- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
capitalism competely collapses without the housing market being one of the many debt carrots converting perceived labour into cash.
Rental income is considered income, and taxed assuming reasonable tax brackets much higher than investment income (That is to say, caiptal-gains. Interest/Dividends are also taxed at the higher income rate)
The cost of maintaining a livable home, property taxes, insurance, property depreciation, and renter interactions eat into the supposed windfall that landlords make.
I’m not saying it doesn’t suck sometimes and that certainly these formulas are out of whack in some situations, but there are no easy answers.
What do families do, that only want or need to live in a place or area for like a year or so? Buy a house, pay thousands in closing costs and inspections, lose several thousand to realtors, and then have to go through the trouble of trying to sell the place a year later?
We very much need landlords. What’s screwing everything up is corpos doing it as a business or individuals with like 20 homes instead of one or two. Renting a house is a viable need for some people and it would actually suck if it was an option that didn’t exist at all.
The only reason costs of houses are so high in the first place is because they are lucrative investment objects, along with the fact that the most important part of city (and rural) planning, building homes, is largely left to private companies. You are assuming houses would be just as inaffordable without landlords, which is a problem of the current paradigm and not the one proposed.
A couple of years ago, my boss’ father (who founded the company and still worked there on and off) and I had a chat over lunch. I’m not sure how the topic of house prices came up, but he mentioned that when he and his wife bought their house, a car cost more than a house, so you knew that someone was really well off if they had two cars in the driveway.
I think that’s the first time I’ve actually gotten my mind blown. The idea that a car could cost more than a house just didn’t compute, and it still doesn’t quite sit with me.
Of course, the general standard of houses decline the further back in time you go, but houses were a lot cheaper back in the days. Below is a figure of housing prices in Norway relative to wages at the time (mirroring the situation almost everywhere in the west):
Factoring in the increased production capabilities over the same period of time, the construction cost of houses are not that much higher. If we designed our communities better and had a better system for utilizing the increased labour power, we could have much more affordable housing and more beautiful and well functioning societies.
Do not let it sit right with you. This future was stolen from you.
Gods, and that’s Oslo too. I couldn’t imagine even renting there today.
Yeah, it is terrible :-( On average anyone who simply had grandparents living in Oslo has 1 000 000 NOK (about 100 000 USD) higher net worth than those that did not due to this increase.
A reason, sure. The only reason though? I suppose that many builders going bust in the 2008 crash, inevitably slowing down supply growth compared to population, while anything that resembles a shortage causes prices to go way up because housing is kinda needed… That’s all a coincidence?
Of course not the sole reason in a strict sense. In many places, there are also tendencies of centralization that increases the pressure of housing in cities and some cities are subjected to geography that does not allow them to expand blindly. Ultimately however, the problem is one of failed politics. With sufficient planning, we could solve all of this.
Landlords and private real estate companies, often the same entities, do propagate and amplify this problem. Removing them is a step in the right direction. Short term it would crash the housing market, which is great for anyone not speculating in housing. Long term it would allow for and necessitate publicly planned housing based on actual needs instead of profitability for people that never needed the house in the first place.
Solving it is also quite easy: Raise taxation on any homes owned by someone not inhabiting it by an additional 100 % or so for each unit. Buy back some housing to be able to provide free housing for those unable to get even a subsidized home for themselves. Then treat housing as an actual need and human right, similar to food, electricity and other infrastructure.
That would be good for almost everyone and also actually good for the economy, if you give a crap about it.
There’s no reason that local governments can’t do this job, there’s no need for middle men leaching money.
But you could replace just about any product with that statement.
Now, you’re getting it…
I don’t want this government running any new services until we remove the utterly fucked voting system.
While I’m writing a fantasy novel, let’s also get rid of all forms of gerrymandering. Including giving two senators to both California and Wyoming. You know what, no more Senate at all. The entirety of congress is proportional representation with more representatives than 1 per 600,000 citizens.
Exactly
The senate is the american version of the house of Lords and is where good legislation goes to die.
Abolishing the senate is one step in unfucking the government. And setting up direct election of the president through popular vote. Wyoming should not have the same say in who leads the country as California.
