• WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      14 days ago

      I actually respect the position more than I do an ideological republican. It’s fair valid (internally consistent), it’s reasonable. I just think it’s the weaker class to back if all else were equal. (But then for some reason it’s not equal in terms of who wants to make a world worth sticking around for)

  • Dort_Owl [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    14 days ago

    I’m trying to wrap my head around how a tenant could possibly be perceived as ungreatful, but I just can’t.

    Like they’re paying a huge chunk of their income and yet they have no legal right to the house they’re paying for. That’s pretty damn grateful

  • unmagical@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    14 days ago

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, fuck off.

    When I bought my house there was a brief period of time wherein the existing tenant was staying to complete the semester before moving out and I beat myself up over being a landlord for like 6 days.

    They were already leaving under agreements made by the prior landlord and had paid no rent to us, but it was still enough to feel scummy AF.

  • Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    14 days ago

    “Perspective” is an odd name for a piece like this, seems more like a lack of perspective to me. Though I guess I just don’t know how damn hard it is to live as a parasite and how ungrateful your host always is.

  • Juice@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    14 days ago

    Wow almost like social antagonisms in society are structural and not individual, someone should look into this

    • Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      14 days ago

      Nope. As we learned from our landlord visitor in this thread, the problem is a few bad apple landlords ruining it for everyone else, because once you are enough of a landlord, you become a “bank” and then become bad instead of just a small time Mom and Pop parasite. All tenants are inherently lazy and ungrateful though, and deserve to pay rent to a hard working landlord.

  • altphoto@lemmy.todayBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    14 days ago

    It’s simple. People who can’t afford a mortgage have to rent. Or be homeless. The system wants it this way to keep investments paying dividends.

    The job of the tenant is to totally destroy the property to bring prices down so they can pay less or maybe even afford a house. If you’re a landlord that’s expected so the destruction is balanced in the monthly rent. If you get lucky you find a good Tennant who will not purposefully clog toilets or rub their feet on the walls etc, you can make more money. If the opposite happens you’ll only make money if you sell the property. Meanwhile you pay the mortgage so you’re basically the Bank’s bitch and the Tennant’s bitch with nothing to show in terms of a profit. You didn’t go to school and work your ass off for 5 years to barely afford a fixer upper to rent just so that some asshole think you owe him something.

    The other side is equally tough. You work your ass off and can never push ahead because all your income goes to pay rent. You’re careful but you never get your deposit back. You can’t rent a two bedroom because you got 3 kids and a dog. Oh by the way, dogs are not allowed… But nobody told you just how much landlords hate dogs due to how destructive they can be. Cats are horrible too because they will make the place smell like pee. Wet dog or dog poo is also not a great smell. And you lost your job or are between jobs, but…where’s the rent???

    I was a landlord of a single house and I put up with very destructive tennants. I do not recommend being a landlord. If you are, you should charge enough to pay for maintenance. Its stupid to do the maintenance yourself like I did. Don’t. Your time is not free. If your tennant wants to destroy the place make them pay for it. The place is your investment in the form of a house. Anyone destroying your house is directly stealing. On the other hand don’t charge excessive rent man. That fucking sucks for everyone. Make sure your house has durable flooring. Pay for good kitchen countertops. Make sure the kitchen and bathrooms have resettable gfci outlets. Make sure the kitchen sink wall and the bathroom walls are wettable… Silicon caulking, Hardy backer, concrete, etc. Pay for good plumbing, good flushable toilets with easy replaceable kits like the totto. The tenants will have a hard time destroying something that is well built. If they destroy it, it will be evident. If they don’t destroy it, they will enjoy living there maintenance free and you’ll enjoy not worrying about maintenance too.

    On closing. If you own your place, you tend to spend on keeping it up. Else you’ll be loosing investment money. I balance out my time and house maintenance. Realizing that you won’t take the house to your grave and your kids won’t want to keep living there either because everyone is stoopid at their age, then balance your maintenance. You’re basically dumping money into a house you own on paper. In reality you don’t, even when its paid off. My first house was built in 1929 and owned by at least 3 people. That’s right, the banks own the house. You add a new garage and they love it! You borrow to add the garage and then you pay for it and then eventually the bank owns the house again. You don’t own it. The tenant doesn’t either. The banks do and they love to watch us all argue about rent and Land lording. Banks set the price for rents indirectly. Its banks that want profit for doing nothing. Big landlord companies too. Both are just there to take a cut monthly.

    • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      14 days ago

      The difference is that when you, as a landlord, pay the bank, you are getting equity out of the house. When the tenant pays the landlord, they get nothing long term in return. In fact, they are the ones paying for your equity. Doesn’t matter how nice they are, how clean they are, how they continue to deny themselves basic things like animal companions, they don’t get any kind of long-term shit out of this. Hell, if they’re lucky it might help their credit score.

      The landlord, on the other hand, come rain or shine, always gets equity in the house. Not always profit, but always equity. When they pay, it actually goes towards something you can sell later, you can always make most of your money back.

      See how one of these things is not like the other?

      But I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, you were a landlord afterall.

      • altphoto@lemmy.todayBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        14 days ago

        You’re absolutely right. Give me all your money that you’ve made in the past decade and I’ll keep it safe in this glass jar for you. I’ll add 1% return for the chance to house a family. Now, if they want, they can take a few coins out of it on a daily basis. Also any of the usual things like orange president, fire, wind, water, heart, captain planet! can come and smash that bottle.

