"All I want to do is exploit struggling people for far more than my property is worth. Is that so wrong?!"
Even more ironic is that the "professional" landlords/property holding companies hire property managers who do literally all the work, including both the upkeep for the house and interaction with the tenants. Like, what exactly do you contribute at that point? What would change practically if I hired the property manager directly with the money I would be paying you? Especially when the most common pro-landlord argument (used by landlords themselves) is that they fix things around the house and maintain it.
"You expect me to unclog a toilet?!"
Yes. That's exactly what I expect a landlord to do. And if you don't live in the same city as your rental property, maybe that shouldn't be allowed.
I am against landlords like everyone else, but I draw the line at unclogging the toilet. It isn't worth the effort to report that and I don't need people unnecessarily seeing my shit in the literal sense. Provided that it is a standard clog and not something wrong with the toilet.
I'm not talking standard clog. I don't mind using a plunger. But sometimes you need more than that and they should either do it or spend their own money on a plumber ASAP.
Ah, I see. The Super Poo, the Toilet Destroyer, HAZMAT. Things that only a professional can do. Sometimes the rabbit doesn't come out of the hat and you need an extra hand.
I had a landlord who wrote into the original version of the lease that I (as the tenant) would be responsible for any needed repairs to the sewer system. This was a much more extreme version of being unwilling to unclog a toilet lol. I said fuck that noise and he took the clause out. He turned out to be a good landlord and he didn't raise my rent once in seven years, but his tendency to just try and get away with whatever he could in the lease had me a bit worried at the start.
For individuals who own like a single rental property as an investment property, you could blame the banks. Maybe the tenants don’t have the 20% the bank would require for a mortgage. But they can afford the monthly rent for the larger house rather than a smaller apartment. Also the landlord takes on the risk here. (Market value, no Rent payment, property damage, maintenance…)
They take on the risk? That's hysterical. Landlords don't risk market value. They buy up all the houses when they're cheap, make their money back and then some by renting the property, then make even more money when the housing market goes up and they kick the tenant out to sell the property. They don't risk property damage, that's the entire point of a security deposit. They don't "risk" maintenance, that's called doing their job.
Ok kid. I think you missed the first sentence in my comment.
I don't understand why a 20% deposit is necessary. If you can make repayments as you can make rent, let them own the house already
In Australia its way more common for landlords to use propert management companies.
They charge about 5%, the tenant rings them and says "The hot water is out" they ring me and say "You need to authorise us to send a plumber" I say "Ok" they ring one of their go-to plumbers who attends super fast because they dont want to lose the repeat business of a property manager who has 100 properties to look after and they fix it at a fair rate because if they dont the property manager will find a new plumber.
When I was renting out my first house (had to move for work for a few years) I couldnt get an electrician for my own house as fast and as cheap as my property manager could get one for my tenants.
You guys are joking and everything, but that's what they actually think
I bet. Mine inherited 17 houses and never works. He also talks to all his customers like he is doing us a favor.
I know a guy at college who basically uses this as a pick-up line to get girls. He said if you're with him you're basically set because he'll inherit a lot of house from his landlord parents so you won't need to work anymore.
Here is hoping he attracts someone that would work on.
I never understood why people do that. Who wants to be together with a gold digger?
Probably people who can only "attract" that way.
Women like money this is nothing new.
They might not even be a gold digger but with money comes opportunities.
The joke falls kinda flat for me because I hear this too much already, but not as a joke...
I rent out homes and I dont get any of these because I only rent out to hispanic working families. Fight me
Only some, usually the very right leaning ones or the very left leaning ones. Normal people behave normally.
I can assure you the very left leaning ones don't. If they did, they wouldn't be left leaning.
Im a left leaning landlord and im not like that at all.
Im fixing everything thats needed and improving stuff from time to time but basically staying out of their lives.
Good guy landlord.
I wasn't saying psycho left is common or that you're like that, just that they exist. It's harder to spot them because there seems to be so very many psycho right nuts lately.
"Left leaning landlord" is an oxymoron ;p
Or at least if someone actually held to their principles, they would not remain both for very long ^.^
(The concept of a separate ownership class, which is the defining feature of landlordism, is in direct contradiction with leftism, which at the furthest end pushes for the destruction of these sorts of hierarchical class systems, or at the very least attempts to abolish the gatekeeping and hoarding of base necessities like shelter)
Historically people with the title "lord" have had it so hard.
The Gaylords would like a word
"Fix my AC!"
Particularly ironic that this is being framed as "unreasonable" because landlords themselves directly argue that their upkeep of the house justifies the significant upcharge they take from tenants. Like, even if we argued that landlord as a career is 100% acceptable and valid, that would literally be your job, would be like a professional chef complaining about people saying "make me food!"
Had a cook who literally complained about receiving too many different kinds of orders and the customers were not even in a hurry
As a professional cook it be like that sometimes 😅
I'm sure that is a legit issue and the menu should be planned to reduce that load. In this case the guy was more suited to repetitive jobs in larger scale kitchens which mine isn't.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term 'rent-seeking' which is a different concept entitely
I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.
I'd strongly recommend you consider reading the entire thing, because that is not his take at all.
Consider at his time, "landlord" literally meant a lord who owned land, and much of the rent he discussed (often negatively) is shit like, charging people to harvest kelp near your house.
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right.
Probably because he's not actually presenting an argument, and is instead expecting people to read a 57 310 word essay. Oh, and if you read all of that and still disagree? "You must have misunderstood, read it again."
Fair. I was thinking today he seemed more to be referring to crops
Fun fact: all unions are inherently rent-seeking.
I say this as a supporter of unions - true is true. Rent seeking is inherently bad but the sum of the union equation is that they do more good than bad.
The police union, of course, is also uniquely bad in other ways.
I feel so bad for mine I’ve raised the amount I tip them every month from ~12% to 20%. You should, too - they struggle so hard.
(Lol)
Because I love my landlord so much I only communicate with him through my lawyer to make extra sure every letter is worded really nicely and politely, much more polite than anything I would every write him. Also got him two very nicely worded court orders by know he would've missed out on if it wasn't for me.
You should tip at least 200%. Less is just selfish.
My old landlord refused to fix our water heater, the leaking roof causing mould and water damage, the outlets that were falling off, the broken light switches that didn't work, the ceiling light that was flickering and and literally hanging by the wires. All for $2000/month + utilities. Then he kicked us out because he wanted to sell the place, but now he can't sell it because no bank will touch it with the amount of water damage it has lmao.
Oh ya, can't forget the 5 times he's banged on our door threatening us with his lawyer because he stole $100 from us, we asked for it back, but he refused to answer our calls, so we had to wait 12 fucking months before our lease was up and we started paying month to month for us to subtract the $100 he owed us for 12 months from the payment.
You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door!
You're trash, Brock
Even if you try being a good landlord, dealing with some tenants can really darken your soul...
Your know, I guess experiences vary widely, but the landlords I know don't fit all the hate. For instance, one of my employees decided to rent her house instead of selling it when her family needed a bigger one. They've been renting to the same family for a decade or more without ever raising the rent. The family could not afford to buy any house, let alone the one they're in, so renting allows them to live in a kind of place they couldn't afford otherwise. My employee has let them skip rent a few times when times were hard.
I know a few similar stories. Maybe it's different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever, but I just don't see being a landlord as inherently bad. Like anything else, you can do it ethically or unethically.
Sounds like a problem with the price of housing, which is a not entirely unrelated issue.
Yeah, for sure - I live in southern California, which has about as high a cost of real estate as you're going to find, but that isn't caused by landlords. I mean, if you bought a new car and were selling your old one, you'd probably sell it for whatever the market would pay, right? Maybe if you're really well off you'd just give it to someone, but most of us are going to sell for the going rate. It's the same with houses. If I can easily get $500k for my house, I'm not going to list it for $400k just to be nice - I could use the money.
Do people feel like it's inherently more laudable to sell their house than to rent it? It seems like, as long as they're not gouging, they're doing more of a service by renting to people who can't afford to buy, and also covering all the costs of repairs and risk of damage that renters don't have to worry about.
I just don't get the hate broadly, though the management company who ran my daughter's apartment complex were assholes.
I work in a real estate adjacent field, part of the housing issue IS very much because of big companies and people just buying up all the houses to rent them for passive income.
I don't care if people have 2 or 3 houses but when they own 8 or 9 or hundreds then yea we have an issue.
Yeah, I agree a hundred percent. In every business, it's possible to be predatory. Big companies are doing some really shitty things, and we should try to figure out how to stop that.
But some people are saying that being a landlord is inherently unethical - the moment someone rents a property, they're a vile leach. I just think that's wrong.
My last land lord raised rent by 2.5x after the first year. When we moved out he kept the full security deposit because "the inside of the oven was dirty"
Your mileage may vary
4 beautiful words that worked wonders with my shitty landlord who tried to keep my deposit "normal wear and tear".
As soon as I stated that, the lady changed her tune completely.
Your landlord is allowed to raise it by that much? I'm Dutch and we have limits on how much rent can increase, which was a maximum of 4.1% in 2023.
Maybe it's different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever
Yes. My landlord is literally a corporation.
Doesn't matter either way. My landlord is an asshole who never fixes anything he says he will (even things he's legally supposed to.) Can't use the law against him because he's allowed to raise the rent any time he wants with a few simple changes to our lease.
I've never had a good landlord. Most of them are greedy trash.
I'm a land lord, did exactly what people say we all did. 15 years ago I bought two 200k homes for 30k each (30k was the down payment) the houses are worth over 600k each now.. they are an income plan for my kids so they don't have to necessarily worry about taking a better paying job instead of something they want to do. Probably a little naive now. But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit just so the government won't come after me due running a loss on my taxes. I have raised rent only enough to do that. I pay for a property management firm to take care of the properties so that the tenants have 24 hour response to issues. I've had the same tenants for 12 years in both properties. Every 4 years or so I have one of the rooms that the tenants want renovated. It's a right off so doesn't costa fortune ava the house gets slowly updated. Not every landlord is an asshole. Some of us play the long game without screwing people. But I realize that I am part of the problem. I am part of the reason for less supply in the market. But selling my properties will make my children's lives less secure and I'm not willing to do that. So i do partially deserve some of the blame.
Edited to add down payment info.
I don't see you having any blame. Supply and demand for housing includes everything, including rentals. You would be part of the problem if you bought those places and left them empty as vacation spots or something. You didn't, you're supplying them to people who I'm guessing wouldn't be able to buy them themselves. You're not driving up the cost of housing. I'd argue that, since you're charging less than you could, you're actually lowering it.
He literally is driving up the cost of housing. Rental markets are quite seperate to the actual housing market and people who own 3 houses, drive up the cost of buying a house. There is a good chance they can't afford to rent, yes, but only because of people like him buying housing they dint need to make a profit, they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.
they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.
Have you purchased a house? Because this part is simply not true. You have to have a percentage of the cost up front. The more you have, the smaller the payments. Lots of folks who are renting out places put a lot down so the mortgage payments (and what they charge for rent) are much smaller than a first-time buyer can afford. Then you have the cost of property tax, maintenance, and repairs that the renter isn't liable for.
