You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-1 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’d say there’s a difference between renting out a portion of a house the landlord also lives in and purchasing whole other homes and renting them out.

Besides, no matter how nice the multi-home-owning landlord is, the reality is they don’t purchase homes and rent them out without making a profit on all expected costs, maintenance included. The better deal for the renter renting a whole home would be to own the home and maintain it, because then they’re saving the profit the landlord charges.

A nice polite leech is still a leech.

Sure, everything you purchase in a capitalistic society has profit added to it, but normally there’s also added value. You pay more in the brick and mortar store vs buying online because the added value is getting the item immediately. You pay more for the car part at the mechanics shop vs doing it yourself because having a professional install it adds value.

What value does Jim-bob owning 5 homes and renting them out to make a living add to the tenants?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You make that sound like anyone who’s able to rent a place is able to buy a place, but at least in the US, that’s not alwaxs the case. Sure the mortgage might be cheaper than rent in most cases, but being able to save up enough for that down payment takes a lot. I didn’t have the luxury of living with my parents after high school to save up enough for a down payment on a house, so I’ve had to rent places since then.

Sure maybe all housing should be free, there’s certainly enough homes in the US for that to be possible, but the rest of capitalist society makes that impossible, but that’s not the fault of every landlord ever. Some, sure, but not all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You make that sound like anyone who’s able to rent a place is able to buy a place

Call me old fashioned, but if you’re able to pay for the full cost of the mortgage and maintenance of the property, plus your ‘share’ of the living expenses of your landlord then yeah, I think you’re able to afford the property without the landlord.

All your landlord adds is making the property more expensive so you can support their lifestyle.

Sure maybe all housing should be free

Damn, that’s a hell of a jump to make from my argument. Where did I say that housing should be free?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What value does Jim-bob owning 5 homes and renting them out to make a living add to the tenants?

  • The tenants are able to live in a house that they can’t afford to buy because they don’t have credit and credentials that satisfy the bank.
  • The tenants are able to move out with a couple months notice if they get a job elsewhere. They don’t have to worry about selling the house or finding a way to pay double mortgages when they move elsewhere… Or, worse, taint their souls by renting out their extra house while waiting for the housing market to improve.
  • The tenants money is not tied up in a property, they are able to invest it in the stock market which has a higher rate of return than home ownership (which only keeps pace with inflation on average, per Case Schiller).
  • The tenants don’t have to worry about having money or credit reserved to cover unexpected costs, like the new water heater breaking a year after it was installed.
  • The tenants don’t get constant calls from scammers claiming they want to py your property for CASH TODAY.

Just a few thoughts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The tenants are able to live in a house that they can’t afford to buy because they don’t have credit and credentials that satisfy the bank.

So they should pay the same expenses, PLUS extra to support the landlord who could meet the bank’s criteria for a loan?

The tenants are able to move out with a couple months notice if they get a job elsewhere. They don’t have to worry about selling the house or finding a way to pay double mortgages when they move elsewhere…

They also don’t have to worry about cashing in on the appreciated value of the house since they moved in…

The tenants money is not tied up in a property, they are able to invest it in the stock market which has a higher rate of return than home ownership (which only keeps pace with inflation on average, per Case Schiller).

Funny joke. My parents bought a house for $90,000 in 1993 that is worth ~$400,000+ today. What percentage of investments could offer such a yield in the same time-frame?

The tenants don’t get constant calls from scammers claiming they want to pay your property for CASH TODAY.

I still get those same scam calls despite not being a homeowner.

Got anything else?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

What value does Jim-bob owning 5 homes and renting them out to make a living add to the tenants?

A place to live without having to handle maintenance/upkeep themselves, to be approved for a mortgage, save up for a downpayment, or to have to sell (and navigate all the mess of that process) when they need to move.

Admittedly, some of the above rely on you having a landlord that isn’t shit.

I know a few people who could afford to buy a rather nice home, who instead seek out short term lease rentals to live in, so they can travel more and not need to be tied down to a specific place.

Edit: Also, the maintenance costs passed to the renter are dispersed across time as well, so they aren’t having to foot the full cost of say, a new fridge suddenly. In multi-tenant situations, the costs are dispersed across all tenants, so a person needing a laundry machine replaced is somewhat subsidized by everyone else paying in who doesn’t, kind of like insurance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

A place to live without having to handle maintenance/upkeep themselves, to be approved for a mortgage, save up for a downpayment, or to have to sell (and navigate all the mess of that process) when they need to move.

And you end up paying for all of those anyway, plus extra. Minus the equity increase as the house appreciates in value over time. The only party it makes long term financial sense for is the Landlord.

the maintenance costs passed to the renter are dispersed across time as well, so they aren’t having to foot the full cost of say, a new fridge suddenly.

But the landlord charges enough above the mortgage payments to cover that cost, on top of the extra added for profit. The renter could save that extra money, cover the sudden cost of a fridge or washing machine, and have money left over vs renting.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.5K

    Posts

  • 46K

    Comments