I’m not lol. .world is basically Reddit 2.0, warts and capitalists included 😆
Comment on Rent is theft
cikano@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m surprised so many people are running defence for landlords in the comments
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You Tankies live outside of reality.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Bro I literally pasted a link to the Anarchist FAQ. Like where’s the tankies lil bro 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Bugger off liberal swine. There’s other boots to be licked, hop to it.
StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I also make up things about people.
I heard about your coma and recent miraculous recovery after being kicked in the head while fucking a sheep. My sympathy goes out to your family and I wish Ewe well.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Apparently not liking capitalism lumps you in with the tankies.
Do you even know what tankie means?
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
it’s 2026, everyone is either a tankie, anti semite, zionist or pedophile.
FunkyStuff@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
It does.
lobut@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
A lot of these people are likely tech folks. A lot of tech folks get high paying jobs. They used that pay to buy property.
A lot of these guys are landlords and are trying to convince people that the rent they charge is fair, market rate, and a favour because they’re taking on “risk” while you pay for their mortgage.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
a lot of tech folks don’t have great high paying jobs. only a small subset of them do, most of whom, were already rich before they got those jobs because they came from wealthy families.
lobut@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I’m sure your specific instance is justified and in doing so, you don’t need a random internet stranger like myself to tell you it’s okay.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
according to many other random people here, I should be murdered and killed because I own property that I live in, and they think that’s correct because of some theory they believe in.
what they really mean is ‘I wish I had the power to kill and murder people who had more than I do because I’m bitter and blame others for my failings and refuse to take responsibility for my inability to provide for myself. So I’ll just sit around and fantasize and wish violence on others in my head and be abusive on the internet.’
Sitting around and fantasizing about a prefect world in which your life will be a wonderful and happy is a lot easier… than actually making your life better though work.
ViscloReader@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
1200/month FOR A BEDROOM? 1200 Robux? 1200 VBucks? Truly I’m sorry but this is like double my rent and I have multiple rooms (really not trying to flex) I hope your place gets cheaper because that must be eating your wallet.😕
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
my mortgage for a 2bedroom apartment is 3000/mo. i make over 8000 a month so it’s not a big deal.
titanicx@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Hey I’m not really worried, my landlord is actually really cool. The place I live in is actually better than the place he lives in. My rent is well well below market rate for what I should be paying. I lived in the same place for the past 11 years and he’s only raised my rent twice for less than $200 total. Not all landlords are bad, not all of them are in it just to get rich. And not all of us would be able to buy a house regardless of paying rent or not. And I’d much rather pay rent to somebody for a nice place to live then be living in a tent by the river.
Donkter@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Damn, you’re right. It’s like how I’m not worried about wealth inequality because I lucked out and have a steady 60k a year job with a nice employer. Not all employers are bad.
Or how I don’t give a shit about abortion because I made the stone-cold choice to not be a woman.
When things aren’t affecting me they don’t matter so why are people making a big deal about it?
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Think the point being it’s nuanced, there are valid rental scenarios. So when someone sees renting shouldn’t be a thing at all, they can be understandable put off, exactly the same way you are put off by someone saying they actually have a good renting scenario.
Renting should be an option, but housing stock shouldn’t be slurped up by big firm either. There needs to be reasonable path to ownership as well as choices to rent. Depending on the area, the balance is of off one way or the other.
titanicx@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Going from a safe place to live, to a steady income, to abortion. Dude you’re an idiot. Fuck off out of this conversation. What are you, 13? Get real dumbass.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Their point went over your head because you keep your eyes at the ground
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Nope, gotta kill your landlord and then get in a shootout with the cops when they come to
hisyour house, you heard the tankies. Time to die for their values soldier!
GreenShimada@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
People aren’t defending landlords per se. People are defending the opportunities afforded by having extra space and letting someone else pay what it costs to live there.
Renting as a concept goes back to antiquity, and this is an absolutist stupid take that makes it sound like OP doesn’t understand how real life works.
Not everywhere is a large city. Not all renters live in the same place for 20 years. Not all landlords are evil shitbags or faceless corporations. Sure, plenty are. Some are just families that are lucky to not have to sell their house if they move for work that lasts only a couple years.