This is very much the problem with the Canadian real estate bubble. People are paying rental prices now that absolutely could have paid for a house 5 years ago. But now they are paying a dangerously high portion of their income. The problem is that their rental prices that they pay now wouldn't make the payments on the house today.
Not for myself, but yes, I have. And that's kind of my point. You have these arbitrary barriers to entry on home ownership that are designed to keep poor people out, since the can't afford these costs upfront, and can't save for them because they are either paying their landlords mortgage instead, or are paying money directly to the bank/asset manager/ whoever owns their rental. So it's in the banks best interest to not give them a mortgage.
And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn't landlords wouldn't be making money, so would raise rent
I think "designed to keep poor people out" is way off. People selling a product want nothing more than for other people to buy their product. The sellers of the house aren't the ones setting the mortgage details - they have nothing to do with it, they just want to sell the house.
But few people can afford to buy a house outright, so they have to borrow money. The bigger the percentage of the purchase price you have to borrow, the more the payments are going to be. That's not to punish poor people, it's because they're putting up their money so you can buy something, in return for them making a profit on their money.
And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn’t landlords wouldn’t be making money, so would raise rent
You're still not getting it. Let's say I want to live in a house that costs $600k, but I don't have it. If I were to find a lender who would finance the whole thing (doubtful), the mortgage payments would probably be around $3k a month, and I can't afford that either. But let's say you have $300k to put down, so only have to finance another $300k, and your payments are more like $1500 a month, which I can afford. I pay you the amount that covers your mortgage, you end up paying property tax and other costs, but my rent is going into your property. If I live there for three years, you've gotten $54k in equity, even if the house's value itself didn't go up any, for just the cost of taxes and maintenance. Meanwhile, I got to live in a house that I flat out couldn't afford.
I was not blaming the people selling the house, I was blaming the banks for putting an arbitrary down payment on getting a mortgage to keep poor people out of home ownership, which benefits the banks as they are all heavily involved in property investment so benefit from more people renting either by directly being the landlords or simply from the increased housing demand from landlords wanting to buy as many properties as possible, thus driving up housing prices, which drives up mortgages and makes them more money.
Like you say, the banks male their money from interest on the loan, so the 20k down-payment they require is an arbitrary barrier to entry.
No, I get it, you're just making up a scenario that doesn't really happen. Like sure a landlord could in theory pay half the price of a house just to reduce mortgage costs so they can rent it out at half the market rate AND pay property tax and maintenance out of pocket, out of thr kindness of their golden hearts. They could also just buy the house outright and let you live in it for free and just make their profit off of the increase in house value. But obviously they won't. The landlord is going to charge you market rate for that 600k house which will almost certainly be more than 3k, because why wouldnt they? And even if they did, are the going to rent directly to you? Or are they going to advertise it and get a slew of offers of people wanting to live in a house for half price and so someone a little bit richer than you will offer them, say 1,750 for the house, because of supply and demand. And the vast majority of people aren't trying to live in houses they can't afford, they are just trying to live.
And even then, it's still not ethical, you're still exploring people for profit for their basic needs without adding any value to the system.
How the heck did you find not one but two 200k houses for 30k? Or are you saying you bought them for 30k and now they're worth 200k? Either way holy balls I wish I could do either of those lol
I assumed they meant they were just worth $30k when they bought them. That is a pipe dream that probably won’t happen again in any of our lifetimes.
Sorry, I didn't explain that well. The down payment was 30k each. But basically that's all I've had to spend on the houses.
The house pays for itself, that's the beauty of having to rent out houses. ROI might vary, but long term, you are secured as long as the property is properly maintained and is attractive to renters.
Edit : reading a lot of comments on this thread, it's obvious that majority have no idea how house and lot transactions go, and how little real life experience they have on it. They are just hopping on the bandwagon on landlord hate.
"Anybody that disagrees with my unethical actions simply lacks life experience" - some landlord apologist chud.
This shows one of the most common things landlords tell themselves to justify it.
But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit
You tell yourself this, to make you feel better, but you don't acknowledge that almost all the money your tenants pay you is profit, since they are paying for the mortgage. Even if you rented at 0 immediate profit, for the entire time until you paid off the houses, you would have actually made 1.2million in profit, since you now own 2 houses at 600k each.
And those families, instead of paying a mortgage and ending with hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, that they could refinance, or use to buy a better house or leave as inheritance for their kids, now have nothing, as all that money has gone to you.
There is no such thing as an ethical landlord. Even the """good""" ones are still exploring people's basic need for shelter to make them rich.
If you really wanted to be a "good" landlord offer those families the chance to buy the house with the 15 years of down payments they already made to you to start it off. But as you said they're an "income plan" for your kids I don't think you would do that.
I mean, I get what you're saying. And perhaps if my financial situation was better I could consider the option to offer the houses to the tenants. But as you suspect I will not trade my children's financial security just to be charitable. The rent I charge is 30%-40% below market value. I suspect if you were in my position you wouldn't be so inclined to give away your wealth either.
I was in your position, when my grandparents died I inherited a house, that people encouraged me to rent out. Instead I sold it and invested the money (specifically into a green energy fund.) As that way I still have my financial security, without being a landlord.
This is the whole "not all cops are bad a guy I know is a cop and he's nice" argument just for landlords.
Or you could phrase it about slave owners "my freind owns slaves, but he just owns the one and he treats them really well!"
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe """ethical""" the landlord is.
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe “”“ethical”“” the landlord is.
That's what I'm not seeing. Can you explain what makes it inherently immortal?
The explanation depends on how deep or philosophical you want to go on this conversation, but basically you are exploiting someone's basic need for shelter for massive profit, keeping trapped in the poverty cycle as they are having to pay rent to the landlord to pay their mortgage for them and so is much harder to save for their own house. As well as reducing supply of housing on the market, thus increasing prices and making it more innacessible.
Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town's supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup. They don't grow it, they don't transport it, cook it or chsnge it, they don't do anything that ads value, just buy it and sell it at a higher price, to the people that would have otherwise bought it for themselves. Do you consider that ethical?
Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town’s supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup.
Okay, that's clearly exploitative and unethical, but that's not inherently what landlords do. Anyone who sells products or services can do it in a way that's fair or is unfair. The mere act of selling something itself isn't unethical. Look at the conversations we have about drug companies. I don't think anyone argues that drug companies shouldn't be able to sell medication, or even make some profit for their research investments. The problem is when they price their drugs way above what's reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.
Renting out a house isn't different from renting out anything else. You go on vacation and you need a car while there, but you don't want to buy one for a short time, so you rent one. The rental agency used their money to buy the car, then they rent it to you for something you're willing to pay for a week, and they make a profit from all the people who rent the car over its life. You both win. Why is it any different with a house?
The problem is when they price their drugs way above what’s reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.
This is exactly the problem with landlords. The argument for landlords being that some people can't afford to own a home becomes a bit moot when landlords buy up all the houses and rent them back at unaffordable prices.
Why is it any different with a house?
Because you rent a car for, like you said, a vacation. That's like renting a hotel room. You rent a home to live in. If you could afford a mortgage, you'd buy a home. But landlords basically go "hey, the bank doesn't think you make enough money to make regular payments, so make those payments to me instead."
This is exactly the problem with landlords. The argument for landlords being that some people can’t afford to own a home becomes a bit moot when landlords buy up all the houses and rent them back at unaffordable prices.
72.5% of single-unit rental properties are owned by individuals, while 69.5% of properties with 25 or more units are owned by for-profit businesses.
I don't mean to minimize it as a problem - it's a big one - but the vast majority of rental house landlords aren't big corporations buying up all the available places and jacking up prices, it's individual's who decided to rent their place out instead of selling it.
The problem most people have is their credit, not the mortgage payments. Both my mortgages (I'm not a landlord, but I do airbnb 3 months out of the year) are $1500/month, and most people pay that and more just for rent.
Nevermind the fact that some people are eligible to buy a home, but think they won't qualify so they dont try. I was in that group with a credit score of 680, which is acceptable for the first time home owners program. I was accepted, and now I own 2 homes.
Drug companies produce the actual drugs though. They are creating value by making the drug and the money they make from selling it is their reward for creating value. Landlords do not build the house, so they do not create value.
And renting a car is different because its not something you need to simply survive and less importantly we don't have a car shortage. And also you typically don't rent a house just for a week most people rent houses for years and years until they can afford to buy a house, at which point their landlord has made 10s or maybe even hundreds of thousands off of them, while doing little work and adding no value. Like I'm not arguing against hotels or even renting in general, I'm against landlording for private homes, because its inherently unethical, just like buying all the food in a supermarket and selling it to the same supermarket customers at a markup to make profit for no work.
I guess we just disagree. I've said why I think they can be providing a useful service and create a win/win situation, but you don't see it that way. Good discussing with you.
Idk I feel like there's also something to be said to have the freedom to just buy another house after saving a bit. It sounds so easy, but most families would have to sell their house in order to upsize.
Never moved but my mom was in credit unions and the trade in of the house was pretty common. In all fairness, there were many "multiple apartment complex owners" at that same CU, they were notably colder and exclusively about numbers (i.e. throwing a fit and sending another appraiser to their barely functional building to get a dozen k).
Yeah, there are honestly a lot of reasons to rent instead of buy. One of the main ones is uncertainty about the market. Lots of times people think that the prices in an area are inflated and likely to come down. If you buy, you risk taking a big loss. The landlord, in that case, is the one with the risk. Similarly, if you don't plan to stay in an area for several years, it can be more trouble (and even cost) than it's worth. I've also known people who simply don't want to be bothered with the upkeep, even if they can afford to buy. There's a real freedom in being able to just pick up the phone when anything isn't working, there's a leak, or whatever.
Ours put our rent up 25% so just because I was upset I paid this month's rent a week late and they were complaining they needed the money to pay their montgage... Bitch please I don't wanna hear about your financial problems
They need your money to pay their mortgage. Looks like you are paying for their house. I guess it's one thing if that house is entirely occupied by you, but I've had this very same situation where I'm renting their basement yet paying $1300 (which was actually more than their mortgage)
It's so fucking disgusting and insulting to not only not be able to afford your own home because of all this b.s, but to also be paying for someone else's home...
I run a small senior living complex in a rural town. We have the cheapest rent in town. We scrape by, trying to make improvements here and there. They are maintained though. We seriously charge hundreds of dollars less than the next closest complex in the area. We refused to raise our rent in the past 4 years dispite rising taxes and utility bills. Most our tenants are widows/widowers living off a fixed income. We are either too nice or bad business owners because that "fix my AC" One always stings and reaches into my personal budget. And by "personal budget" I mean I eat ramen for a couple weeks.
Anyway, I actually feel like this meme. Other than my tenants are usually happy. Occasionally we get someone who is just never happy no matter what you do. I know all the other complexes are owned by one company essentially creating a monopoly and they have exploited this town. We get calls from people crying because they will be homeless.
For every one good landlord like you there's 1mil slumlords that don't think you even need AC, or think that black mould isnt a health hazard.
Bless you.
Tenants deserve to live in house conditions that the landlords themselves would be willing to live in.