The problem is that these socalled “viable needs” are treated as and acted upon like they are elective priviledges by charging exhorbitant prices for the properties that are being made available. Blaming the market for it is just passing the buck and not owning up to your own choices in what you charge. I get that the ‘market’ has some effect on your rates but making it the main driver for your price that reflects the cost of the entire mortgage on the property is what makes you look like a parasite. If you and your tenants shared the cost of a mortgage in a more equitable fashion, i bet there would be fewer complaints.
Some of the biggest law breakers and abusive landlords are independent landlords. They’re also the ones who don’t seem to realize that being a landlord is a full time job where you are the handy man, maintenance, property manager, etc. It’s not just collecting a cheque every month, you actually have to earn it.
Not really. I don’t have to fix things on a monthly basis at my own house. When my parents rented the landlord would have to do something maybe twice a year.
But OP just said it’s not a job in the meme. Which is it?
I’m not op, and the thing is that 99% of independent landlords don’t do shit. I was a model tenant at my last place and I’m a handy man by trade so I would actually do every minor repair in my apartment, I would keep that place tip top and never bothered the landlord. He still thought I was a shit tenant and kicked me out as soon as he could because he wanted to charge more for the place.
The problem is supply and demand not landlords.
If business could knock down single family homes that were built 100 years ago when the city was 10% the size and put in modern medium or high density apartments the issue would resolve itself.
We need a land tax or the government to just outright buy huge acres of land and demolish it and build public transport.
The root cause of this issue is not landlords its land hoarders, whether it is the family who doesn’t want housing built next to them or the real estate company who wants to keep supply constrained. There are more regular people causing this issue than landlords or corporations. No one wants an actual solution to the problem people just removed.
Although landlord rules do need improving. Things like being able to rent out a mouldy house should be jail time for repeat offenders. But currently it’s nothing.
I would argue that a live-in landlord that does maintenance work or acts as a building super is in fact doing a job.
Otherwise, agreed.
Building maintenance can absolutely be a job, which is wholey separate from being a landlord.
My dad did build the house, maintence it and now he collects rent, how is that seperate from being a landlord?
So he was a builder, then he maintained the building. Both of those involve labour and doing things.
Now, if as a landlord he only collects rent and does nothing else, then that’s why it’s not a job, it’s an investment. Same as if you own shares in a company.
If he still maintains the building, then that’s still labour, but the work is the maintenance, not the landlording.
There is no landlording without maintenance, you could outsource it but it’s still a part of it. There’s also a bunch more a landlord has to do, it’s not a full time job but still. You really shouldn’t lump in the average “why build a single family home if i can build a home for two families?” Guy, with those big companies who don’t give a fuck about their tenants.
“why build a single family home if i can build a home for two families?”
Why build enough for myself and my family and be content, when I can extort another family for survival to help me cut costs and provide me a passive income for the rest of time?
Real fucking altruistic… 🙄
Proper** landlording is not passive income. It took work, time, and investment into building the structure. Then you have to maintain and repair it. The majority of landlords view it as a get rich quick situation and join the ridiculous market, but if they charge reasonable prices, the mortgage, interest, repair, and maintenance of a home does cost money. And then your own time if you do the repairs yourself or pay someone, the overhead of taxes, insurance, paperwork. Those things cost money. Some of it is paid by paying the mortgage down and creating equity, but some of it has to be built into the rent.
However, some, if not most landlords don’t look at the investment into the equity, they look at the money in their pocket after their mortgage payment, maintenance, and costs every month. They want (sometimes need) their profit now, not in 20 years when they sell it and make millions. That’s why landlording should be viewed as an investment, not a job. It as a side gig works, then in 20 years you cash out.
These giant corporations that have made a ridiculous industry of buying all the homes and property in small towns and charging exorbant prices should be hanged.
So, not defending the land lord here, but, what if his dad built and maintained the buildings for years, but now he’s like 65 and doesn’t really want/or is able to do the work himself so he pays someone else, he is now a piece of shit land lord? I mean, he probably in that scenario doesn’t have a retirement, so the return on his investment (profit after costs) is his retirement. He could sell them, and make a profit, but the next landlord would just up rents so he isn’t eating those costs.