I end up moving every couple of years, and so I’ve had to sublet the last part of a lease I’ve had, and gladly rented places from friends, random people on Craigslist, whatever, for weeks or months at a time. So I’m a thief because I sublet an apartment for 3 months? So dumb.
Long-term renting is really more the issue as landlords do just sit and leech and renters get nothing to show for it. But the fact remains that renting a room or an apartment is something that has since literally ancient times made more sense than huge amounts of unused housing you aren’t allowed to use. So this is actually a nuanced argument against a particular class of people and corporations. Meaning that the premise is flawed enough for most people to roll their eyes and ignore it.
The whole “rent is theft!” trope doesn’t even make sense from a political messaging viewpoint. What’s your suggested alternative? That’s not apparent at all. So this ends up sounding like saying “I want hot spaghetti for dinner!” and just expecting it to happen.
Also, a rather large number of people have rented something out, rented a room out, etc. thanks to AirBnB that this messaging makes enemies out of a whole lot of normal people by using absolute terms. People like me ask “Did my friends that helped me out steal from me? Of course not.”
If you think that anyone who thinks a reasonable exchange of a service for an agreed up on fee are committing theft, then you’ve alienated 98% of people with the premise alone by calling them criminals.
Riverside@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Six paragraphs of you not understanding the issue: the problem is not the concept of renting a living space for a given time, the problem is private rent, i.e. rent for the landowner’s profit.
Every single problem with current rent could be solved by socializing housing and making it available to rent at production+maintenance prices, and people could still move freely without being tied to a house in particular, without the risk of being evicted, would be able to paint the walls and have pets…
SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Every single problem with current rent could be solved by … [theoretical solutions]
Just because things could theoretically be handled differently doesn’t make landlords “thieves” as the title claims.
I’m currently a home owner and not a landlord, but if I would become a landlord, it wouldn’t be in my power to implement any of your solutions, leaving in the middle whether they have merit or not.
All I can do is try to live in the system that exists, and in that context there’s nothing unethical about charging rent to provide someone exclusive access to a property that I worked 20 years for to pay off plus 10 years to save for the down payment. Like, I’m just a wage slave myself and there’s literally over 250k of my own money in my house … why should I have to give that away for free? Seems to me that trying to take the fruits of my labor (i.e. the house that I worked for) for free is the thievery here.
FunkyStuff@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I’m currently a home owner and not a landlord, but if I would become a landlord, it wouldn’t be in my power to implement any of your solutions, leaving in the middle whether they have merit or not.
It would be in your power to set the rent. If you set the rent at the cost of maintenance + any other recurring costs, then yes, it’s totally fair. If you set the rent such that you make a profit, you’d be earning money for doing nothing.
Like, I’m just a wage slave myself and there’s literally over 250k of my own money in my house … why should I have to give that away for free?
The property that you worked 20 years to pay off and 10 to pay the down payment for is yours, you get to keep it. You don’t have to give it away for free, you’ll either sell it for a fair price and keep that money, or your heirs will have it. All that the opponents of rentseeking and landlordism are asking for is that you not use the property to make profit between now and when you sell it or die.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
thanks for the detailed and explanatory response. love to see more of this commentary on lemmy rather than the ‘rent is evil’ crap that goes on around here.
GreenShimada@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
and all the ‘rent is evil’ idiots i know in real life… took mommy and daddy’s money and became landlords themselves and now they complain about how taxes are evil
Yeah, the turn that the Trustifarians take is always so fast. Like you can not see them for a few weeks and suddenly the locks are gone, toes confined to shoes, and they’re already clamoring for trappings as a totem of having forsaken their “sordid past.” All the whiplash from suddenly realizing that your paths in life end in the same few places, simply because your ideals force others to push you away.
It’s really not too dissimilar from Flat Earthers - outrageous ideas that at first put you in a fun and weird community, but long term are the thing that makes everyone your enemy. Though, since Flat Earthers don’t specifically reject economic methods are part of their idealism, they can fare well for longer it seems. Though I don’t have data to back that up.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
pretty much. they cosplay at being working-class/poor because it makes them feel like they aren’t rich douchebags, and once it gets old/difficult/mom and dad get mad, they ‘grow up’ and stop doing it.