It's the model of housing as a business that is the problem, no matter how benevolent an operator may try to be. The market is designed to eliminate you as competition and reward the exploitative monopolistic company.
More importantly is whether or not you are or would ever act as a firewall against competing (or at this point any) housing development.
Like if a subsidized public housing for seniors opened up next door to your complex offering rates at or below your own: would you support it given this persistent at risk population?
We would support it. We only have 24 units, we field at least 50 calls a day. We would be fine. We have turned down an offer from the company that owns the other complexes. The offer was 3 times what we paid 10 years ago and had a few more zeros on the end of what we still owe. But these tenants have become family. Also from a business owner perspective I would rather have this steady income than the BS of a quick payday then having to reinvest somewhere else and work are butts off to get that sustainable without turning into a scumbag landlord. Landlording is easy if you charge exorbitant prices and pay people to do everything. We do all the work ourselves to keep the cost down. Meanwhile I work another full time job. So does my wife and we have two kids. I don't have time to get another property to this point of sustainability.
I'm a landlord. I'm priced WELL below the market because my tenant is state patrol and is a great guy and a good family. I haven't raised his rent ever. I will raise it when my HOA goes up next year, but that's only to help cover my fees. If keep the rent so I can pick the right renters that is compatible with me. I rather have a good renter than a few bucks more a month.
I think the real test is if you give their deposit back. I've never gotten my deposit back without a fight, even after cleaning the apartment top-to-bottom. That's why I always take photos before leaving.
This happened to me once. They sent a guy to check my place out, he said "Looks good, you'll get your security deposit back." Then months went by. Well unfortunately for them my BIL is a real estate lawyer and he was happy to draw up a packet of documents I could take to small claims court. I had to serve them about 3 times, each time the cost of serving them got tacked on. They didn't show so I won by default so now the real work begang, collecting. They FINALLY paid it but I said, "You need to add the cost of serving you to it." so they drew up a new check. Yup, a pain in the ass.
Shit my place was in better condition when I left than the way it was when moved in and they still wouldn't give the deposit back.
Free market doesn't work quite so well when it's a required item like housing or medical.
Other landlords have different policies, but personally, what I return depends on if things are damaged not caused by wear and tear. So that depends on how long a tenant rents from my place.
Eg., If someone stays for a year and I got new carpets for them and it's ruined, then I'm charging for the spots that couldn't be cleaned.
Eg.,2: If someone stayed with me for 3 years and the carpet is already 8 years old, it doesn't matter if it's completely ruined, I'm not charging for that carpet.
This holds true for everything in the house.
One of my tenants wants to get a dog and the carpet is already 10 years old. I didn't even charge more security deposits because once he lives, I'm going to replace that carpet.
This is the way!
My previous landlord was like this. Lived there 4 years, rent never went up. We left the place like we found it (which was pristine).
Just bc you are a great landlord doesn't mean anyone should be able to hold such power over anyone.
Not to mention ownership of land is a human concept we can live without.
Not to mention ownership of land is a human concept we can live without.
How would you do it differently?
So how do you handle it when there are more people than space available? How do you cover the cost of maintenance? What would prevent someone from taking your house without ownership rights?
I don't have power over my tenants. They have as much power as I do. They can leave and I can also ask him to leave.
They have zero obligation to stay at my place.
I have a space to rent and they need a place to live. It's a business transaction that both parties benefit from.
'Abolish ownership' is a pretty simple talking point, how would you make it work in a legal sense?
Who determines what is your responsibility vs the neighbor vs the city? How do you establish legal boundaries for purposes of theft, vandalism, or trespassing?
Laws might seem cold (because they are) or inhumane (because they are) but they are also the thing that keeps society organized. And that makes them one of the most important human inventions. Rights are the result of laws.
If you're concerned about land prices, or people being 'priced out' of things, there are important alternate solutions to that kind of problem. Things like social services, improving education, breaking up super corporations, promoting healthy neighborhood design and small business, etc.
I think one main argument of people that take the 'abolish ownership' seriously don't mean the concept of owning things you need and use, but the concept of claiming ownership of property that you DON'T use and use that as a way of enacting power over others. So I would say it wouldn't be throwing people out of their homes but that owning property you are not using your self would not be legal. You could grab land or an empty house and it would be yours as long as you need it. Of cause this will not get rid of all the problems and conflict that already exists in some form now, but it doesn't have to be total chaos and lawlessness.
ah, the typical landlord. A good example of a useless "jobs" that litter the world
Image Transcription:
A drawn picture of a woman with shoulder-length blue hair and purple suit jacket over a darker purple long-sleeve button-down shirt, hanging her head dejectedly while a semicircle of fingers ring her head, accompanied by the words: "Parasite!", "Fix my AC!", "Tenants have rights!", "Leech!", "Hope you get Mao'd!", "Let me live here for free!", "Rent control!", and "Rich Scum!".
Below the picture is a caption reading: No one understands the landlord struggle...
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
Oh, the hard, hard life of the rent-seeker who is stupidly greedy and unwilling to lose a little bit of profit to pay somebody else - like an agency - to take care of all the work and manage their assets, so instead of making money purely from having money without lifting a finger, they have to suffer the indignity of actually working a few hours a week like poor people.
The pain and suffering must be unbearable...
If there's something that landlords and tenants can agree on, I think it's that real estate agencies are the absolute fucking worst.
Indeed!
"Rent-seeking" as an economic concept is not when you collect rent, as a landlord does.
In Economics "rent-seeking" is seeking to receive a "rent", but the concept of "rent" here is broader than merelly the kind of rent paid for a property (for example, when banks place themselves in the position to get a commission out of every small financial transaction out there, through "Touch To Pay" schemes, they are "rent-seeking").
So whilst not all rent-seekers are landlords (probably not even most rent-seekers), all landlords are rent-seekers, which is exactly how I handled those definitions in my post.
Your post is like saying "'Apple' is not the same as 'fruit'" when somebody else whilst talking about apples called them "fruit".
Tenants do have rights. If the AC is owned by the landlord and part of the lease is on the landlord to fix it. And rent control is to keep rent from reaching New York closet for $6K levels.
Paranormal story here..
I have the first good landlords I've had in my entire life. We have a clean, decent townhouse - two stories w/ unfinished basement. It's in a safe residential/school zone, right behind my work, and he's renting it to us for several hundred less than he could be getting based on other similar rentals. I guess he grew up here and has sentimental attachment, and just wants it taken care of. He purchased the connecting unit and is renting it equally low to other great tenants who take care of it. Guy is a defense lawyer and doesn't need to squeeze every drop out of it I guess.
Him and his wife are super considerate of our time and our needs, get us nursery/greenhouse gift cards in the spring and Christmas baskets every year. They're fucking anomaly and it's absolutely perplexing after two decades of shitty landlords.
It's missing the wad of 100 dollar bills to wipe away the tears of this hardship
I remember being so disgusted when Reddit had a sub Reddit start for "landlordlove" or similar. So ridiculous. No I don't give a fuck if your life is hard while you're making everyone else's life twice as hard. Not my fault you chose this as a living. Get out if you don't like it.
You fell for a satirical subreddit, it was also for hate of landlords.
loveforlandlords was a satire subreddit until the mod (community terms here) "gave it to a rentoid", at which point the satire community migrated to loveforlandchads. I don't know if the loveforlandlords sub is currently pro landlord or not, don't care since i left, but at one point, I do think it it WAS a serious community of landlords who were frustrated at being hated. Maybe i fell for satire, maybe the community has had a few to many changes of hand to track, maybe its something in the middle idk.
Friend tried renting some property in FL. It was a miserable experience with tenants who constantly trashed the places, having to hound them for rent while she had to pay the mortgage on time, etc. She eventually sold it and said "Never again."
Not counting corporate landlords, cause that's a whole other can of worms, 50% of landlords are below average landlords, and 50% of tenants are below average tenants. So 75% of leases have one below average party, antidotaly anyway. (Obviously this isn't real math)
I will say corporate landlords need to kept on short leashes
Pretty much. I will say, although it’s extremely rare to find, but does exist (I know a landlord like this): some landlords get into landlording to try to make places affordable for others, meaning they barely take a cut for themselves. These are not the people you see raising rent at every opportunity. I’m also not refering to any landlord who decides to take “section 8” housing, as some of them are also predatory. To that end, her struggle is the same struggle as her renters, trying to make ends meet, herself. She owns her own “place” but her “place” is on wheels, making her technically a homeless landlord. I doubt that she is the only landlord like this in the US but as a long-time renter, I’m well aware she’s in the minority of landlords. Most landlords do so to earn a profit, the worst offenders being for-profit corporations who own many properties. Some landlords do try to help others, and I really wish there were more like them. I think the majority of landlords simply try to “price what the market will bear” which is usually “increase rent as much as we can by law” with the excuse that “we, the landlords take on all the risk so we need all the profit”.
I would love to see more “worker co-op” style landlording, although I don’t know how that would work techncially.
meaning they barely take a cut for themselves.
Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?
Usually the issue would be that these places cost large sums up front to acquire, and there is inherent risk in lending money or selling something for payment over time.
The most equitable solution under those circumstances IMO would be a pay-towards-ownership rental model with an agreed stewardship rate for routine maintenance and if they terminate lease early, the accrued funds towards the ownership are disbursed. This allows the "renter" (future owner) the ability to eventually accrue the value of the home without risk of loss of investment, while also allowing the "owner" (steward) to ensure that maintenance can be performed. Would have to work out how to pay for incidental maintenance like a failed water heater or storm damage, but splitting cost across owned percentage may be fair, or based on fault, etc.
It's a lot of hassle for something that we should instead fix at the systemic level, but so long as we're looking at the current system then this ought to do well by both parties and would be accessible for those fortunate/lucky enough to be pulling significant salaries to help those less fortunate.
Cooperatives are also a good option long-term but I'm thinking in terms of folks that are living hand-to-mouth being able to earn towards a permanent home right away rather than a group of people with enough surplus money to pool for shared home(s). A well-established coop would be a better support network and may be able to grow faster (help more folks) than the alternatives.
The rent-to-own model also doesn’t work to well at least in the US because you’re essentially agreeing to a price of the house in x amount of years. After x amount of years, even if the house isn’t worth $y it will still be sold to you for $y.
I think the biggest problem is how does the landlord break lease? Because if you can be kicked out you lose all that you've accumulated against your will. If you can't be evicted, you've forced the landlord to both keep you as a renter and keep ownership of the property until it's paid by the renter, which isn't necessarily realistic.
They should be able to sell the property if they need to. The person renting being part of the transaction and forced to be allowed to continue renting is only kind of a solution, because the new owners might want to live in that house, or have a say in who rents it. There's also the issue of funds already accumulated by the landlord. Does that get deducted off the price they sell it for?
I think there's just a few too many veriables for it to work as a solution.
These are good points. In a place where rent was actually cheaper, moving from place to place would be more of a nusence and less of a gamble with homelessness. The reality is that people will need to rent because they need a place to live, and that renting isn’t a great solution compared to buying, that not everyone can afford to buy, that some renters can destroy investments and prevent a place from being rented again, lots of landlords are predatory with their rent increases.
