Please use gender neutral inclusive language, instead of landlord, use the gender neutral term, landleech.
I was ready to hate on this post… but you right.
Landlord said to me “property tax has gone up. This is my only form of income. Will need to increase rent”
Told him “yeah, everything has gone up and my paycheck is still the same”.
Like, these types of relationships are so parasitic. This is the “nice” mom and pop style landlord too that every liberal seems to want to give a pass too.
Sure, are they less bad than the big corporate faceless landlords? Yes. But the entire relationship is the problem.
They get to justify forcing me out of my home because the value of the house that they own WENT UP.
That’s why their property tax is more. They literally own something that is more valuable and making it further impossible for me to ever buy a place of my own.
If they offered to let you buy it for the fair market value of the home, would you? That’s the only viable way for them to extract that house value without evicting you. A fair answer could be absolutely, and perhaps that should be something renters are given some rights to do, but just pointing out that a tax assessment doesn’t mean they have usable money unless they can do something to cash in.
I literally asked. He said he’s not selling.
That is unfortunate.
Old guy or younger guy? If this is their retirement income, they would probably be better off selling it and putting the proceeds into a nice account.
Of course those accounts also profit off of the inconvenience of others, but with social security all messed up, some form of screwing with the active working generation is needed to model retirement of the older generation, and a financial account is less egregious than sitting on potentially available housing stock.
I think I can answer most of your questions by saying he comes over to discuss the lease in a Mercedes Maybach. An SUV that starts at $178,000.
I don’t think age or other things really matter at that point.
He owns multiple properties and houses.
But, still, my entire point is that this relationship in itself is what needs to die. It’s not this individual dudes fault. It’s a system that allows people like this to exist that produce nothing.
deleted by creator
And then they raise rent. For what? They haven’t upgraded anything. They haven’t added any of that value to the property. Every year the house gets older. Cars lose value every year even if you maintain it perfectly.
And then they try to fuck you over when you leave the place by pinning all the costs of normal dilapidation on you. Fortunately where I live the law forbids it but it doesn’t stop them from trying every time.
Good tenants make the neighborhood more desirable. So the rent being raised is a way to punish good Tennant, and steal their hard earn benefit from their existential labour.
We don’t have an instance stance on landlord apologia, but maybe we should make one, based on the number of people from other instances defending these mooching rent-seeking parasites.
i hope you do; seeing it is a depressing reminder of how much americans think that exploitation like this is okay and even more depressing to see people exploited like this want to perpetuate it.
/me sorts by controversial
Rent is due in 5 days.
You can tell it’s hard earned from all the neglect
Once again, may I introduce you to GEORGISM.
Please, I know lemmy is a bit left leaning, and georgism are mostly libertarians/liberal, but the ideology is so centrist and common sense I’m sure even far left communist advocates can get behind it.
Leftists are aware of Goergism. They don’t generally take it seriously because it’s just ‘one weird trick’ reformism that’s trying to save capitalism from itself. It doesn’t change what capitalism is or the historical process it drives, it’ll get clawed back immediately just like every other social democratic reform, and it would cause a full on capital revolt if you somehow magic lamp’ed it into practice such that you might as well just do the real revolution and actually overthrow capitalism for the same amount of effort.
but the ideology is so centrist and common sense
I really just commented as an excuse to lol at this line.
The reason Georgism fell out of favor on the left is because Marxism already develops beyond where Georgism falls flat. It’s certainly broadly appealing, in that liberals can get behind it rather quickly, but it falls short of Marxist economics in completeness, to the point that it doesn’t really bother resolving the fundamental problems with capitalist exploitation, centralization, crisis, or production and overproduction, it just focuses on rent.
It’s also very difficult to get through, it’s a reformist approach that depends on asking those that have full control of the economy to make it less exploitative. That doesn’t happen without revolution, at which point you can go far beyond and address core, systemic issues.
Georgism is great but we also have problem with corporations so georgism isn’t enough. We need socialism or at least distributism
Can you give a TLDR for this if possible
Georgism is an ideology broadly based on taxing the full value of land, in order to prevent rentseeking.
So rather than taxing people for the property they built/bought, you tax the land which no one made.
