge exorbitant prices and pay people to do everything. We do all the work ourselves to keep the cost down. Meanwhile I work another full time job. So does my wife and we have two kids. I don’t have time to get another property to this point of sustainability.
Image Transcription:
A drawn picture of a woman with shoulder-length blue hair and purple suit jacket over a darker purple long-sleeve button-down shirt, hanging her head dejectedly while a semicircle of fingers ring her head, accompanied by the words: “Parasite!”, “Fix my AC!”, “Tenants have rights!”, “Leech!”, “Hope you get Mao’d!”, “Let me live here for free!”, “Rent control!”, and “Rich Scum!”. Below the picture is a caption reading: No one understands the landlord struggle…
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
deleted by creator
Oh, the hard, hard life of the rent-seeker who is stupidly greedy and unwilling to lose a little bit of profit to pay somebody else - like an agency - to take care of all the work and manage their assets, so instead of making money purely from having money without lifting a finger, they have to suffer the indignity of actually working a few hours a week like poor people.
The pain and suffering must be unbearable…
Please suggest a solution.
I don’t know if this is the right place for it, but an idea I’ve had:
Charge a high tax penalty on home ownership if the home is fully functional and livable, but spends over a certain percentage of the year unoccupied by any person as their primary residence (and a steadily accumulating tax for any home that spends too many years in an unlivable state)
This might put pressure back on landlords to put their homes on market for reasonable prices, instead of inflating their rents based on MBA recommendations long past what people can pay simply to “keep the property value high”. It would severely devalue the idea of owning homes the same way you would own piles of gold, as long-term investments people are hesitant to actually use.
Would the tax be federal, state, or local level?
How does one prove occupancy to show they aren’t subject to this tax?
How would the tax authority determine the same in order to prove noncompliance?
Does this effectively prohibit second and third homes? Am I allowed to put real property in a holding company?
I’m not trying to start a ruckus here, just asking questions. It’s a big problem but I’m not sure if tax is the solution. Usually when people suggest solving problems with taxes it isn’t fully thought through and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
I can’t claim to know the benefits of state, local, or fed taxes. Like a lot of things, I imagine it’s better trialed on a local then state level, and might never reach federal.
Like a lot of tax claims, it may just be reliant on claims, and would not always require proof. You file for taxes, you report 3 homes, you state which one you occupied; or you state that you had a tenant in that home. If you’re audited on your taxes, they may find you falsely reported a tenant, which would be tax fraud. The IRS could find reason to audit someone if, for instance, they’re freely posting on Facebook “Yeah, just say you have tenants who do not wish to be named, they can’t do anything about it”. Many tax rules already work by self-reporting, and/or finding conflicts in prior documentation.
It would not prohibit third homes, but you’d have to pay a hefty property tax to hold onto an extra home and require it to stay empty while people are out there homeless. So, you’d have to be rich and not care that simply owning these properties bleeds you money (which is the opposite of how being rich usually works - your properties generate so much value by “existing” that you can simply persist a high quality of life just off residual income)
Pretty sure a tax like that at the federal level would be unconstitutional. The 16th amendment authorizes an income tax, not a real estate tax on empty houses. State and local level attempts to do that would be a prieoners dilemma situation. Good for everyone overall if everybody cooperated, but too much incentive to be the one county or state that doesn’t tax the shit out of rich people for their third home, thus attracting the wealthy there.
Again I agree in principle but idk if tax is a feasible solution. (I’m a cpa btw for whatever that’s worth.)
Landlords fulfill their contract and do the work? I thought that was clear
That isn’t clear at all because it seems like all the vitriol in this thread is about the very concept of owning real property and renting it to someone who wants to rent. This thread is not at all about landlords not fulfilling their contractual obligations. All I’m seeing here is “fuck landlords and big bad mean rich people” and it’s really childish and immature. Nobody has suggested a viable alternative yet to that, including you.
I want responding to the entire thread, only to you
So out of context and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, got it.
Don’t be so hard on yourself. Your post had value.
“Rent-seeking” as an economic concept is not when you collect rent, as a landlord does.
In Economics “rent-seeking” is seeking to receive a “rent”, but the concept of “rent” here is broader than merelly the kind of rent paid for a property (for example, when banks place themselves in the position to get a commission out of every small financial transaction out there, through “Touch To Pay” schemes, they are “rent-seeking”).
So whilst not all rent-seekers are landlords (probably not even most rent-seekers), all landlords are rent-seekers, which is exactly how I handled those definitions in my post.
Your post is like saying “‘Apple’ is not the same as ‘fruit’” when somebody else whilst talking about apples called them “fruit”.
Landlords aren’t necessarily rent-seekers (though some individuals conceivable could be) as economists use the term, and your lack of understanding of economic rent-seeking is something you can fix.
Rent-seeking is a concept in economics that states that an individual or an entity seeks to increase their own wealth without creating any benefits or wealth to the society. Rent-seeking activities aim to obtain financial gains and benefits through the manipulation of the distribution of economic resource
Providing a home is a benefit to the society.
Credit processors (what you’re calling “banks”) provide a service to merchants. They are also not rent-seeking.
Landlords. They won’t be the first ones to be beheaded in the coming revolution, that’s for sure.
It’s missing the wad of 100 dollar bills to wipe away the tears of this hardship