One thing that that doesn’t seem to be true at least with what I’ve seen, is that lots of rentals prevent buyers from buying houses. I’ll leave the ethics of should someone buy a house with existing renters who will need to be evicted to another discussion. That said, buyers who are interested in a house can usually make an offer even if the house is not on the market, and that offer may even be accepted, pending the end of the rental contract or if the contract allows, 30 days notice. I was kicked out of an apartment this way - I didn’t have to go, but they were renovating and the new rent would be $400 more, or I could buy it outright as their endgoal was to sellt hem as condos. Lots of management companies are also realtor companies. After I moved out of the last rental, it was sold for half a million dollars (it wasn’t near that nice, very tiny and very old with outdated wiring) about a month after I moved out. The photos to sell that place were unreal, they must have done a complete makeover the day after I moved out and sold it less than 30 days later.
The two major issues with the US housing market right now are:
The prices are high because the demand is high. My advice to buyers is offer 50k over asking price at least to start. When the seller gets multiple offers yours has a better chance at being one of the higher offers in that bundle. Houses can be sold in a week.
The interest rates right now are so bad that no one who has an existing mortage at a decent rate wants to sell, as it would mean financing another home at a much higher rate. This limits inventory of houses available for buyers and renters alike. My advice to buyers is please, please try to wait until the interest rates return to something below 4.5%, ideally something like 3%.
I don’t know the details of her situation, but it’s something like in a market that averages over $1000 for housing, she rents out at below $1000. I mean to say for her properties she could choose to rent at the market rate but this would mean the people who wants to rent to, people who aren’t able to afford >$1000 for housing, would you know.. be unable to afford it.
As for barely making a cut for themselves, I’ve only known a few landlords but none who owned the house and title (without a loan with the bank). the landlords I do know, herself included most likely got 30 year fixed mortages on their properties, meaning their interest rate stays the same for 30 years.
Each month those landlords need to pay the mortage and will need to pay for repairs or repair the properties themselves. Say the mortage, due to the landlord’s credit rating is pretty good, and comes in around $800 a month. Say that on average the landlord has to pay $50 a month on maintenance. The landlord needs to charge $850 to make no money, to afford no food for themselves, or otherwise “break even”. What I’m saying here is that in this market, a property just like hers (x beds, y baths) rents out for $1200 a month. I’m saying that she’s more likely to rent her property out at $900 or $850. Although when people fall on tough times, she’ll also just waive the rent or work with them with what they can pay.
Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?
Probably not. You’re assuming that the renters have good enough credit to get a loan from the bank at the same interest rate that the landlord can, that the renters can afford a down payment (sometimes that’s $10k+ right there). Keep in mind these are the renters that could not afford a $1200 a month place themselves. You’re assuming that the bank would give them the loan in the first place. You’re assuming that the current interest rates are reasonable (at time of writing, in the US, they are not - the difference between a 3% and 6% interest over 30 years is enormous and would make their rent far greater than $1200 a month).
You’re right that there are some renters who can afford to buy her properties if she put them on the market. Those renters hypthetically live in the property next to hers with x beds and y baths and they’re looking for a place to live. She could sell the property to them, but she’d then need to evict her current tenants, and since there’s a lack of landlords like her, they will probably need to move to another town or be homeless.
We had a pair of those in my area. They were famous for "affordable housing".
End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their "goodwill."
I’m a little confused by this.
They were famous for “affordable housing”
If by this you mean they were one of the cheapest places to rent in the area, then good on them. Ultimately this is what tenants need is affordability.
End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their “goodwill.”
This is where you lose me. If you’re saying they rented some of the cheapest properties in your area and they profited $12,000,000 off their tenants, then holy shit man where do you live? That must mean that every other landlord is profiting multiple times this 12mil amount, maybe in excess of $50mil per landlord.
If you’re telling me that they weren’t actually the cheapest, they just called themselves the cheapest and somehow were the most expensive, this justifies the profit more but at $12,000,000 I have to ask how many properties did they own?!
If instead you didn’t mean to say “from cashing in on all their ‘goodwill’”, just that the pair had 12million saved up and were able to make housing affordable then indeed this is amazing! Ultimately the only individuals who are going to be able to do this are people who already come from wealth, or are at least people who can afford to make a loss on their rental properties.
So, somehow I’m not sure any of those are what you meant. Can you explain? Is there a news story about these people?
Yes, there was a news story about these people. It was 4 or 5 years ago. They were tying to get grants from our local government so they could continue to rent their properties so cheap.
They were playing themsleves off as a mom and pop that just wanted to help the community.
Ends up they owned something like 8 houses and 2 24 unit rental properties and were taking in profit on the rise in real estate all while getting grants for their good will.
The point is, landlords, by their nature, are not good Samaritans.
Yeah, you’re not talking about the type of people I’m talking about, you’re refering to literal scammers. Try re-reading my first message and you’ll understand what I mean. The landlord I’m talking about doesn’t get government grants, isn’t scamming tenants.
You’re right that lots of landlords see landlordship for what it is: a business that you can invest in. You’re wrong that this extends to all landlords. A majority of landlords maybe, but some landlords are actually trying to help even if it means they don’t have a place to rent for themselves or a home that isn’t mobile.
I mean torches have been around a lot longer than Nazis. We're not letting the Nazis take our torches.
I remember back in twenty-dickety-two when the Nazis took my circle-made-with-forefinger-and-thumb hand sign. They tried to take my milk, too, but I chased 'em of my property.
It's weird to think I miss that stupid game.
My 10 year old nephew just got me with that game. It's been so long since I even thought about it, all I could do was laugh.
Then my son got him with the old "if your hand is bigger than your face, you could have cancer". So I was satisfied I'm raising him right.
Of course it didn't stop the Kaiser from making off with our word for "twenty." Say, do you have 5 bees for a quarter?
The problem is landlords who don't give a fuck about their tenants and are fixated on squeezing the most out of them. I currently own my house, but my previous landlords were very diligent with repairs and kept rent increases to inflation. They knew we were dependable tenants who paid rent on time and were going to leave the place in decent shape.
But yes, renting can absolutely have unscrupulous landlords. Large investors especially use rental pricing software to press tenants to their absolute limit. It becomes a form of price fixing.
About that iFunny watermark...
There are a ton of landlords in here that are MALDING.
Because no one will pay their high rent? I hope so. This is the only way I think that rent will come down is if these places sit vacant for a while as it chips away at their mortgage.
What are they gonna do, live on the streets?
Thipical landlord in my country let you live in the shit with black wall full of humidity and no heater with an high price. And then they will also have the habits to Evict you if they don't want to pay taxes. And prefer to leave you in the street.
So I think that good landlord exists but most of them are just people that want money without give to you the bare minimum to live.
We rent our starter home out because we want to eventually move back in when we retire. We keep the rent affordable and fix anything that breaks. Only rent increases that happen are due to HOA and property tax increases.
I'm sure others will disagree but I'm fine with this, especially since it sounds like you're being fair, not greedy, and have a reasonable exit strategy.
You aren't hoarding wealth, buying up all the starter homes, making them into unsightly mcmanasions, and then putting them up for rent like a bunch of houses in my neighborhood. Like 7 houses on my block are owned by 2 people.
My wife and I hope to be in a similar situation in a few years.
I've stopped mentioning it because there was so much negative reaction and I'm tired of explaining. I usually just blurt out whatever is on my mind but this is now among the things I treat as taboo.
What people need to realize is that there are different kinds of people. All kinds of people. There are greedy, corrupt, evil business owners, landlords, politicians, lawyers, cops, etc. But it's not the job that is the problem. It's the people.
The only thing that makes the world better is when better people go into those professions. And the only way that happens is if we appropriately respect the importance of the role.
We aren't interested in price gouging some struggling family that is having trouble making ends meet. We just want to cover maintenance and taxes. If you treat us and our home with respect we will treat you with respect.
I feel like that's how it should be.
I appreciate your story.
If it's not unwelcome, I'd offer, I guess, a bit of an explanation, as I think the lines get kinda blurred in the passion of the moment.
From a leftist perspective, the root of the issue is not personal culpability (as in liberalism's emphasis on the individual), but with the system of organization that creates the "material" conditions. Basically, it's exactly the opposite of what you said:
But it's not the job that is the problem. It's the people.
It's not the people that's the problem, it's the system. There is obviously a spectrum of landlords that make the situation better or worse, but the issue is with the underlying relationship of private ownership itself.
We have to stop seeing rented property as a paternalistic relationship; "this is mine because I paid for it", and more of a coming together of joint interest; "this is ours, because I may have paid for it at first, but you are actually living in it". We let authority be derived from that notion of ownership, and that's the point of concern for those of us being critical of landlords. That we place emphasis on ownership is not anyone's fault (mostly), but it is the thing we need to be able to discuss without alienating others.
I'm truly sorry for making you feel alienated, I hope my explanation is helpful and not adding to your discomfort.
You can afford to carry two mortgages? Or do you rent out your house and rent something else to live in?
No, first was paid off years ago. We mortgage the second one.
Poor landlord, I’ll be bartering up my rent this month!
Love for Landlords
Landchads*
You know it, king
I miss this subreddit. I was almost sure it was satire, but the thrill was not really knowing.
It was definitely serious
The confusing line between ironic shitposting and genuine hatred, suddenly made clear when the community uplifts casual misogyny and transphobia. In theory there's no logical connection between renting out property and bigotry, right? But in practice...
So I don't think you did anything wrong, and I'd even go so far as to say selling to anyone but the renters would be tantamount to leaving them to the wolves, but let's lay out some points
They've lived there for over a decade - by all rights except property rights, the house is theirs. At the same time, you played by the rules and built up the slight amount of generational wealth it'll take to give your children a free pass into the rapidly shrinking middle class
From what you've said, your position is not unethical or exploitative - if anything, owning a few properties and renting them at below market value does more good than harm
It's entirely unfair that you get to essentially tax them for the right to survive, but that's the only offer on the table. Ideally, you charge a rate near or below your costs over the long term and only make a profit through equity - they are already paying for the mortgage and you take care of sudden large expenses like appliances and repairs... Double dipping and also squeezing them for an ongoing profit is where it goes from potentially fair to profiteering. You get long term wealth, they get stability
Now where it gets dicey is with the pressures of the situation - management companies are getting real cozy with corporate property investors. When they inevitably ratchet up the prices or drop you to focus on bigger fish, will you pass the costs on to them or look at other options? If someone offers you something way over market value, will they have a seat at the table? When you pass it on to your children, will they end up left to the wolves then?
I think you should put thought into these questions, maybe attempt to get to know your tenants enough to feel emotionally connected to them (if they're amenable to the idea obviously).
And personally, I think you should just do right by them and hold out. Our system is untenable, we've reached the limits of easy growth and our economic systems are cannibalizing themselves - if you provide stability at fair rates until we reach the point of transition, I think at that point you can look back and say you did right by them
Tax them for the right to survive? It's called exploitation, and it's the name of the game. If you can't beat them join them.
I take real issue with this meme, it's downright offensive that the middle fingers weren't used instead.
So how do I follow a specific user's posts?
Haha, can you imagine landlords playing the victim like this xD classic. Cracked me up, thanks mate!