        Wanna be a landlord because it sounds like free passive income? No! Don’t! Its hard work and high risk. Don’t. If you got millions and someone else can take care of it, sure (slum lords). And so that’s the reason why renting is expensive. Someone has his or her whole life savings spent on that house and anything you do to it will poke directly into that. It’s like a half complete transaction. The small time extra home landlord puts everything they got on a big bet that they can sell later for higher or they can make more than the bank will pay them monthly. Somewhere along the actual source of money is the renter. The bank doesn’t make money, it converts labor into money. The landlord (mom and pops) takes on all the risk including maintenance and total loss.

        Now think of Netflix. You pay them monthly, they stream movies to you. The movies are paid and made. They don’t have any risk other than you stopping payment. That’s passive income. If they stop and go bankrupt, you don’t loose your home. The Bank’s still siphon the money in the end, but you’re not directly affected by how much. You simply pay if you want to. With a mortgage or rent, you got no choice because you need a place to live. As a landlord you got your investment down and will lose all of it…remember, its 10 years of your life. Sure its already money. You already worked 10 years. Imagine if that was not the case. OK so I work one month to make 1000. I pay the bank 1005, I charge you 1006 and make 1 from you. In turn you apply 0.50 cents of damage to the house. But also the house increases $2 in equity. This goes on for 50 years. I get my investment back as the fully paid house. The renter gets nothing. The renter can go rent elsewhere once they destroyed enough of the house. You as the landlord cannot do that. If you sell you will incurred losses to fixing and selling. And your original 10 years of labor is in that house. You can’t get out of the deal. That’s definetly not fun. And where’s my mortgage says the bank. Banks and big landlords are the evil.

        • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          14 days ago

          You are so incredibly dense. You said it yourself. The renter gets nothing. You get equity. The renter is who pays for your equity. You are lucky they don’t burn the damn thing down on the way out.

          I didn’t say you’d get rich off of it. I am saying that the relationship is fundamentally and systemically imbalanced, in a way that still, even in the worst case scenario, favors the landlord. It is an unjustified and pointless hierarchy, that is fundamentally misanthropic.

          And yes, writ large it favors the bankers over the landlords, but that is simply because the banks are landlords for money. Another unjustified hierarchy.

          They are both fundamentally evil, it is just a matter of scale.

            • Hestia [she/her, fae/faer]@hexbear.netM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              26
              ·
              14 days ago

              Why do we need a middleman to take care of that shit? All you did was shuffle numbers around and you had the audacity to demand your cut. I can call my own damn plummer.

              And don’t give us shit about how “the mortgage is $3900 a month” cause it’d be a hell of a lot cheaper without you leeches buying up all the land and houses, just to leave them empty because you’d rather deny someone housing than charge them something reasonable.

                • Hestia [she/her, fae/faer]@hexbear.netM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  21
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  You’re not me from the future. Because I would never be a landlord, as I have integrity. I definitely would not complain about how hard it is to be a landlord.

                  You decided to be a part of the problem. You still treat home ownership as an investment rather than what it actually is: a fucking roof over someone’s head.

        • Are_Euclidding_Me [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          14 days ago

          Sidenote, just to pile on, you say:

          Someone has his or her whole life savings

          when you could just say “someone has their whole life savings”.

          It’s the year 2026 and you’re on lemmy. You know nonbinary people exist, which means you’re making an active choice to erase us from your speech, for reasons that I can only assume are bigotry. On the other hand, you’re referring to a hypothetical landleech in that sentence and I do think most nonbinary people are too cool to be landleeches, so I can’t actually be too mad about your language choices here

        • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          For those keeping track at home, the landlord’s income in this scenario is 1000 + 1006, a total of 2006, with expenses of 1005 for a net of 1001. Real-world statistics say that median 2br rent in America is 1850 and median mortgage (which I assume to be skewed upwards by houses that are larger than 2br) is 1600. That’s an absolute minimum of 3000 a year between maintenance and net profit.

          A previous modest dwelling I lived in now sells for 75k, has fair market rent of about 900 a month, property taxes of 200 a month, 30-yr mortgage payments of 350 a month. Even charging only 800 for rent, 30 years of this will be 90k in rent plus the equity. Unless there is 250 dollars in damage being done every month, the property owner will come out well on top.

          I refuse to believe that every tenant requires a renovation afterwards. But maybe if you gave a long-term tenant a stake in the ownership of the house, they would be incentivized to preserve it better.

          Landlords choose to own and lease buildings because it is lucrative. Tenants rent because they have no other option.

        • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          I really can’t understand you what you’re mad about. Were you hoping to make it rich off other peoples’ rent, and you failed? Or you became a landlord knowing it would never pay off and you’re mad that people don’t appreciate how cool it is that they put your name on the checks instead of the bank’s?

    • Hestia [she/her, fae/faer]@hexbear.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      14 days ago

      If you came here expecting sympathy for your land lording you came to the wrong part of town.

      You borrow to add the garage and then you pay for it and then eventually the bank owns the house again. You don’t own it. The banks do and they love to watch us all argue about rent and Land lording.

      Ok guys, we need class unity with the land bastard class. Make sure you tip them.

      • altphoto@lemmy.todayBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        14 days ago

        We are all just being played by the banks. You can be a landlord too! Just work your ass off for 10 or 30 years and give the bank all your money. You immediately become the thing you hate. Want your money back? Not right now, it has to be repaired, you gotta pay a cut to the repair guy, a cut to the Realtors, a cut to the bank. Maybe in a few decades you can get your original money… Which is now devalued. So you must continue until you own the house “out right” more like yeah right. The banks own the house always, don’t fool yourselves.