The value of the land is based on the progress society made in that area, so when you tax the full unimproved value of the land, you prevent landlords from essentially leeching on the results of society progress that they did not directly contirubute to.
You can still buy land, but when you do you must pay full rent to the government, so technically, if the government did own all the land and lease it out for rent, it would be goergist in practice(but not in spirit, since goergism wants to protect property rights)
When I married my wife and she moved in we tried renting out her house with a property management company. She got one tenant and had that tenant for over 2 years with no complaints and we never raised the rent, just enough to cover taxes going up too.
But when we wanted to move to a larger house we gave her an 8 month notice we couldn’t renew since the market is so bad and we needed to sell. And my wife wasn’t profiting at all, she was still in the red from the repairs and setting up the house to rent out. We offered her like $10k off the price.
Anyway long story short, the tenant gave us hell for those 8 months, and when she moved out we found she never complained about anything because she ignored all the problems which made things worse and the house needed thousands of more dollars to prepare and sell.
She’ll never try being a landlord again, she hated it and the tenant shit talked her “landlord” on Facebook all the time like she was some evil monster.
I don’t know how anyone else does the landlord thing, this must be all the ones run by evil corporations.
This was a house my wife bought for like $150-180k originally.
Standard rent is at least 1-1.5% of current not original value per month and taxes are about that per year.
you probably bought for 150 you earned 100,000 when it ballooned up to 250k rented it for at least 2500 a month x24 months or 60,000 paid 6000 each to taxes and management pocketed another 48,000
When you sold realizing that cool 100k you naturally had to do all the repairs and upkeep you had been putting off so you ended up coming out of pocket for “thousands”
In the end you netted 140k for doing 10 hours work once whereas the median worker earns 200-250
You probably charged here so much to ensure you made the “market rate” eg people like you that she had no funds saved to actually move and you probably nickel and dimed her deposit away for stuff that was actually on you.
Where am I wrong?
Wow lots of assumptions here. My wife only rented it out enough to cover her expenses (mortgage, insurance, property management, etc). She only netted $100 a month as “profit” but that doesn’t include taxes at the end of the year, and she was paying towards $6000 she owed to house repairs. It doesn’t include repairs needed from normal wear and tear and tenant damage.
A lot of your assumptions are based on profit towards selling the house, which in this situation means its not sustainable on its own without you covering everything out of pocket.
The real kicker here is that her tenant made more money than my wife. The tenant was making at least $10,000/month per bank statements.
Your other comments are false also. State laws here are very clear on what can be charged as a deposit.
None of that was my point though, and I realize sharing that here on a meme was dumb on my part. I’m not looking for sympathy, I was just feeling a rare moment of sharing an experience often overlooked: two hard working people who independently buy a starter home, meet later, and one moves in with the other and tries to rent out their house. Landlords aren’t always evil but your reply demonstrated all the immediate assumptions and biases. After all, why should anyone be allowed to own more than one home, right? Especially if they try to rent it out? I guess Air BNB is better.
A lot of us lived in rentals and heard talk about the dream of rental supplemental income, but it’s not all it’s cracked up to be and not really feasible without an insane rate or having enough cash to not pay a mortgage. It’s probably why more companies are trying to buy up houses.
If your wife was only clearing 100 per month in profit from a rental house you all must be just amazingly bad at whatever you were doing and should have sold the house as soon as you weren’t living in it. Rent has skyrocketed and home value continually risen quickly for the last 40 years. I’m not even sure how this is possible.
Tough shit. Must be so inconvenient for you to not keep up on repairs to your own building. That’s on you.
No sympathy lmao, you dont get to cry
No sympathy for landlords.
Mod removed my post without reason. Maybe cussing offended them.
The market seems to self select for bad landlords. All the well intentioned ones I know got burned and stopped renting.
Removed by mod
I have managed a building with 8 units before. Never again.
I once had a lady’s ceiling collapse. I then come to learn she’s been putting a bucket out to catch water for months, never told anyone about it. What should have been a quick 15 minute fix ended up being a total nightmare.
Had one dude who was a heroin addict. Kept flushing needles. The plumbing had to be taken apart multiple times to get his needles out.