"All I want to do is exploit struggling people for far more than my property is worth. Is that so wrong?!"
Even more ironic is that the "professional" landlords/property holding companies hire property managers who do literally all the work, including both the upkeep for the house and interaction with the tenants. Like, what exactly do you contribute at that point? What would change practically if I hired the property manager directly with the money I would be paying you? Especially when the most common pro-landlord argument (used by landlords themselves) is that they fix things around the house and maintain it.
"You expect me to unclog a toilet?!"
Yes. That's exactly what I expect a landlord to do. And if you don't live in the same city as your rental property, maybe that shouldn't be allowed.
I am against landlords like everyone else, but I draw the line at unclogging the toilet. It isn't worth the effort to report that and I don't need people unnecessarily seeing my shit in the literal sense. Provided that it is a standard clog and not something wrong with the toilet.
I'm not talking standard clog. I don't mind using a plunger. But sometimes you need more than that and they should either do it or spend their own money on a plumber ASAP.
Ah, I see. The Super Poo, the Toilet Destroyer, HAZMAT. Things that only a professional can do. Sometimes the rabbit doesn't come out of the hat and you need an extra hand.
I had a landlord who wrote into the original version of the lease that I (as the tenant) would be responsible for any needed repairs to the sewer system. This was a much more extreme version of being unwilling to unclog a toilet lol. I said fuck that noise and he took the clause out. He turned out to be a good landlord and he didn't raise my rent once in seven years, but his tendency to just try and get away with whatever he could in the lease had me a bit worried at the start.
For individuals who own like a single rental property as an investment property, you could blame the banks. Maybe the tenants don’t have the 20% the bank would require for a mortgage. But they can afford the monthly rent for the larger house rather than a smaller apartment. Also the landlord takes on the risk here. (Market value, no Rent payment, property damage, maintenance…)
They take on the risk? That's hysterical. Landlords don't risk market value. They buy up all the houses when they're cheap, make their money back and then some by renting the property, then make even more money when the housing market goes up and they kick the tenant out to sell the property. They don't risk property damage, that's the entire point of a security deposit. They don't "risk" maintenance, that's called doing their job.
Ok kid. I think you missed the first sentence in my comment.
I don't understand why a 20% deposit is necessary. If you can make repayments as you can make rent, let them own the house already
In Australia its way more common for landlords to use propert management companies.
They charge about 5%, the tenant rings them and says "The hot water is out" they ring me and say "You need to authorise us to send a plumber" I say "Ok" they ring one of their go-to plumbers who attends super fast because they dont want to lose the repeat business of a property manager who has 100 properties to look after and they fix it at a fair rate because if they dont the property manager will find a new plumber.
When I was renting out my first house (had to move for work for a few years) I couldnt get an electrician for my own house as fast and as cheap as my property manager could get one for my tenants.
You guys are joking and everything, but that's what they actually think
I bet. Mine inherited 17 houses and never works. He also talks to all his customers like he is doing us a favor.
I know a guy at college who basically uses this as a pick-up line to get girls. He said if you're with him you're basically set because he'll inherit a lot of house from his landlord parents so you won't need to work anymore.
Here is hoping he attracts someone that would work on.
I never understood why people do that. Who wants to be together with a gold digger?
Probably people who can only "attract" that way.
Women like money this is nothing new.
They might not even be a gold digger but with money comes opportunities.
The joke falls kinda flat for me because I hear this too much already, but not as a joke...
I rent out homes and I dont get any of these because I only rent out to hispanic working families. Fight me
Only some, usually the very right leaning ones or the very left leaning ones. Normal people behave normally.
I can assure you the very left leaning ones don't. If they did, they wouldn't be left leaning.
Im a left leaning landlord and im not like that at all. Im fixing everything thats needed and improving stuff from time to time but basically staying out of their lives.
Good guy landlord.
I wasn't saying psycho left is common or that you're like that, just that they exist. It's harder to spot them because there seems to be so very many psycho right nuts lately.
"Left leaning landlord" is an oxymoron ;p
Or at least if someone actually held to their principles, they would not remain both for very long ^.^
(The concept of a separate ownership class, which is the defining feature of landlordism, is in direct contradiction with leftism, which at the furthest end pushes for the destruction of these sorts of hierarchical class systems, or at the very least attempts to abolish the gatekeeping and hoarding of base necessities like shelter)
Someone I know is like this, unironically.
Historically people with the title "lord" have had it so hard.
The Gaylords would like a word
"Fix my AC!"
Particularly ironic that this is being framed as "unreasonable" because landlords themselves directly argue that their upkeep of the house justifies the significant upcharge they take from tenants. Like, even if we argued that landlord as a career is 100% acceptable and valid, that would literally be your job, would be like a professional chef complaining about people saying "make me food!"
Had a cook who literally complained about receiving too many different kinds of orders and the customers were not even in a hurry
As a professional cook it be like that sometimes 😅
I'm sure that is a legit issue and the menu should be planned to reduce that load. In this case the guy was more suited to repetitive jobs in larger scale kitchens which mine isn't.
Lot of landphobia in this thread. As a POL (Person of Land) it's concerning to see this sort of bigotry in 2023.
Stay strong fellow Landchads, together we'll get through this.
It truly is a wonder why y’all are hated. You’re so.. humble.
It's a hard life, but someone's got to do it. My tenants' rent wont raise itself.
🖕😁
You can also tell by her anorexic physique that she's no landchad. No fridge raiding happening here.
Even the father of capitalism thought landlords were parasites that only leeched off the economy
Adam Smith justifies the existence of rent as improvement in the value of land.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term 'rent-seeking' which is a different concept entitely
I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.
I'd strongly recommend you consider reading the entire thing, because that is not his take at all.
Consider at his time, "landlord" literally meant a lord who owned land, and much of the rent he discussed (often negatively) is shit like, charging people to harvest kelp near your house.
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right.
Probably because he's not actually presenting an argument, and is instead expecting people to read a 57 310 word essay. Oh, and if you read all of that and still disagree? "You must have misunderstood, read it again."
Fair. I was thinking today he seemed more to be referring to crops
Fun fact: all unions are inherently rent-seeking.
I say this as a supporter of unions - true is true. Rent seeking is inherently bad but the sum of the union equation is that they do more good than bad.
The police union, of course, is also uniquely bad in other ways.
I feel so bad for mine I’ve raised the amount I tip them every month from ~12% to 20%. You should, too - they struggle so hard.
(Lol)
Because I love my landlord so much I only communicate with him through my lawyer to make extra sure every letter is worded really nicely and politely, much more polite than anything I would every write him. Also got him two very nicely worded court orders by know he would've missed out on if it wasn't for me.
You should tip at least 200%. Less is just selfish.
My old landlord refused to fix our water heater, the leaking roof causing mould and water damage, the outlets that were falling off, the broken light switches that didn't work, the ceiling light that was flickering and and literally hanging by the wires. All for $2000/month + utilities. Then he kicked us out because he wanted to sell the place, but now he can't sell it because no bank will touch it with the amount of water damage it has lmao.
Oh ya, can't forget the 5 times he's banged on our door threatening us with his lawyer because he stole $100 from us, we asked for it back, but he refused to answer our calls, so we had to wait 12 fucking months before our lease was up and we started paying month to month for us to subtract the $100 he owed us for 12 months from the payment.
You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door!
You're trash, Brock
Even if you try being a good landlord, dealing with some tenants can really darken your soul...
Your know, I guess experiences vary widely, but the landlords I know don't fit all the hate. For instance, one of my employees decided to rent her house instead of selling it when her family needed a bigger one. They've been renting to the same family for a decade or more without ever raising the rent. The family could not afford to buy any house, let alone the one they're in, so renting allows them to live in a kind of place they couldn't afford otherwise. My employee has let them skip rent a few times when times were hard.
I know a few similar stories. Maybe it's different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever, but I just don't see being a landlord as inherently bad. Like anything else, you can do it ethically or unethically.
Sounds like a problem with the price of housing, which is a not entirely unrelated issue.
Yeah, for sure - I live in southern California, which has about as high a cost of real estate as you're going to find, but that isn't caused by landlords. I mean, if you bought a new car and were selling your old one, you'd probably sell it for whatever the market would pay, right? Maybe if you're really well off you'd just give it to someone, but most of us are going to sell for the going rate. It's the same with houses. If I can easily get $500k for my house, I'm not going to list it for $400k just to be nice - I could use the money.
Do people feel like it's inherently more laudable to sell their house than to rent it? It seems like, as long as they're not gouging, they're doing more of a service by renting to people who can't afford to buy, and also covering all the costs of repairs and risk of damage that renters don't have to worry about.
I just don't get the hate broadly, though the management company who ran my daughter's apartment complex were assholes.
I work in a real estate adjacent field, part of the housing issue IS very much because of big companies and people just buying up all the houses to rent them for passive income.
I don't care if people have 2 or 3 houses but when they own 8 or 9 or hundreds then yea we have an issue.
Yeah, I agree a hundred percent. In every business, it's possible to be predatory. Big companies are doing some really shitty things, and we should try to figure out how to stop that.
But some people are saying that being a landlord is inherently unethical - the moment someone rents a property, they're a vile leach. I just think that's wrong.
My last land lord raised rent by 2.5x after the first year. When we moved out he kept the full security deposit because "the inside of the oven was dirty"
Your mileage may vary
4 beautiful words that worked wonders with my shitty landlord who tried to keep my deposit "normal wear and tear".
As soon as I stated that, the lady changed her tune completely.
Your landlord is allowed to raise it by that much? I'm Dutch and we have limits on how much rent can increase, which was a maximum of 4.1% in 2023.
Yes. My landlord is literally a corporation.
Doesn't matter either way. My landlord is an asshole who never fixes anything he says he will (even things he's legally supposed to.) Can't use the law against him because he's allowed to raise the rent any time he wants with a few simple changes to our lease.
I've never had a good landlord. Most of them are greedy trash.
I'm a land lord, did exactly what people say we all did. 15 years ago I bought two 200k homes for 30k each (30k was the down payment) the houses are worth over 600k each now.. they are an income plan for my kids so they don't have to necessarily worry about taking a better paying job instead of something they want to do. Probably a little naive now. But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit just so the government won't come after me due running a loss on my taxes. I have raised rent only enough to do that. I pay for a property management firm to take care of the properties so that the tenants have 24 hour response to issues. I've had the same tenants for 12 years in both properties. Every 4 years or so I have one of the rooms that the tenants want renovated. It's a right off so doesn't costa fortune ava the house gets slowly updated. Not every landlord is an asshole. Some of us play the long game without screwing people. But I realize that I am part of the problem. I am part of the reason for less supply in the market. But selling my properties will make my children's lives less secure and I'm not willing to do that. So i do partially deserve some of the blame.
Edited to add down payment info.
I don't see you having any blame. Supply and demand for housing includes everything, including rentals. You would be part of the problem if you bought those places and left them empty as vacation spots or something. You didn't, you're supplying them to people who I'm guessing wouldn't be able to buy them themselves. You're not driving up the cost of housing. I'd argue that, since you're charging less than you could, you're actually lowering it.
