206
this could be an Onion article
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
206 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
856 readers
578 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
If anyone asks what a labor aristocracy is, I'll just point them to this comment.
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.
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.
Why would anyone ever want a house without a profit motive?!?!?!?!
I regret deleting my earlier comment, Mao knew how to deal with people like you.
That risk being that they might end up in the same class position as their tenants
Nice ableist slur, landlords really are sending their best.
It's not fucking slavery, not even indentured servitude, if the worst you can loose is your property...
Wtf are you even talking about?
Sidenote, just to pile on, you say:
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
That’s enough from you. Eat shit landbastard.
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.
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?