Had a lady who kept adopting cats, wouldn’t get them fixed. She would then let them out into the hall to spray the walls with what was basically straight ammonia, except grosser.
I could go on all day, trash fires, fucking litter, a phycological inability to break down cardboard. I think my blood pressure just spiked writing this.
You couldn’t pay me to be a landlord. People are awful.
Bullshit you just didn’t do any maintenance
Owning 1 extra property and renting: Okay
Owning apartment complex and renting: Okay
Owing millions of single family homes and duplexes and rent hiking/price hiking the entire market: not okay
Owning 1 slave: Okay
Owning a dozen slaves: Okay
Owning hundreds of slaves: not okay.
/s obviously
/uj
Of course slavery and landlordism aren’t identical in every respect, but they both are based on a parasite class doing no work, and extracting labor value from people who do. Large-scale vs small-scale doesn’t make landlording any more ethical.
Removed by mod
Landlord = banned.
So you’re visa/MC now?
Don’t like it? BANNED!
What did he say? Not a landlord myself, but I’m always curious to hear both sides. I think there can be good landlords, had one myself… Didn’t raise rent on us, took care of the place when things went wrong, even offered to sell the place to us but we weren’t ready financially at the time…
Some people choose to rent instead of buying for the sake of not having to keep up with house maintenance, and in that case, the landlord I speak of, I’d argue was a good landlord. Win win for both parties. Not common, I know, but speaking in absolutes is rarely productive.
The landlord was still exploiting you and taking a ton of the wages you keep, which are already being stolen from through capitalist exploitation. If you prefer renting, then it would be a much better system to have publicly owned housing that isn’t run to make a profit, or even with the expectation that cheap or free housing is a social cost.
The reality is we live in a capitalist society whether we like it or not (at least in the US - emigrating isn’t easy). Free housing would be the local shelter for the homeless… It’s there, but it’s a bare minimum most of us don’t want.
Your idealized expectation sounds nice, but a lot of houses and their lots wouldn’t look like what they do outside of a capitalist society… I wouldn’t have two spare bedrooms in my home for an office and guest room when I want to have family visit. I wouldn’t have a backyard for my dog to run around in… It’d be more like what you see in North Korea. No excess to spare (to some degree is a good thing, but I also believe one should be able to earn themselves nicer things should they decide to take on the extra work to do so).
Rather than have some assigned lesser unit to live in that’s paid for with my taxes, probably sharing walls with my neighbors, I think I’d rather put in the decade of renting I did while saving for the house I get to live in now.
Again, I’m not saying we have a perfect system, or even a great one… It’s fucked up in many ways, you’d have to have your head pretty far up your own ass to miss the amount of corruption that capitalism invites into our society (mostly stemming from money in politics), but there are also some good parts to it.
Maybe I’m the outlier here with this take?
You’re confused on 2 primary accounts:
-
That I am saying we can accomplish better, more equitable housing within capitalism. I’m a communist, I want socialism, and that’s the first step towards communism. I am not pointing out exploitation and a solution to it as some actionable goal within capitalism, but to point to the fact that a better world is possible, and we get there through revolution.
-
There has never been a society where people could not work to get better housing. Not in the USSR, with the famous soviet housing, not anywhere. Public housing does not mean all housing is the same, just that fewer people go without. Further, your wages are being taken from you, in socialism that isn’t a problem, so you won’t have to put in a decade of renting to get something nicer.
Guess it’s more a matter of ignorance on my part (also seems I’m out of my element here), I don’t know much about how current communist societies are living - do you have examples of what you’re talking about? You’ve piqued my interest, I’d like to see an example of housing in one of these situations and how they vary, what kind of amenities people are living with there, what it takes to achieve something similar to what I have here (3 bed 1ba SFH on a 5th acre)? Etc…
Different socialist systems have had different levels of development, policies, and social wealth, so there’s no one comparison to a presumably western country. For starters, western countries have inflated social wealthy due to imperialism, which is not a benefit for socialist countries. Countries like the USSR had different systems from modern Cuba, the PRC, etc, but all have different houses, and different wages depending on jobs worked.