He literally is driving up the cost of housing. Rental markets are quite seperate to the actual housing market and people who own 3 houses, drive up the cost of buying a house. There is a good chance they can't afford to rent, yes, but only because of people like him buying housing they dint need to make a profit, they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.
Have you purchased a house? Because this part is simply not true. You have to have a percentage of the cost up front. The more you have, the smaller the payments. Lots of folks who are renting out places put a lot down so the mortgage payments (and what they charge for rent) are much smaller than a first-time buyer can afford. Then you have the cost of property tax, maintenance, and repairs that the renter isn't liable for.
This is very much the problem with the Canadian real estate bubble. People are paying rental prices now that absolutely could have paid for a house 5 years ago. But now they are paying a dangerously high portion of their income. The problem is that their rental prices that they pay now wouldn't make the payments on the house today.
Not for myself, but yes, I have. And that's kind of my point. You have these arbitrary barriers to entry on home ownership that are designed to keep poor people out, since the can't afford these costs upfront, and can't save for them because they are either paying their landlords mortgage instead, or are paying money directly to the bank/asset manager/ whoever owns their rental. So it's in the banks best interest to not give them a mortgage.
And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn't landlords wouldn't be making money, so would raise rent
I think "designed to keep poor people out" is way off. People selling a product want nothing more than for other people to buy their product. The sellers of the house aren't the ones setting the mortgage details - they have nothing to do with it, they just want to sell the house.
But few people can afford to buy a house outright, so they have to borrow money. The bigger the percentage of the purchase price you have to borrow, the more the payments are going to be. That's not to punish poor people, it's because they're putting up their money so you can buy something, in return for them making a profit on their money.
You're still not getting it. Let's say I want to live in a house that costs $600k, but I don't have it. If I were to find a lender who would finance the whole thing (doubtful), the mortgage payments would probably be around $3k a month, and I can't afford that either. But let's say you have $300k to put down, so only have to finance another $300k, and your payments are more like $1500 a month, which I can afford. I pay you the amount that covers your mortgage, you end up paying property tax and other costs, but my rent is going into your property. If I live there for three years, you've gotten $54k in equity, even if the house's value itself didn't go up any, for just the cost of taxes and maintenance. Meanwhile, I got to live in a house that I flat out couldn't afford.
I was not blaming the people selling the house, I was blaming the banks for putting an arbitrary down payment on getting a mortgage to keep poor people out of home ownership, which benefits the banks as they are all heavily involved in property investment so benefit from more people renting either by directly being the landlords or simply from the increased housing demand from landlords wanting to buy as many properties as possible, thus driving up housing prices, which drives up mortgages and makes them more money.
Like you say, the banks male their money from interest on the loan, so the 20k down-payment they require is an arbitrary barrier to entry.
No, I get it, you're just making up a scenario that doesn't really happen. Like sure a landlord could in theory pay half the price of a house just to reduce mortgage costs so they can rent it out at half the market rate AND pay property tax and maintenance out of pocket, out of thr kindness of their golden hearts. They could also just buy the house outright and let you live in it for free and just make their profit off of the increase in house value. But obviously they won't. The landlord is going to charge you market rate for that 600k house which will almost certainly be more than 3k, because why wouldnt they? And even if they did, are the going to rent directly to you? Or are they going to advertise it and get a slew of offers of people wanting to live in a house for half price and so someone a little bit richer than you will offer them, say 1,750 for the house, because of supply and demand. And the vast majority of people aren't trying to live in houses they can't afford, they are just trying to live.
And even then, it's still not ethical, you're still exploring people for profit for their basic needs without adding any value to the system.
How the heck did you find not one but two 200k houses for 30k? Or are you saying you bought them for 30k and now they're worth 200k? Either way holy balls I wish I could do either of those lol
I assumed they meant they were just worth $30k when they bought them. That is a pipe dream that probably won’t happen again in any of our lifetimes.
Sorry, I didn't explain that well. The down payment was 30k each. But basically that's all I've had to spend on the houses.
The house pays for itself, that's the beauty of having to rent out houses. ROI might vary, but long term, you are secured as long as the property is properly maintained and is attractive to renters.
Edit : reading a lot of comments on this thread, it's obvious that majority have no idea how house and lot transactions go, and how little real life experience they have on it. They are just hopping on the bandwagon on landlord hate.
"Anybody that disagrees with my unethical actions simply lacks life experience" - some landlord apologist chud.
This shows one of the most common things landlords tell themselves to justify it.
You tell yourself this, to make you feel better, but you don't acknowledge that almost all the money your tenants pay you is profit, since they are paying for the mortgage. Even if you rented at 0 immediate profit, for the entire time until you paid off the houses, you would have actually made 1.2million in profit, since you now own 2 houses at 600k each.
And those families, instead of paying a mortgage and ending with hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, that they could refinance, or use to buy a better house or leave as inheritance for their kids, now have nothing, as all that money has gone to you.
There is no such thing as an ethical landlord. Even the """good""" ones are still exploring people's basic need for shelter to make them rich.
If you really wanted to be a "good" landlord offer those families the chance to buy the house with the 15 years of down payments they already made to you to start it off. But as you said they're an "income plan" for your kids I don't think you would do that.
I mean, I get what you're saying. And perhaps if my financial situation was better I could consider the option to offer the houses to the tenants. But as you suspect I will not trade my children's financial security just to be charitable. The rent I charge is 30%-40% below market value. I suspect if you were in my position you wouldn't be so inclined to give away your wealth either.
I was in your position, when my grandparents died I inherited a house, that people encouraged me to rent out. Instead I sold it and invested the money (specifically into a green energy fund.) As that way I still have my financial security, without being a landlord.
This is the whole "not all cops are bad a guy I know is a cop and he's nice" argument just for landlords.
Or you could phrase it about slave owners "my freind owns slaves, but he just owns the one and he treats them really well!"
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe """ethical""" the landlord is.
That's what I'm not seeing. Can you explain what makes it inherently immortal?
The explanation depends on how deep or philosophical you want to go on this conversation, but basically you are exploiting someone's basic need for shelter for massive profit, keeping trapped in the poverty cycle as they are having to pay rent to the landlord to pay their mortgage for them and so is much harder to save for their own house. As well as reducing supply of housing on the market, thus increasing prices and making it more innacessible.
Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town's supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup. They don't grow it, they don't transport it, cook it or chsnge it, they don't do anything that ads value, just buy it and sell it at a higher price, to the people that would have otherwise bought it for themselves. Do you consider that ethical?
Okay, that's clearly exploitative and unethical, but that's not inherently what landlords do. Anyone who sells products or services can do it in a way that's fair or is unfair. The mere act of selling something itself isn't unethical. Look at the conversations we have about drug companies. I don't think anyone argues that drug companies shouldn't be able to sell medication, or even make some profit for their research investments. The problem is when they price their drugs way above what's reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.
Renting out a house isn't different from renting out anything else. You go on vacation and you need a car while there, but you don't want to buy one for a short time, so you rent one. The rental agency used their money to buy the car, then they rent it to you for something you're willing to pay for a week, and they make a profit from all the people who rent the car over its life. You both win. Why is it any different with a house?
This is exactly the problem with landlords. The argument for landlords being that some people can't afford to own a home becomes a bit moot when landlords buy up all the houses and rent them back at unaffordable prices.
Because you rent a car for, like you said, a vacation. That's like renting a hotel room. You rent a home to live in. If you could afford a mortgage, you'd buy a home. But landlords basically go "hey, the bank doesn't think you make enough money to make regular payments, so make those payments to me instead."
You make it sound like that's the normal case, but it's just not so. Here's a Pew research article.
I don't mean to minimize it as a problem - it's a big one - but the vast majority of rental house landlords aren't big corporations buying up all the available places and jacking up prices, it's individual's who decided to rent their place out instead of selling it.
The problem most people have is their credit, not the mortgage payments. Both my mortgages (I'm not a landlord, but I do airbnb 3 months out of the year) are $1500/month, and most people pay that and more just for rent.
Nevermind the fact that some people are eligible to buy a home, but think they won't qualify so they dont try. I was in that group with a credit score of 680, which is acceptable for the first time home owners program. I was accepted, and now I own 2 homes.
Drug companies produce the actual drugs though. They are creating value by making the drug and the money they make from selling it is their reward for creating value. Landlords do not build the house, so they do not create value.
And renting a car is different because its not something you need to simply survive and less importantly we don't have a car shortage. And also you typically don't rent a house just for a week most people rent houses for years and years until they can afford to buy a house, at which point their landlord has made 10s or maybe even hundreds of thousands off of them, while doing little work and adding no value. Like I'm not arguing against hotels or even renting in general, I'm against landlording for private homes, because its inherently unethical, just like buying all the food in a supermarket and selling it to the same supermarket customers at a markup to make profit for no work.
I guess we just disagree. I've said why I think they can be providing a useful service and create a win/win situation, but you don't see it that way. Good discussing with you.
Idk I feel like there's also something to be said to have the freedom to just buy another house after saving a bit. It sounds so easy, but most families would have to sell their house in order to upsize.
Never moved but my mom was in credit unions and the trade in of the house was pretty common. In all fairness, there were many "multiple apartment complex owners" at that same CU, they were notably colder and exclusively about numbers (i.e. throwing a fit and sending another appraiser to their barely functional building to get a dozen k).
Yeah, there are honestly a lot of reasons to rent instead of buy. One of the main ones is uncertainty about the market. Lots of times people think that the prices in an area are inflated and likely to come down. If you buy, you risk taking a big loss. The landlord, in that case, is the one with the risk. Similarly, if you don't plan to stay in an area for several years, it can be more trouble (and even cost) than it's worth. I've also known people who simply don't want to be bothered with the upkeep, even if they can afford to buy. There's a real freedom in being able to just pick up the phone when anything isn't working, there's a leak, or whatever.
Ours put our rent up 25% so just because I was upset I paid this month's rent a week late and they were complaining they needed the money to pay their montgage... Bitch please I don't wanna hear about your financial problems
They need your money to pay their mortgage. Looks like you are paying for their house. I guess it's one thing if that house is entirely occupied by you, but I've had this very same situation where I'm renting their basement yet paying $1300 (which was actually more than their mortgage)
It's so fucking disgusting and insulting to not only not be able to afford your own home because of all this b.s, but to also be paying for someone else's home...
I run a small senior living complex in a rural town. We have the cheapest rent in town. We scrape by, trying to make improvements here and there. They are maintained though. We seriously charge hundreds of dollars less than the next closest complex in the area. We refused to raise our rent in the past 4 years dispite rising taxes and utility bills. Most our tenants are widows/widowers living off a fixed income. We are either too nice or bad business owners because that "fix my AC" One always stings and reaches into my personal budget. And by "personal budget" I mean I eat ramen for a couple weeks.
Anyway, I actually feel like this meme. Other than my tenants are usually happy. Occasionally we get someone who is just never happy no matter what you do. I know all the other complexes are owned by one company essentially creating a monopoly and they have exploited this town. We get calls from people crying because they will be homeless.
For every one good landlord like you there's 1mil slumlords that don't think you even need AC, or think that black mould isnt a health hazard.
Bless you.
