1064
Rent is Robbery (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
152 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

And why shouldn't they buy the house? What's the limit on houses?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    First of all: "Just asking questions" is not an argument. It's disingenuous at best and done by people who have a strong opinion on a subject but can't articulate why. They feel they are correct and think they are cleverly avoiding having to actually defend their stance by never actually stating what it is.

    And why shouldn’t they buy the house?

    Because the necessities of survival shouldn't be a source of profit. Companies shouldn't be allowed to purchase all the air or water and force you to buy it from them for inflated prices because "what else are you going to do?" In the same why they shouldn't be allowed to buy all the property and force you to rent from them because "where else are you going to stay?"

    What’s the limit on houses?

    That's exactly the problem. There should be a limit on houses, and we're seeing the consequences of a limit not existing. People are calling for a limit to exist.

    Personally I think it should be illegal to rent out a property you don't live on, and any property you own beyond the first should be taxed at a much higher rate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So let me relate my story.

    At the age of 18 I got my first job working my way through college pushing 1200 packages an hour in a UPS warehouse. Back then $20 was a lot of money to me. That would fill my gas tank for a week. But I pulled that out of every paycheck and I continued doing that from every paycheck I got after college and beyond, increasing it to 30% of my professional income over time.

    After 30 years of working to make someone else rich I looked at my now substantial investments, both personal and 401k and realized, Holy crap, these are just numbers in a computer. What would I actually do if I looked at those investments and one day the number was zero? I mean, in one form or another they were really all just stocks. If the market crashed I could lose a lot and have to build back up. What if the bank collapsed? Theoretically, government insurance might cover me, but I don't know what the fine print says. What if I didn't qualify for some reason? Even if I did, how long would it take? What if I was hacked and from the bank's perspective, I had simply withdrawn the money?

    My answer was to diversify. If I bought a house and everything turned to shit, at least I could LIVE in the house. So me and a buddy each put in $50k to buy a gutted house near the beach. Then we foolishly spent 3 years of our lives working nights and weekends, putting in a kitchen, floors, paint, doors, plumbing, tearing out walls to fix termite damage. We paid to have the wiring brought up to code. We made it nice and spent $68k.

    We got a great renter in there for market price and then Covid hit. I talked to my partner and we decided that if she couldn't pay, she was going to stay rent free. Fortunately, she never missed a payment but it didn't feel right to raise the rent and price her out of the house. Rents in the area are $2500/ month. She's paying $1900/ month. If you do the math you know we are essentially giving up $600/ month of potential income.

    Now let's see how I'm stealing this income. Last year was just great. A tornado hit the neighborhood and damaged the roof, the fence, some of the exterior and left debris, like someone's front door, in the yard that had to be hauled away. Total cost including the roof $13k. We got lucky.

    So, $1900 rent x 12 months is $22800/ year. Subtract $13k plus $3600 for property taxes, plus $300 for inside pest control, plus $300 for termite treatment plus $600 for incidental things that needed fixing. That's $5k. Divide that by 2 because I only own half and I raked in a whopping $2500, on which i get to pay income taxes. Let's not forget the time it takes to contact 3 roofers to get quotes, meet them to pick colors and sign the contract, clean up the yard, write up the lease and bring it to her to sign, arrange for any and all repairs or emergencies and the myriad of other things that crop up over the years.

    And now that I've found out how I've been robbing my renter by just sitting around collecting money I don't deserve, I have to call my buddy and tell him we have to sell the house for zero profit and of course, kick the renter out so she can... I don't know... spend $600/ month more finding another place to live.

    Like I said, I don't make these rules. I paid rent too and now a mortgage. Would I like to live in a country that didn't allow corporations to buy up everything and jack up the price of those living there? Hell yeah.

    So I vote. What else can I do? I didn't crush anyone under my heels to get what i have. I literally saved the money i made. And if I want to protect everything I've spent my whole life to create I can put it in... what... diamonds? Like those don't have blood on them. Make my own business. Isn't that like joining the enemy. I mean the goal would be to grow, right? Boats, cars? What is socially acceptable?

    I'm sorry but I'm just not this horrible robber depicted in the meme and I'm not apologizing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Housing shouldn't be an investment.

    "I bought a limited resource people require for survival, what should I have done?"

    Not do that. I have plenty of investments, none of them are houses. This feigned ignorance of "what else am I allowed to invest in?" Doesn't work. Go talk to an advisor, they'll provide you with plenty of options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why do you people have to be so hateful, "feigned ignorance". It's not feigned ignorance it's the fact that any tangible investment will upset SOMEONE.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s not feigned ignorance it’s the fact that any tangible investment will upset SOMEONE.

    Stocks, Bonds, Index Funds, 401k. Go talk to an advisor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Again, all of those are in essence stocks that can be lost in a crash, if someone hacks my account, the bank fails, etc. When it comes down to it, those are just numbers in an account that one day could go to zero. One could argue that is not likely to happen, but if it did, what recourse would I actually have?