I don’t have anything in-depth on hand, but surely you can see that eliminating usury from housing makes housing more affordable without needing to compromise on quality.
-
Do they not have dogs in north Korea?
Hell yeah
This is such a shit show of a post.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Landlord = banned. Your kids will get back at you some day, no doubt about that.
Would like to see where being a landlord is listed as against the rules. And the kids are happy to split the cheap mortgage to live in their childhood home. Way cheaper than apartment rent.
The ban was uncalled for. The post violated no rules other than upsetting you that I collect rent.
I know this will be downvoted to hell, but this whole let’s rally against landlords is kind of stupid in my opinion.
You can say the exact same thing about a bank that gives you a lone, they do zero work and get money.
Or a company that leases or rents out cars.
For a landlord you can make the argument that a home is a primary life necessity. But when you borrow money from a bank it’s pretty much the same thing.
Some people don’t want to stay in a place too long and like the option to rent. Also it’s not like a landlord hard zero risks, you can get tenants that are horrible and trash a place.
Just to be clear I’m not a landlord myself, but also not someone that just hates them because it’s a thing now.
I think we should make the same argument against banks, leasing, and other highly financialized capital.
Maybe but there is a market for it. To me it’s crazy people (students) in the Netherlands pay 15 euros a month for a bicycle, while you can find a working second hand one for about 100 euros.
Same goes for cars, I always save and buy second hand, I would never even consider borrowing for a car. Rather have an older model than debt.
But some people are different and don’t mind to pay extra for less hassle, like the bicycle thing. They replace it when you get a flat tire for example.
For some people that’s also what they like about renting a house, roof has a leak? Landlord has to fix it.
The utility of being able to borrow a use-value rather than needing to own it is a real thing, the form under capitalism is the problem, and is where exploitation and usury comes in. Better to have public transit, bikes included, at non-profit rates or even subsized to be free at point of service.
As a fellow Dutch, you’re overpaying your secondhand bikes ;)
I mean you can always find cheaper, but 100 euros on markplaats will definitely get you a decent bike. I tried to sell my old one (we where moving and I didn’t want to take it with me). It still worked even the brakes and gears, although it was a bit rusty, anyway even for 15 euros almost no one showed up. Maybe it was too cheap.
I would go for the cheaper one and just bring it to the Ns bike repair for a checkup and let a specialist make it very good again. But a 100 bike on marktplaats will indeed net you a very decent and potentially even great bike
Also it’s not like a landlord hard zero risks
Then they should sell instead of renting.
In the Netherlands the laws got a lot stricter in the last few years (because we have a housing crisis) a side effect is that some landlords sold rental houses. The price too buy a house did not go down at all. But for anyone that wanted to rent a house it got much and much worse. There where people outbiding other people on rent. It got ridiculous.
like the option
Nobody likes renting. Nobody likes moving. If there wasn’t the premium cost from renting, there would be less pressure on these people to change their life arrangements.
When I was in college, renting made sense. I wasn’t going to be there but like two years. I wouldn’t have hardly accumulated any equity and had the pain of trying to sell at the end.
I’ve known people with like two year work assignments where renting made sense.
I cannot fathom it, but I have a coworker who swears by renting even though he hasn’t moved in years and has no intention to move ever. I think the ‘mantaining your own house is scary’ articles hit him hard and he’s now convinced that owning a household means you are somehow constantly having to fix things yourself for lots of money. So he may have been bamboozled, but certainly limited term living makes sense.
That’s not really true, one of my friends rented an apartment for about 2 years specifically because he didn’t knew if he wanted to live abroad or in a different city. Same goes for my sister she really didn’t want any long term commitments to have the freedom to go anywhere. She didn’t even wanted a 1 year phone contract.
Lots of young people rent because it gives them more freedom and less burden when they want to move.
Also about the premium cost, it really depends on the laws, like in the Netherlands after you have rented a house for over 1 year, the landlord can only raise the rent a certain percentage. Some people have been renting the same apartment for 30+ years and pay a ridiculous low rent.
Brother, what Lemmy instance do you think this community is on? You aren’t going to get a good discussion with this topic here.