Tenants deserve to live in house conditions that the landlords themselves would be willing to live in.
It's the model of housing as a business that is the problem, no matter how benevolent an operator may try to be. The market is designed to eliminate you as competition and reward the exploitative monopolistic company.
More importantly is whether or not you are or would ever act as a firewall against competing (or at this point any) housing development.
Like if a subsidized public housing for seniors opened up next door to your complex offering rates at or below your own: would you support it given this persistent at risk population?
We would support it. We only have 24 units, we field at least 50 calls a day. We would be fine. We have turned down an offer from the company that owns the other complexes. The offer was 3 times what we paid 10 years ago and had a few more zeros on the end of what we still owe. But these tenants have become family. Also from a business owner perspective I would rather have this steady income than the BS of a quick payday then having to reinvest somewhere else and work are butts off to get that sustainable without turning into a scumbag landlord. Landlording is easy if you charge exorbitant prices and pay people to do everything. We do all the work ourselves to keep the cost down. Meanwhile I work another full time job. So does my wife and we have two kids. I don't have time to get another property to this point of sustainability.
Not all heros wear capes
Yeh I support LGBT...
Landlords
GOP
Billionaires
The police
😎
I'm a landlord. I'm priced WELL below the market because my tenant is state patrol and is a great guy and a good family. I haven't raised his rent ever. I will raise it when my HOA goes up next year, but that's only to help cover my fees. If keep the rent so I can pick the right renters that is compatible with me. I rather have a good renter than a few bucks more a month.
I think the real test is if you give their deposit back. I've never gotten my deposit back without a fight, even after cleaning the apartment top-to-bottom. That's why I always take photos before leaving.
This happened to me once. They sent a guy to check my place out, he said "Looks good, you'll get your security deposit back." Then months went by. Well unfortunately for them my BIL is a real estate lawyer and he was happy to draw up a packet of documents I could take to small claims court. I had to serve them about 3 times, each time the cost of serving them got tacked on. They didn't show so I won by default so now the real work begang, collecting. They FINALLY paid it but I said, "You need to add the cost of serving you to it." so they drew up a new check. Yup, a pain in the ass.
Shit my place was in better condition when I left than the way it was when moved in and they still wouldn't give the deposit back.
Free market doesn't work quite so well when it's a required item like housing or medical.
Other landlords have different policies, but personally, what I return depends on if things are damaged not caused by wear and tear. So that depends on how long a tenant rents from my place.
Eg., If someone stays for a year and I got new carpets for them and it's ruined, then I'm charging for the spots that couldn't be cleaned.
Eg.,2: If someone stayed with me for 3 years and the carpet is already 8 years old, it doesn't matter if it's completely ruined, I'm not charging for that carpet.
This holds true for everything in the house.
One of my tenants wants to get a dog and the carpet is already 10 years old. I didn't even charge more security deposits because once he lives, I'm going to replace that carpet.
This is the way!
My previous landlord was like this. Lived there 4 years, rent never went up. We left the place like we found it (which was pristine).
Just bc you are a great landlord doesn't mean anyone should be able to hold such power over anyone. Not to mention ownership of land is a human concept we can live without.
How would you do it differently?
So how do you handle it when there are more people than space available? How do you cover the cost of maintenance? What would prevent someone from taking your house without ownership rights?
I don't have power over my tenants. They have as much power as I do. They can leave and I can also ask him to leave.
They have zero obligation to stay at my place.
I have a space to rent and they need a place to live. It's a business transaction that both parties benefit from.
'Abolish ownership' is a pretty simple talking point, how would you make it work in a legal sense?
Who determines what is your responsibility vs the neighbor vs the city? How do you establish legal boundaries for purposes of theft, vandalism, or trespassing?
Laws might seem cold (because they are) or inhumane (because they are) but they are also the thing that keeps society organized. And that makes them one of the most important human inventions. Rights are the result of laws.
If you're concerned about land prices, or people being 'priced out' of things, there are important alternate solutions to that kind of problem. Things like social services, improving education, breaking up super corporations, promoting healthy neighborhood design and small business, etc.
I think one main argument of people that take the 'abolish ownership' seriously don't mean the concept of owning things you need and use, but the concept of claiming ownership of property that you DON'T use and use that as a way of enacting power over others. So I would say it wouldn't be throwing people out of their homes but that owning property you are not using your self would not be legal. You could grab land or an empty house and it would be yours as long as you need it. Of cause this will not get rid of all the problems and conflict that already exists in some form now, but it doesn't have to be total chaos and lawlessness.
So brave… thank you for your sacrifice!
Now fix my (your) AC.
ah, the typical landlord. A good example of a useless "jobs" that litter the world
Image Transcription:
A drawn picture of a woman with shoulder-length blue hair and purple suit jacket over a darker purple long-sleeve button-down shirt, hanging her head dejectedly while a semicircle of fingers ring her head, accompanied by the words: "Parasite!", "Fix my AC!", "Tenants have rights!", "Leech!", "Hope you get Mao'd!", "Let me live here for free!", "Rent control!", and "Rich Scum!". Below the picture is a caption reading: No one understands the landlord struggle...
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
Oh, the hard, hard life of the rent-seeker who is stupidly greedy and unwilling to lose a little bit of profit to pay somebody else - like an agency - to take care of all the work and manage their assets, so instead of making money purely from having money without lifting a finger, they have to suffer the indignity of actually working a few hours a week like poor people.
The pain and suffering must be unbearable...
If there's something that landlords and tenants can agree on, I think it's that real estate agencies are the absolute fucking worst.
Indeed!
"Rent-seeking" as an economic concept is not when you collect rent, as a landlord does.
In Economics "rent-seeking" is seeking to receive a "rent", but the concept of "rent" here is broader than merelly the kind of rent paid for a property (for example, when banks place themselves in the position to get a commission out of every small financial transaction out there, through "Touch To Pay" schemes, they are "rent-seeking").
So whilst not all rent-seekers are landlords (probably not even most rent-seekers), all landlords are rent-seekers, which is exactly how I handled those definitions in my post.
Your post is like saying "'Apple' is not the same as 'fruit'" when somebody else whilst talking about apples called them "fruit".
Tenants do have rights. If the AC is owned by the landlord and part of the lease is on the landlord to fix it. And rent control is to keep rent from reaching New York closet for $6K levels.
Paranormal story here..
I have the first good landlords I've had in my entire life. We have a clean, decent townhouse - two stories w/ unfinished basement. It's in a safe residential/school zone, right behind my work, and he's renting it to us for several hundred less than he could be getting based on other similar rentals. I guess he grew up here and has sentimental attachment, and just wants it taken care of. He purchased the connecting unit and is renting it equally low to other great tenants who take care of it. Guy is a defense lawyer and doesn't need to squeeze every drop out of it I guess.
Him and his wife are super considerate of our time and our needs, get us nursery/greenhouse gift cards in the spring and Christmas baskets every year. They're fucking anomaly and it's absolutely perplexing after two decades of shitty landlords.
It's missing the wad of 100 dollar bills to wipe away the tears of this hardship
I remember being so disgusted when Reddit had a sub Reddit start for "landlordlove" or similar. So ridiculous. No I don't give a fuck if your life is hard while you're making everyone else's life twice as hard. Not my fault you chose this as a living. Get out if you don't like it.
You fell for a satirical subreddit, it was also for hate of landlords.
loveforlandlords was a satire subreddit until the mod (community terms here) "gave it to a rentoid", at which point the satire community migrated to loveforlandchads. I don't know if the loveforlandlords sub is currently pro landlord or not, don't care since i left, but at one point, I do think it it WAS a serious community of landlords who were frustrated at being hated. Maybe i fell for satire, maybe the community has had a few to many changes of hand to track, maybe its something in the middle idk.
It's currently banned
Edit: I remember it being banned
Friend tried renting some property in FL. It was a miserable experience with tenants who constantly trashed the places, having to hound them for rent while she had to pay the mortgage on time, etc. She eventually sold it and said "Never again."
Not counting corporate landlords, cause that's a whole other can of worms, 50% of landlords are below average landlords, and 50% of tenants are below average tenants. So 75% of leases have one below average party, antidotaly anyway. (Obviously this isn't real math)
Obviously wrong math. 50% + 50% = 100%. (Sorry, had to)
I will say corporate landlords need to kept on short leashes
Pretty much. I will say, although it’s extremely rare to find, but does exist (I know a landlord like this): some landlords get into landlording to try to make places affordable for others, meaning they barely take a cut for themselves. These are not the people you see raising rent at every opportunity. I’m also not refering to any landlord who decides to take “section 8” housing, as some of them are also predatory. To that end, her struggle is the same struggle as her renters, trying to make ends meet, herself. She owns her own “place” but her “place” is on wheels, making her technically a homeless landlord. I doubt that she is the only landlord like this in the US but as a long-time renter, I’m well aware she’s in the minority of landlords. Most landlords do so to earn a profit, the worst offenders being for-profit corporations who own many properties. Some landlords do try to help others, and I really wish there were more like them. I think the majority of landlords simply try to “price what the market will bear” which is usually “increase rent as much as we can by law” with the excuse that “we, the landlords take on all the risk so we need all the profit”.
I would love to see more “worker co-op” style landlording, although I don’t know how that would work techncially.
Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?
Usually the issue would be that these places cost large sums up front to acquire, and there is inherent risk in lending money or selling something for payment over time.
The most equitable solution under those circumstances IMO would be a pay-towards-ownership rental model with an agreed stewardship rate for routine maintenance and if they terminate lease early, the accrued funds towards the ownership are disbursed. This allows the "renter" (future owner) the ability to eventually accrue the value of the home without risk of loss of investment, while also allowing the "owner" (steward) to ensure that maintenance can be performed. Would have to work out how to pay for incidental maintenance like a failed water heater or storm damage, but splitting cost across owned percentage may be fair, or based on fault, etc.
It's a lot of hassle for something that we should instead fix at the systemic level, but so long as we're looking at the current system then this ought to do well by both parties and would be accessible for those fortunate/lucky enough to be pulling significant salaries to help those less fortunate.
Cooperatives are also a good option long-term but I'm thinking in terms of folks that are living hand-to-mouth being able to earn towards a permanent home right away rather than a group of people with enough surplus money to pool for shared home(s). A well-established coop would be a better support network and may be able to grow faster (help more folks) than the alternatives.
The rent-to-own model also doesn’t work to well at least in the US because you’re essentially agreeing to a price of the house in x amount of years. After x amount of years, even if the house isn’t worth $y it will still be sold to you for $y.
I think the biggest problem is how does the landlord break lease? Because if you can be kicked out you lose all that you've accumulated against your will. If you can't be evicted, you've forced the landlord to both keep you as a renter and keep ownership of the property until it's paid by the renter, which isn't necessarily realistic.
They should be able to sell the property if they need to. The person renting being part of the transaction and forced to be allowed to continue renting is only kind of a solution, because the new owners might want to live in that house, or have a say in who rents it. There's also the issue of funds already accumulated by the landlord. Does that get deducted off the price they sell it for?
I think there's just a few too many veriables for it to work as a solution.