I am in my 40s and I meet a lot of trustafians. they get so ANGRY when they realize I am not like them and I’m some ‘loser’ who made my own way up in life with hard work and didn’t spend my 20s partying and traveling and working low-income jobs because it was ‘authentic’. i had a low income job because it was the only one I could get until I had enough experience to get a better paying job.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
My initial reaction was the same, to call OP a baby, etc. The problem isn’t rent. It’s landlord leeches.
I have an apartment in one country but moved to a different country, where I’m renting myself. I had two choices - either rent my first apartment to someone, or sell it. If I sold it, it would go not to a family in need, but to a BnB company or an “investor” (that’s the reality in my home country).
Instead I’m renting it to a family of Ukrainian refugees. They basically pay off my mortgage so that I’m not actively losing money on the whole thing.
They also pay rent to the housing association. This money goes to things like trash removal, hot/cold water, taking care of the green areas in the neighbourhood, cleaning the staircases, etc., etc.
Is this so bad and horrible?
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Is this so bad and horrible?
Yes.
Instead I’m renting it to a family of Ukrainian refugees.
You are actively exploiting refugees.
You are no different than the BnB or the investors. You are on the supply side of the problem. Rent is, indeed, the problem.
You could offer to sell your property to those tenants. You could act as a private lender, allowing them to pay you instead of a commercial bank. You could offer them a “land contract”, which is a rent-to-own arrangement. If they choose to leave your property in the next three years, it was no different than a rental. If they choose to stay beyond three years, it automatically converts to a private mortgage, and they begin earning equity.
They basically pay off my mortgage so that I’m not actively losing money on the whole thing.
Leaving it vacant and just paying the mortgage yourself, you are gaining equity in exchange for your money. You are not losing anything. Renting, you are gaining that equity without paying for it.
The only way renting isn’t a problem is if the rent is far less than a mortgage payment on the same property.
RaccoonBall@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
indeed. i frequently see people confusing cash flow and equity in these conversations. landlords claim if they are cash flow negative they’re ‘losing’ money, completely ignoring the equity they’re gaining.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
What do you call the thing where you can’t afford to support your family abroad because you need to pay the mortgage?
jabberwock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
What about cases where the move is only temporary? Should people sell every time and hope there is a place to live when they return?
In the private lender case, do you see that as different from someone who starts their own company and manages the property themselves while the renter pays them directly?
The earning equity piece isn’t necessarily incorrect, what the owner is losing is potentially the opportunity to move at all. This assumes they can afford a mortgage + whatever it costs to live somewhere else.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
What about cases where the move is only temporary?
In their initial phase, land contracts are, effectively, a rental agreement, including for short-term. (With one difference: the payment is fixed for the life of the agreement; it doesn’t increase year over year) When “temporary” turns into “long term”, (as it so often does) a land contract already has you covered, by locking rent through the initial phase, then gaining you equity through the final phase.
In the private lender case, do you see that as different from someone who starts their own company and manages the property themselves while the renter pays them directly?
Vastly. One includes conveyance of equity; the other does not.
The landlord/property manager retains 100% equity throughout the life of the rental agreement. The private lender retains only the value of the loan. With a land contract, the seller/lender retains 100% of the equity for a couple years, before the agreement automatically converts to a private mortgage.
The earning equity piece isn’t necessarily incorrect, what the owner is losing is potentially the opportunity to move at all.
Completely false. Absolute worse case scenario, they abandon their equity and return title to the lender/seller. Terminating the loan/purchase agreement in this absolute worse case scenario is functionally identical to renting. At its best, renting gives you this outcome, and creates new, worst-case possibilities: where the landlord absconds with security deposits and charges additional fees.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I also wondered about doing that when I ever get rich. Like buy houses in a coveted neighborhood, rent it out to low and middle income people at social housing rates and then convert the lease to a mortgage after a few years and sell the home below market value to the tenants. But how do you prevent them from selling it to an investor above market rates for profit within a few years. Like sure they have equity now but the home is also lost to an investor who will rent it out at a premium to an expat or tourist.
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I actually know a landlord who owns a farm and rents it out, and does so precisely for the reasons you state. They don’t want the land to go to some soulless big company
They charge a pittance in rent, enough to cover insurance and taxes. The farmer would pay about the same if they owned the property.
They got contacted by a company wanting to build a datacenter, and got to say “hell no”.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Many options available. At the “ownership” level, you can establish deed restrictions and covenants requiring owner-occupancy. At the local level, you can establish zoning requirements. At the tax assessment level, you can enact punitively-high tax rates that are exempted for owner-occupants. If anyone tries renting these properties, they will face the full tax rate; these properties can only be feasibly owned by people who will occupy them.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
You are actively exploiting refugees
Good on you for not knowing shit but still making assumptions.
Right, because if not for the horrible me, they’d be able to rent for significantly more in the area.
Like, they’re not “we have nothing but the clothes on our backs” refugees, they’re a family that got a kid coming and needed something relatively good-standard, and pay for it thanks to the husband’s IT job.
You are on the supply side of the problem. Rent is, indeed, the problem.
“I’m 12 and this is deep”.
You could offer to sell your property to those tenants
Why would they buy a property in my country? They want to go back to their own country. WTF are you talking about?
You could offer them a “land contract”, which is a rent-to-own arrangement
Again, they don’t want to own an apartment in a foreign country.
[all the mortgage stuff]
Sure. I could bear the costs for the high and mighty idea.
Sadly, I can’t afford that.
The only options for me would be to:
- Sell the apartment to someone who would start charging twice than what I am.
- Completely upend my life and go back to my home country to live in that apartment, I guess.
What would you have done in my shoes?
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ll give you another scenario.
A house gets inherited. The person receiving the house has a child who wants to live there, but the child is about 5 years away from moving out. So they want to rent the house out rather than trying to leave it unoccupied. The tenant knows up front it is a limited time arrangement.
Note this is an unusual circumstance, but there are folks who find themselves in need of temporary housing and people who have an upcoming need, but not current need for a property.
In his case, if he had said he was renting for an overseas assignment but was going to move back, then I would have thought it was a slam dunk. I suppose if the refugees had explicitly stated they wanted to move back home in a couple of years, similar situation.
Leaving it vacant
That is even less helpful than renting it out.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Let’s start from the beginning: a mortgage is a neutral agreement. Effectively, the lender conveys equity to the borrower over time. Equity is the right to permanent, unlimited use of the property.
A rental agreement conveys no equity. What the tenant gains is a short-term, limited use of the property. “Temporary” is considerably less valuable than “permanent”, so a fair value for “rent” is considerably less than a fair value for a mortgage.
Rent prices don’t reflect this. Even after including a maintenance expense, (that the owner would have to pay regardless of who is living in the property), fair rent for that temporary privilege is still far less than the mortgage for the permanent right.
And yet, the market has been manipulated to the point that rent prices are well above mortgages. In a fair market, people seeking housing would generally choose the better option. If a mortgage is cheaper than rent, they would choose a mortgage. The laws of supply and demand would react to this choice by increasing the price of a mortgage, and decreasing the price of rent.
Since this isn’t happening, we know that the market is being manipulated, and tenants are being exploited. “Fair rent” does not exist: tenants are paying far more than the cost of a mortgage, yet they are not receiving the value of a mortgage.
That is even less helpful than renting it out.
You would have a point if “fair rent” existed, but it does not. In the absence of “fair rent”, we are left with the perverse position that a vacant home does, indeed, cause less harm than a rented home.
A house gets inherited.
The full context of that scenario includes the manipulated market. The scenario you present is only reasonable in a fair market.
In his case, if he had said he was renting for an overseas assignment but was going to move back
Same thing: the scenario for renting is only reasonable in a fair market, but the underlying context of your scenario is the manipulated market where the value of a temporary privilege is modeled greater than the value of a permanent right.
Riverside@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
I’m renting it to a family of Ukrainian refugees. They basically pay off my mortgage
Holy fuck, my sides. How can you be this BLIND to reality?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
In 30 years time, you’ll own a house and those refugees will own what exactly?
Hopefully a home in Ukraine, where they want to go back to?
Like, what do you expect them to do? Run away from their home and BUY a house in a foreign country? What exactly was your point?
