I’ve seen this take so many times, and the most generous explanation I can give them is that they’re very stupid people who don’t understand the concept of equity
I do actually think there’s an ethical amount to charge as a landlord, but that amount is significantly less than a mortgage.
Most ethical landlord example: You own a house that you plan to live in later but for some reason can’t currently. You want to rent it out, as un-lived in homes fall apart quickly. You rent it out for a couple hundred dollars a month, enough to cover upkeep and maybe taxes. If you have a mortgage on it, you pay that yourself with your money from working an actual job.
IMO the fair amount doesn’t cover taxes. Property taxes in the US are mostly a measure to cool down the rate at which landowners accumulate wealth from land value rising. Since the renter isn’t getting equity in your scenario, if the renter is paying the property taxes then the landlord is profiting from the system where every other landlord hoards housing to increase its price.
Another way to look at it is that if the property tax didn’t exist at all in this scenario, the landlord would still be accumulating wealth without working at the expense of the people who have to buy the house later, i.e. they’re exploiting them (or, more likely, the future tenants who will pay off the future landlord’s mortgage). Even with the property tax existing the house is going to gain more value than what the owner loses to property tax, but that’s somewhat outweighed by inflation.
I’ve seen this take so many times, and the most generous explanation I can give them is that they’re very stupid people who don’t understand the concept of equity
I do actually think there’s an ethical amount to charge as a landlord, but that amount is significantly less than a mortgage.
Most ethical landlord example: You own a house that you plan to live in later but for some reason can’t currently. You want to rent it out, as un-lived in homes fall apart quickly. You rent it out for a couple hundred dollars a month, enough to cover upkeep and maybe taxes. If you have a mortgage on it, you pay that yourself with your money from working an actual job.
IMO the fair amount doesn’t cover taxes. Property taxes in the US are mostly a measure to cool down the rate at which landowners accumulate wealth from land value rising. Since the renter isn’t getting equity in your scenario, if the renter is paying the property taxes then the landlord is profiting from the system where every other landlord hoards housing to increase its price.
Another way to look at it is that if the property tax didn’t exist at all in this scenario, the landlord would still be accumulating wealth without working at the expense of the people who have to buy the house later, i.e. they’re exploiting them (or, more likely, the future tenants who will pay off the future landlord’s mortgage). Even with the property tax existing the house is going to gain more value than what the owner loses to property tax, but that’s somewhat outweighed by inflation.
I think that’s a totally fair point
Main reason I said maybe is I hadn’t thought it through thoroughly and didn’t want to take a stance lol