These are good points. In a place where rent was actually cheaper, moving from place to place would be more of a nusence and less of a gamble with homelessness. The reality is that people will need to rent because they need a place to live, and that renting isn’t a great solution compared to buying, that not everyone can afford to buy, that some renters can destroy investments and prevent a place from being rented again, lots of landlords are predatory with their rent increases.
One thing that that doesn’t seem to be true at least with what I’ve seen, is that lots of rentals prevent buyers from buying houses. I’ll leave the ethics of should someone buy a house with existing renters who will need to be evicted to another discussion. That said, buyers who are interested in a house can usually make an offer even if the house is not on the market, and that offer may even be accepted, pending the end of the rental contract or if the contract allows, 30 days notice. I was kicked out of an apartment this way - I didn’t have to go, but they were renovating and the new rent would be $400 more, or I could buy it outright as their endgoal was to sellt hem as condos. Lots of management companies are also realtor companies. After I moved out of the last rental, it was sold for half a million dollars (it wasn’t near that nice, very tiny and very old with outdated wiring) about a month after I moved out. The photos to sell that place were unreal, they must have done a complete makeover the day after I moved out and sold it less than 30 days later.
The two major issues with the US housing market right now are:
I don’t know the details of her situation, but it’s something like in a market that averages over $1000 for housing, she rents out at below $1000. I mean to say for her properties she could choose to rent at the market rate but this would mean the people who wants to rent to, people who aren’t able to afford >$1000 for housing, would you know.. be unable to afford it.
As for barely making a cut for themselves, I’ve only known a few landlords but none who owned the house and title (without a loan with the bank). the landlords I do know, herself included most likely got 30 year fixed mortages on their properties, meaning their interest rate stays the same for 30 years.
Each month those landlords need to pay the mortage and will need to pay for repairs or repair the properties themselves. Say the mortage, due to the landlord’s credit rating is pretty good, and comes in around $800 a month. Say that on average the landlord has to pay $50 a month on maintenance. The landlord needs to charge $850 to make no money, to afford no food for themselves, or otherwise “break even”. What I’m saying here is that in this market, a property just like hers (x beds, y baths) rents out for $1200 a month. I’m saying that she’s more likely to rent her property out at $900 or $850. Although when people fall on tough times, she’ll also just waive the rent or work with them with what they can pay.
Probably not. You’re assuming that the renters have good enough credit to get a loan from the bank at the same interest rate that the landlord can, that the renters can afford a down payment (sometimes that’s $10k+ right there). Keep in mind these are the renters that could not afford a $1200 a month place themselves. You’re assuming that the bank would give them the loan in the first place. You’re assuming that the current interest rates are reasonable (at time of writing, in the US, they are not - the difference between a 3% and 6% interest over 30 years is enormous and would make their rent far greater than $1200 a month).
You’re right that there are some renters who can afford to buy her properties if she put them on the market. Those renters hypthetically live in the property next to hers with x beds and y baths and they’re looking for a place to live. She could sell the property to them, but she’d then need to evict her current tenants, and since there’s a lack of landlords like her, they will probably need to move to another town or be homeless.
There’s not a clear right or wrong answer here.
We had a pair of those in my area. They were famous for "affordable housing".
End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their "goodwill."
I’m a little confused by this.
If by this you mean they were one of the cheapest places to rent in the area, then good on them. Ultimately this is what tenants need is affordability.
This is where you lose me. If you’re saying they rented some of the cheapest properties in your area and they profited $12,000,000 off their tenants, then holy shit man where do you live? That must mean that every other landlord is profiting multiple times this 12mil amount, maybe in excess of $50mil per landlord.
If you’re telling me that they weren’t actually the cheapest, they just called themselves the cheapest and somehow were the most expensive, this justifies the profit more but at $12,000,000 I have to ask how many properties did they own?!
If instead you didn’t mean to say “from cashing in on all their ‘goodwill’”, just that the pair had 12million saved up and were able to make housing affordable then indeed this is amazing! Ultimately the only individuals who are going to be able to do this are people who already come from wealth, or are at least people who can afford to make a loss on their rental properties.
So, somehow I’m not sure any of those are what you meant. Can you explain? Is there a news story about these people?
Yes, there was a news story about these people. It was 4 or 5 years ago. They were tying to get grants from our local government so they could continue to rent their properties so cheap.
They were playing themsleves off as a mom and pop that just wanted to help the community.
Ends up they owned something like 8 houses and 2 24 unit rental properties and were taking in profit on the rise in real estate all while getting grants for their good will.
The point is, landlords, by their nature, are not good Samaritans.
Yeah, you’re not talking about the type of people I’m talking about, you’re refering to literal scammers. Try re-reading my first message and you’ll understand what I mean. The landlord I’m talking about doesn’t get government grants, isn’t scamming tenants.
You’re right that lots of landlords see landlordship for what it is: a business that you can invest in. You’re wrong that this extends to all landlords. A majority of landlords maybe, but some landlords are actually trying to help even if it means they don’t have a place to rent for themselves or a home that isn’t mobile.
Username checks out. Also fuck landlords if this was posted unironically.
Poor poor landowners. 🖕🏿 suck it🏴🏴🏴
I mean torches have been around a lot longer than Nazis. We're not letting the Nazis take our torches.
I remember back in twenty-dickety-two when the Nazis took my circle-made-with-forefinger-and-thumb hand sign. They tried to take my milk, too, but I chased 'em of my property.
It's weird to think I miss that stupid game.
My 10 year old nephew just got me with that game. It's been so long since I even thought about it, all I could do was laugh.
Then my son got him with the old "if your hand is bigger than your face, you could have cancer". So I was satisfied I'm raising him right.
Of course it didn't stop the Kaiser from making off with our word for "twenty." Say, do you have 5 bees for a quarter?
The problem is landlords who don't give a fuck about their tenants and are fixated on squeezing the most out of them. I currently own my house, but my previous landlords were very diligent with repairs and kept rent increases to inflation. They knew we were dependable tenants who paid rent on time and were going to leave the place in decent shape.
But yes, renting can absolutely have unscrupulous landlords. Large investors especially use rental pricing software to press tenants to their absolute limit. It becomes a form of price fixing.
About that iFunny watermark...
There are a ton of landlords in here that are MALDING.
Because no one will pay their high rent? I hope so. This is the only way I think that rent will come down is if these places sit vacant for a while as it chips away at their mortgage.
What are they gonna do, live on the streets?
Thipical landlord in my country let you live in the shit with black wall full of humidity and no heater with an high price. And then they will also have the habits to Evict you if they don't want to pay taxes. And prefer to leave you in the street. So I think that good landlord exists but most of them are just people that want money without give to you the bare minimum to live.
We rent our starter home out because we want to eventually move back in when we retire. We keep the rent affordable and fix anything that breaks. Only rent increases that happen are due to HOA and property tax increases.
I'm sure others will disagree but I'm fine with this, especially since it sounds like you're being fair, not greedy, and have a reasonable exit strategy.
You aren't hoarding wealth, buying up all the starter homes, making them into unsightly mcmanasions, and then putting them up for rent like a bunch of houses in my neighborhood. Like 7 houses on my block are owned by 2 people.
My wife and I hope to be in a similar situation in a few years.
I've stopped mentioning it because there was so much negative reaction and I'm tired of explaining. I usually just blurt out whatever is on my mind but this is now among the things I treat as taboo.
What people need to realize is that there are different kinds of people. All kinds of people. There are greedy, corrupt, evil business owners, landlords, politicians, lawyers, cops, etc. But it's not the job that is the problem. It's the people.
The only thing that makes the world better is when better people go into those professions. And the only way that happens is if we appropriately respect the importance of the role.
We aren't interested in price gouging some struggling family that is having trouble making ends meet. We just want to cover maintenance and taxes. If you treat us and our home with respect we will treat you with respect.
I feel like that's how it should be.
I appreciate your story.
If it's not unwelcome, I'd offer, I guess, a bit of an explanation, as I think the lines get kinda blurred in the passion of the moment.
From a leftist perspective, the root of the issue is not personal culpability (as in liberalism's emphasis on the individual), but with the system of organization that creates the "material" conditions. Basically, it's exactly the opposite of what you said:
It's not the people that's the problem, it's the system. There is obviously a spectrum of landlords that make the situation better or worse, but the issue is with the underlying relationship of private ownership itself.
We have to stop seeing rented property as a paternalistic relationship; "this is mine because I paid for it", and more of a coming together of joint interest; "this is ours, because I may have paid for it at first, but you are actually living in it". We let authority be derived from that notion of ownership, and that's the point of concern for those of us being critical of landlords. That we place emphasis on ownership is not anyone's fault (mostly), but it is the thing we need to be able to discuss without alienating others.
I'm truly sorry for making you feel alienated, I hope my explanation is helpful and not adding to your discomfort.
You can afford to carry two mortgages? Or do you rent out your house and rent something else to live in?
No, first was paid off years ago. We mortgage the second one.
Makes sense
https://youtu.be/t5zQpN28xa4?si=x7xEYZU9KaV1zBkj
Poor landlord, I’ll be bartering up my rent this month!
Love for Landlords
Landchads*
You know it, king
I miss this subreddit. I was almost sure it was satire, but the thrill was not really knowing.
It was definitely serious
The confusing line between ironic shitposting and genuine hatred, suddenly made clear when the community uplifts casual misogyny and transphobia. In theory there's no logical connection between renting out property and bigotry, right? But in practice...
So I don't think you did anything wrong, and I'd even go so far as to say selling to anyone but the renters would be tantamount to leaving them to the wolves, but let's lay out some points
They've lived there for over a decade - by all rights except property rights, the house is theirs. At the same time, you played by the rules and built up the slight amount of generational wealth it'll take to give your children a free pass into the rapidly shrinking middle class
From what you've said, your position is not unethical or exploitative - if anything, owning a few properties and renting them at below market value does more good than harm
It's entirely unfair that you get to essentially tax them for the right to survive, but that's the only offer on the table. Ideally, you charge a rate near or below your costs over the long term and only make a profit through equity - they are already paying for the mortgage and you take care of sudden large expenses like appliances and repairs... Double dipping and also squeezing them for an ongoing profit is where it goes from potentially fair to profiteering. You get long term wealth, they get stability
Now where it gets dicey is with the pressures of the situation - management companies are getting real cozy with corporate property investors. When they inevitably ratchet up the prices or drop you to focus on bigger fish, will you pass the costs on to them or look at other options? If someone offers you something way over market value, will they have a seat at the table? When you pass it on to your children, will they end up left to the wolves then?
I think you should put thought into these questions, maybe attempt to get to know your tenants enough to feel emotionally connected to them (if they're amenable to the idea obviously).
And personally, I think you should just do right by them and hold out. Our system is untenable, we've reached the limits of easy growth and our economic systems are cannibalizing themselves - if you provide stability at fair rates until we reach the point of transition, I think at that point you can look back and say you did right by them
Tax them for the right to survive? It's called exploitation, and it's the name of the game. If you can't beat them join them.
I take real issue with this meme, it's downright offensive that the middle fingers weren't used instead.
So how do I follow a specific user's posts?
Haha, can you imagine landlords playing the victim like this xD classic. Cracked me up, thanks mate!