No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
But... they are providing a service.
I am a landlord, I'm sure I'll catch hell but whatever. I bought a dumpster of a house in a popular metro area and proceeded to pump $300k of my own money as well as doing half the repairs myself because I'm physically and mentally able. I also do all the maintenance on the property and I'm on a first name basis with the tenants. They call me for anything they need. Not everyone has the means to operate like this, but I don't suspect anyone in this thread will listen to those realities. I now own a house that is worth a decent amount more than my total investment so I rent it way below market rate because I have two awsome tenants living in symbiosis and I don't want them to leave (selfishly, because its more work for me). But I guess according to this thread I'm a leach. I'm tired of reading these childish black and white arguments, the world is inherently grey, nothing is simple and easy to boil down but everyone sure likes to try and make a simple agreement.
In my head I think a fair solution would make it harder for landlords to buy one extra house every time they go to buy a new one. So one person renting out one house would be barely any harder than the current setup, but one person renting out two houses would start to feel like it might not be worth it etc.
Some countries tax properties higher if they're not your primary residence for example. It might drive rents higher though
I believe it could and should be made harder, but it is already a high barrier to purchase an investment property. For a business loan on residential housing, an investor needs 25-30% down payment for the property. Also I think the longest terms are 15 years and not 30, but I could be wrong.
All the small time landlords acquired their homes through primary residence loans which allows for PMI and smaller down payments that only exist because they are subsidized by the government. A primary residence loans either requires an owner to lie to the government and bank which puts them at serious liability in the sense they could make the loan due immediately if found out, or the owners have lived in that home for at least one year.
i can paint over my own roaches, thanks. landlords are in inflating artificial scarcity of a necessity
Is the implication here that if the landlords hadn't bought the property, the people renting would be able to buy it?
Yes that's correct, if landlords couldn't run a business then the overall pricing of housing would be low enough that a renter could afford it due to supply and demand of the greater housing market
You're assuming said people would be able to obtain a mortgage at those house prices?
Yes, at the lower prices now that supply isn't constrained by landlords
Where do these people get their deposits from for the mortgage on the cheaper houses? Where do they live whilst saving up for these cheaper deposits?
We're speaking in hypotheticals already, and you want to get into even more details? The world would be different in this odd scenario so trying to figure out the details ahead of time seems like you just want to make it fail before we even start.
So I guess my answer would be, the same place as before this problem occurred of having too many landlords. Go back to the 50s and see what they did then. In the 50s a down payment wasn't even a problem because housing pricing was affordable to everyone.
We still have plenty of houses in the country. Enough to house every homeless person 4x over, so it's not a real problem except the owners of those houses that want more and more profit out of thin air make it a problem
Because people are talking on here like it would the solve the problem... it's a much more complex and nuanced issue than "landlords making (too much) profit". The knock-on effects and interconnectedness in (some) economies all need to be thought through and resolved/have a plan to resolve first otherwise you're just creating other problems.
This whole thread reminds me of Brexit (I'm from the UK) and how leavers were saying how simple it would be to leave... this is such a complex problem.
That's the kind of answer people like to give when they just don't want to do anything to fix it. Who cares if it's a complex problem, we have really smart people in the world. We can bang this out.
There's no reason to haggle over details though because we're not the people in that room haggling over details. All we need to do is continue to point out that there is a problem and that we want our representatives and scientists who do studies on housing to fix it.
Leaving the EU had no upsides, and the only talking points leavers had were lies, not complexity. Making it difficult for landlords to continue owning more and more of the world's property has plenty of upsides and very few downsides.
I disagree, it's the details that will bite you on the ass... until those people have haggled over the details we realistically have no idea how many up or downsides there would be.
I agree it's a problem and I agree the current landlord situation is very likely contributing but removing that component by itself I believe is likely to cause all manner of problems... landlords are currently parasiting (is that a word?) off a system that's broken... my view is if you fix the system they won't be able to parasite on it.