If he jacks up rents to retire fat and happy after his maintenance costs then he’s kinda a dick but if costs stay the same it shouldn’t matter who does what work.
I guess I say all this because I am a landlord of a small complex. I bust ass and do all tge work myself keeping rent lower than anyone else I’m town. We rent to seniors that live on fixed incomes and these people have been our tenants so long they are family. They came to my wedding, they came to our baby shower. I will not price them out of a place to live. But the truth is, I am getting tired. I already work two other jobs and this place needed a lot of work when we bought it so he have remodeled most of them. But I am about done. We have had offers to buy in recent years. A few of them would have made 2 million in profit, but half our tenants would be homeless.
Some of our tenants are widowed elderly women that can’t afford or maintain a whole household on their own. They are legitimately there for the maintenance, not just the place to live.
I’m seeing a lot of these memes lately… is this a particular type of landlord or all landlords? Just want to make sure as reasonable people that we should at least do our part to logically assume that some money is required to the maintenance of upholding the structure you’re renting. I’m sure we can agree that there is labour on working on maintenance and those workers also deserve a living wage.
I am a landlord and also have a full time job. I also spend my time fixing my units.
With the maintenance cost and taxes, I’m actually losing money or breaking even depending on the year.
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own in today’s market. Being able to live near their work.
So why am I the bad guy?
With the maintenance cost and taxes, I’m actually losing money or breaking even depending on the year.
My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own in today’s market.
Literally the hottest real estate market in history, after we just came out of the lowest interest rate market in history, and my man up here still can’t even break even on a residence he is renting out to someone else out of the pure kindness of heart.
Maybe you are the rare, golden One Good Landlord, or maybe you’re just some asshole on the internet posting utter bullshit. Who can say?
But I’ve never met any landlord like you IRL. Hell, I’ve never actually met a landlord who owned the property I rented. They always went through property management companies that do all the work for the owner and just forwarded on a chunk of my rental payment at the end of every month.
You’re not a bad guy, you just fill a role that perpetuates a bad problem.
What is a better solution to the problem?
community land trusts, cooperative housing, limited equity housing coops, and municipal housing
All of that is currently available but it doesnt meet the need. As far as government supplied housing, that is a disaster at best.
You asked what other options there were, and I provided them.
We don’t need landlords, we can safely eat them and be just OK 👌
Who then is going to provide housing at a supply that is sufficient?
You’re confused: landlords don’t provide housing, contractors do.
you’re not, these people simply can’t comprehend not being handed everything on a fucking platter.
Elaborate on who you consider “these people”.
Lazy and entitled millennials, obviously. /s
that is probably the actual answer tho
You’re right except the ‘millennials’ part. Just Lazy and entitled people. Usually those left leaning that think they deserve everything without working for it.
Lazy and entitled people. Usually those left leaning that think they deserve everything without working for it.
Is your assumption that lazy and entitled people are left leaning? And\or that left leaning people don’t work therefore, they are lazy and entitled?
Either way its all assumptions and generalizations but, I’m curious what brings you back here after 4ish days.
I live a life that doesn’t involve being on the internet, checking my comments every single day. Often go days or weeks without checking. What brings you back day after day?
Regardless, you’re not seeming to argue in good faith. I’m not saying it’s all of one group or the other. In no way did I insinuate ALL lazy and entitled people are left leaning, but that it’s usually the ones that ARE left leaning that think they deserve everything without working for it. No where did I insinuate that ALL left leaning people are this way as well. You obviously don’t understand nuance, so I’ll just leave it here.
Its cool, I get this little red notification when there’s a reply or something. I do use this application daily so you got me there.
I’m glad you live a life. I wish you the best.
How has no comment in this thread yet mentioned Georgism or Land Value Tax? That is the solution to Landlordism
it’s really not tho, i’m sorry but all Georgism/ and value tax is/was a form of pre-marxist capital taxation.
or do you think that Property tax is stopping BlackRock as we speak?
Property taxes != Land value taxes
Further, it’s not a tax on capital; it’s a tax on land. It’s very explicitly designed to target land, as land has distinct economic properties that make it a prime target for taxation.