    I retired at 52. I don't need financial advice. My point was that I wanted a tangible asset. If I choose diamonds or gold someone here would get just as upset that those were essentially covered with blood and they are. I wouldn't want to do cars because I don't consider it wise, don't have storage, don't want to pay the insurance, etc. Real estate is an obvious choice. It makes a very good investment, but clearly in this thread it's evil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    So you're well aware that alternative investment options exist and all this "what am I to do? Rental housing is the only thing to invest in" is just nonsense.

    clearly in this thread it’s evil

    Yup. Just like if someone invested in diamonds or gold, people upset about it wouldn't give them a pass if they said "I just wanted a tangible investment".

    You complained about spending 30 years making someone else rich, and now you're retired off the back of your renter making you rich. Your example of a "bad year" was $2500 profit after paying for repairs from a tornado, for a property you don't need or use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    First of all, maybe I'm not trying to argue, maybe I'm asking questions because I want to understand the other person's side and making sure that person has fully thought through his position. How can I agree or disagree if I don't even know the rules. On this topic people seem to be pretty certain that ALL landlords are basically stealing a living from their renters. I don't care for arguments that place individuals in the same category as large corporations. There are heroes and villains in every industry. Landlording is no exception.

    I did not set up the rules, I'm just following them. In the united states this is unfortunately how it functions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    First of all, people are able to state their opinions on a subject without first having to ask questions like:

    So they should buy the house, pay the mortgage and let you stay there for free?

    This is exactly what I mean by "just asking questions" being disingenuous at best. That's not a questions someone asks a person if they are legitimately "wanting to understand the other person’s side".

    How can I agree or disagree if I don’t even know the rules

    What rules? They made pretty clear statements about their position (unlike you). You can ask them clarifying questions and state your own position on the subject at the same time.

    I don’t care for arguments that place individuals in the same category as large corporations.

    It's possible for something to be wrong for both individuals and corporations to take part in. If someone is saying "slavery is bad" I don't need to hear some bullshit "Corporations who use slave labour are worse than individuals who use slave labour. Leave the individuals alone!" Both are bad. Corporations are worse, yes, but that doesn't give individuals a free pass. Both need to be stopped.

    There are heroes and villains in every industry.

    Yes, and the role of government should be to step in and stop the villains.

    I did not set up the rules, I’m just following them. In the united states this is unfortunately how it functions.

    That is exactly the point. This is how it functions and it shouldn't be. That doesn't change by people shrugging their shoulders and saying "it is what it is." It changes by people making noise about it until the rules are changed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I personally believe that asking the details of why a person believes something is EXACTLY the right way to have a discussion because if you just scream at the person and say you're wrong, that person will just dig in and solidify his opinion.

    This is why I'm not going to argue with you anymore because I'm pretty sure you're not going to change your mind and I'm sorry I don't live up to your expectations of not grabbing my sign and marching in front of congress.

    I have never seen a successful positive movement toward the kind of government you portray. Instead what I have seen is my dollar going for positive change and corporation's billions of dollars going the other way. Given the fact that as a society we choose the worst examples of humanity to govern us, I don't see this changing. I only have one life and I'm just not heroic enough to donate it to one of the many causes that need it. I don't break the rules that I follow and I try not to make things worse, but I would be curious to know what arm waving you've done recently to change this predicament. Did you write your congressman? Get interviewed on TV? Write a book pointing out the tragedy? What exactly have you done and has it made a difference?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I personally believe that asking the details of why a person believes something is EXACTLY the right way to have a discussion because if you just scream at the person and say you're wrong, that person will just dig in and solidify his opinion.

    Asking someone

    So they should buy the house, pay the mortgage and let you stay there for free?

    Is not an attempt at understanding why a person believes something. It's the passive aggressive equivalent to yelling at them that they're wrong.

    I am not surprised in the slightest that when pushed to actually define and defend your stance you respond with

    I'm not going to argue with you anymore

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're really not very bright...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Well I'd say you're really not very polite and that you didn't answer my question.

    Why don't you educate me since you're so smart. Are you saying the only people who should own a house are those who are going to live in it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm saying "owning" land shouldn't be a viable way to acquire profit. It's a really basic statement, and it's not a new idea either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So there should be no land ownership? The government should just build housing for people on land they own, I mean have. Like communism then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's the ideal solution, but not the only solution.

    So there should be no land ownership

    There already isn't, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.

    Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a "usefulness" score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn't have increased taxes. Empty houses aren't useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

    So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

    And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

    Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don't think that's a very productive topic...

    So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

    Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.

    And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

    That would be incentivised, yes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    That's the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren't currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    You do come off as a bit obtuse, and I think that what Gabu is trying to say is that only people should own residential property, not banks/hedge funds/corporations/etc. People should own their residence, and it shouldn't cost half their income. Renting can be beneficial, but it shouldn't cost as much as getting your own mortgage.

    A cap on how many properties each person can own would help; no one needs more than a few properties. If residences aren't treated like an investment, prices would be more reasonable, and the barrier to entry lower. Then you could actually move place-to-place every 3 years, sell, and not get robbed by realtors who don't deserve the huge commissions they get on the already over-inflated housing prices.

    Did you know that in some places, a seller's agent won't even talk to you unless you have a buyer's agent?

    Anyway, small landlords aren't really the problem. It's the big boys who own whole buildings and neighborhoods, driving up prices just because they can. Stricter regulations need to be put into place to make those firms go back to gambling over their shitty stocks and not the roofs over our heads.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •