Can we not shit all over normal people for doing normal stuff? This dude doesn’t run Blackrock, he had a single rental property.
Comment on Fucking leeches
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months agoYou still take someone elses money, just less of it.
Devanismyname@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Hundred years ago it was normal to beat women of they were out of line. Millenia ago it was normal to own slaves. It’s also “normal” for the US Healthcare to screw over people who need Healthcare. Just because something is “normal” doesn’t mean it’s somehow right. Slavery was normal but then different societies over time understood that slavery is not right and it stopped being normal. Beating women used to be normal but over time we learned that’s also not right and it stopped being normal. I don’t know about you but I don’t think ripping people off is right. However ripping people off has been normalized for capital owners (including land lords).
Nobody should be wishing for his demise (compared to Blackrock and its kin, who I do think should cease to exist), but at the same time he shouldn’t be padded on the back for not ripping off his friend as much as he could’ve. What he did shouldn’t be normal.
Devanismyname@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
He didn’t rip off his friend at all. He took just enough to pay the mortgage and save something up in case of repairs. That isn’t ripping him off. That’s doing him a favor since he charged him so little.
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 months ago
He could’ve given the rest money back to his friend after all the repairs were done. He chose to keep that money.
TiggerYumYum@lemm.ee 2 months ago
[deleted]Crikeste@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Dude, they explained perfectly well how they ended up with two houses. 2 people had houses, they got married and only needed one. They weren’t preying on people, it just happened to them.
yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
That doesn’t change the fact they aren’t normal people. Most people would love the hope of ever owning one house in America, as a dual income household, much less two single people who are rich enough to have their own homes.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Not everyone is in a situation where they can or even want to own a house. Renting is much safer in terms of sudden emergencies. Water heater blows out in a house? Fuck you, 3k to replace at least. In an apartment? That’s a landlord problem.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
So?
SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
There’s a line to draw between exploiting tenants, and compensation for providing dwelling.
You might even argue the OP creates this ambiguity based on interpretation of the wording, or poor communication.
For a productive conversation, let’s be crystal clear where that line is drawn.
lakemalcom10@lemm.ee 2 months ago
This is something I think gets left out, but understandably so when there are so many issues with landlords.
But, as a property owner, you’ve got all the liability and are responsible for repairs and ensuring that the property is livable and usable. I think there’s a level of compensation you can be earning from your time, but I think that having extremely high rent PLUS the ROI of your property increasing in value over time is double dipping. When you consider that your money is invested in property and you’re getting value that way, it IS leeching IMO if someone else is doing all the upkeep and paying a premium for that.
Looking at the OP that way shows that those people are just exploiting others. But I do think there is such a thing as ethical landlording. But I think generally we’re not there.
phindex@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If you start treating everyone who’s making a profit by owning a property and renting it out, as a piece of shit, soon you’ll have everyone avoiding renting property altogether, and simply selling, and investing their capital in something that returns a profit. You know the stock market, Bitcoin. The bottom line is a rental property is just a business like anything else
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
And you don’t see a problem with treating shelter as an investment?
greenashura@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Someone who needs a place to live in and doesn’t have the money to buy their own place. IMO, it is a fair trade as long as the landlord isn’t a cunt. The reasons to why they don’t have enough to buy their own place have nothing to do with a single landlord, some people don’t want to take roots in a single place. If you wanna go to war with someone, go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people with that I can agree. But taking money is still taking money.
greenashura@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
By that thought everyone should be doing everything for free.
queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
The incentive structure for landlords creates these conditions, it’s not some individual failing of their moral character. Individual tyrants aren’t better than corporate tyrants.
singletona@lemmy.world 2 months ago
See, when the Landlord charges reasonable rates, and actually provides services in exchange for that rent (helping update appliances to newer, having paperwork on hand for any code/inspections needed for property changes (that the landlord would ultimately benefit from,) and in general treating it as a matter of ‘I have obligations’ instead of ‘I will do nothing but I will absolutely blame the tennants for the inevetable crumbling of the property.’
I dislike the concept at base level, but that is a someone who is trying to not be a scumbag.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
The renting part isn’t even that bad, the owning part is the problem.
phindex@lemmy.world 2 months ago
What are you talking about? I buy a house for $200k in 2012, real estate market goes crazy and now my house is worth $500, selling it for market value iis… wrong?
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
Morally wrong, yes. But sadly normal…