And yes, it does target speculative investments like those of Blackrock:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
A tax on land is a tax on capital. Land has been capital longer than the concept of capital has existed.
It’s not, though. The classical factors of production, whence we get the concept of “capital” as a factor of production, has land and capital as clearly separate:
Land or natural resource — naturally occurring goods like water, air, soil, minerals, flora, fauna and climate that are used in the creation of products. The payment given to a landowner is rent, loyalties, commission and goodwill.
Labor — human effort used in production which also includes technical and marketing expertise. The payment for someone else’s labor and all income received from one’s own labor is wages. Labor can also be classified as the physical and mental contribution of an employee to the production of the good(s).
Capital stock — human-made goods which are used in the production of other goods. These include machinery, tools, and buildings. They are of two types, fixed and working. Fixed are one time investments like machines, tools and working consists of liquid cash or money in hand and raw material.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production
And it’s an important distinction. The fact that land is not made and inherently finite makes it zero-sum. Meanwhile, the fact that capital such as education, tools, factories, infrastructure, etc. are man-made and not inherently finite makes them not zero-sum. This distinction has truly massive implications when it comes to economics and policymaking. It’s the whole reason LVT is so effective, so efficient, and so fair: it exploits the unique zero-sum nature of land.
It seems you’re using a more technical definition than I was. I was thinking something along the lines of definition 1a(3) in this dictionary entry. I agree there are important differences between land and other money-making assets.
Don’t many landlords… manage the home(s) they’re renting out? Like cutting the grass, doing maintenance work, investing into the property for upgrades etc… ?
I don’t see how the landlord is stealing from the renter.
Side note: I don’t support corporations buying up property and renting them out or converting them into AirBnBs.
Name one functional society that’s big enough to have property rentals but doesn’t.
Name a functional society
you can’t make me!
Housing as an investment should not exist as a concept. Housing is to provide shelter and comfort, not generate wealth.
So then should that be true about all the other necessary things? And if people are not incentivized to do things efficiently then why would the cost not increase?
Folks, there’s a difference between a slumlord and a decent landlord. I’ve owned a house for ten years now, and in addition to the mortgage and taxes and insurance I pay every month for the privelege, I’ve had to spend tens of thousands replacing the roof and doing other regular maintenance tasks. I’m actually about to dump thirty percent of the original purchase price into more deferred repairs and maintenance to get it back to a point where all the finished space is habitable again. Owning a house is expensive in ways that I did not fully understand until I bought mine, and decent property managers are taking care of all that for you, and if that’s not a job I honestly don’t know what is.
Slumlords and corporate landlords can fuck right the hell off, though.
There is no such thing as a decent landlord.
I don’t get it… if someone works and invests in a property, they pay a significant amount of money to have and maintain that property. If someone can only afford to rent for a short term period of time, what then? Is the next step that the person spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house supposed to just hand it over without selling it to a tenant? What is the alternative?
It is an investment, not a job. All investments generally exploit others (by “stealing” surplus value). Stuff like maintenance and even management of properties are jobs, but they don’t require ownership of the property (in which case, some of the value of their labor is being stolen, assuming the landlord is making a profit/building equity in excess of rent).
Alternatives could be public housing, some type of housing cooperatives where tenants build equity which can be redeemed when they move, and probably many other systems I am unaware of.
most of my investments dont require me to fix a sink. or find someone to repair a leak that sprung in my cds.
“Stuff like maintenance and even management of properties are jobs, but they don’t require ownership of the property.” You can hire a person or company to take care of everything; there’s a whole industry around it.
yea sure i suppose if we move the goal posts it does fit.
It is a job when you’ve got dozens of shitty tenants always complaining about petty little things like heat, mold, and infestations
Landphobia on my Lemmy? It’s more likely than you think.
Didn’t Qaddafi get rid of landlords?
End result was a housing shortage. Renting isn’t always a great option but it’s a better option than being homeless. Removing a less than ideal option doesn’t automatically result in a better option magically appearing out of nowhere.
You see little Lisa, in the real world making extreme economic changes can cause unintended repercussions.
Qaddafi was eventually brutally murdered for implementing policies based on lame brained slogans.
The USSR and China were much more widespread examples of eliminating landlords, both were vastly successful. They were third world countries with terrible conditions, both became global superpowers, all-the-while providing housing at a vastly more reasonable rate.
China has since regressed on this, and they’re starting to feel housing troubles as landlords destroy the housing market through scalping, but for a long period they were improving.
The best example is probably the USSR during the 70s. Still a country with vastly less wealth than America, recently developed into a global superpower, but still was providing housing to citizens at an average of 5% of their income. America has been operating very consistently in the 30-80% range for a long time.
Qaddafi was murdered because he refused to sell Hydrocarbons to west powers, especially France, if he did he would still be alive
Landlords create housing in the same way scalpers create tickets: They don’t.
The houses are built, the work is done.
Well yeah but who pays for the work that’s required to build a house ?
The people who live in it.
Not a person who owns a piece of paper that says they own it.
I have so many questions…
If you built a house, lived there for 50 years, and then wanted to live somewhere else, what happens to the house? Can you sell it to someone else?
What if you only lived there for 5 years? Or 5 days?
Or… what if I want to go on holidays for a year and then come back to the house I built? Am I allowed to rent it while I’m gone?
Great questions!
-
Yep, you can sell it* to someone else. Or it’ll just sit there and then I would advocate for some kind of common sense squatters law to take effect.
-
Short answer: See 1; long answer: you could find somewhere run by e.g. a housing co-op, or a (long-stay) hotel, or a property management company* and stay there.
-
Yes I’d be fine with that, caveats:
- You are also benefitting from someone tending to the house while you’re gone, so I’d expect the amount to be commensurate with that*.
- You’re not going on holiday to another one of many other properties you own which you also rent out when you’re not in them.
Note: All my answers involve exchanging some kind of value (indicated by *) for money, and that’s my key point. If you’re actually contributing something then I have no problem with that. But that’s not what being a landlord is. A few ways this is evident:
- We already have words for all the jobs: Architect, building super, cleaner, designer, engineer, landscaper, manager, plumber. These are useful skills, people should get paid for them, but:
- A landlord is different. They make money by rent seeking, per Wikipedia: “the act of growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth”. They don’t do anything except own a piece of paper (and the blessing of our current laws) which says they can do that.
Now, the water can get muddied when people are both landlords and do the other jobs (e.g. cleaning), but it’s pretty easy to think of other examples of this:
I also skim money out of the register, but I also get paid to work in the store. In both cases (rent seeking and skimming) I’m making money, but not actually adding any value.
Or, to my original example: Scalping tickets. I’m not putting on the show, I’m not the talent, or involved with the venue, I’m not printing or shipping the tickets. I’m not doing anything except gaming the system to make money.
Just like robbing a bank, just like ponzi schemes, and just like Sam Bankman-Fried: Gaining money, not adding value (aka creating wealth).
The only difference is we decided (as a society) some are legal, and some are illegal, and I have a good idea why (see Figure 1.).
Sorry, this is just semantics. You’re defining “landlord” to include everything that’s wrong with capitalism in your particular area, while saying some types of ownership are ok by you.
Being a landlord does not necessarily imply rent seeking.
Being a “landlord” and deriving rent is an inevitable component of life in contemporary society. Like anything, it’s problematic when excessive and greedy, but in general it’s just part of a healthy economy.
How would you defined a what a landlord does, then?
I’m happy to use a different word if that would help, but whatever you call it, there is a structure in place that allows people who own property to make money by doing nothing. Call it ‘land lording’, call it ‘passive income’.
is an inevitable component of life in contemporary society
Yes, but only if it’s:
a. Legal, and: b. Some people can accumulate enough wealth to buy up multiple properties, and: c. Some people are too poor to afford any property (or qualify for financing).
Which is the situation we’re in.
it’s problematic when excessive and greedy
Well we can agree on this. But I’d go further and say that’s always going to be the case, because:
a. Housing isn’t something you can opt out of. b. The people who own the homes have all the bargaining power. c. The more money you can accumulate through renting the more power you have.
-