You know what I did? I HOUSED a Ukrainian refugee in MY OWN DAMN HOME for NO COST, because I’m not a piece of shit
Good for you! I did the same. 9 people in total lived in my apartment made for 3-4. I slept on 90cm cot with my wife, so that they could use the bedroom bed to sleep with their little children.
What was your point again?
Riverside@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
And how exactly will they purchase a home in Ukraine if they’re spending their income to pay your mortgage?
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
“But if I wasn’t a parasite someone else would be so that makes me good”
They basically pay off my mortgage
How generous of you!
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
if I sold it, it would go not to a family in need, but to a BnB company or an “investor”
You know you can choose who to sell it to, you can reject offers from investors. The family in need may not get you the highest price but reducing the price makes housing more affordable, at the expense of your bottom line though.
Sure the family could’ve tricked you and sold it right back to an investor but with closing costs, fees etc. it would make it hard to make a profit by doing that.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
You know you can choose who to sell it to, you can reject offers from investors
Not how it works in my home country. There were even cases of people selling to families, and then those families immediately selling to investment firms, because they were just plants.
That’s one issue. The second issue is that most actual families can’t afford apartments at all. Sure, I could sell way below market value, but I’m not well off enough to do it for the cause, I wouldn’t be able to afford the leftover mortgage.
jabberwock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
The economists’ answer is that renting exists for the people in this situation. You may be moving to another country for a year or two. Are you going to buy a new house every time you move? Renting gives flexibility in that regard.
Likewise for refugees, putting them up in a rental is a more efficient solution than building new housing for each family.
That said, the model provides an inherently exploitative market and needs some kind of overlay to function efficiently, which in most US cities it doesn’t at all.
87Six@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
While you are undoubtedly better than what I’m about to say… I still wouldn’t say you’re a good guy in this instance.
But, the real massive issue I see here is that big companies and rich douchebags use owning land and housing solely for profit. THAT should be illegal.
Renting out property between individuals should pe perfectly legal though, as long as some now-inexistent laws are followed, like not being able to hoard housing for rent money.
Renting solely for profit should be illegal.
Renting just to be able to keep a property that you may need in the future should be legal.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Renting out property between individuals should pe perfectly legal though, as long as some now-inexistent laws are followed, like not being able to hoard housing for rent money.
Vampires are legal they just can’t bottle it
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
I still wouldn’t say you’re a good guy in this instance.
I have two options: either sell (to an investor/hoarder) or rent. In the latter case, I can’t afford being both the breadwinner for my family and the mortgage for the prior apartment.
What would you suggest I should do in this situation to “be the good guy”?
But, the real massive issue I see here is that big companies and rich douchebags use owning land and housing solely for profit. THAT should be illegal (…)
100% agree with this and the rest.
87Six@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Well, selling to someone who needs it would be best in my book but yea… You staying the owner is a billion times better than some company or land developer buying it… You’re right, no hard feelings
jimmy90@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
we don’t have this fundamentalist religious idea that rent is usury
more conformation of the religious nature of the commies
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
The parasite
The
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Who’s the worthless parasite? The person who feels they shouldn’t have to work and pay for their shelter?
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Yes that’s absolutely correct. You are a parasite because you expect other people to work so you can have shelter for free. That is a literal description of the financial relationship.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
how do you know you aren’t the parasite?
hobovision@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Look I’ll be honest, as a renter, I’ve not heard a realistic alternative that I like better. Do I think landlords should be better regulated? For sure. Do I think housing should be a right, and free, high quality housing should be available everywhere to anyone who wants it? Yes, please!
I like the option to rent a place that’s even better than what the baseline option would be. I like that I can move around as I need to. I like that I can get a bigger, better, or just different, place when I have the funds. I like that I never have to deal with broken appliances or roof repairs and get to pick the type of place I want to live in.
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Easy - do it 1970s style. You own a home but pay less than half of what you do now. The extra savings go toward home maintenance and lifestyle improvement.
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It really depends on how often he is really using that “I want to move” option.
Various fees associated with the purchase of a houae will blow away likely equity gains over a year or two. Over a short time period housing can actually go down, and you sell for less than you paid. Selling the house is a potential exposure that may leave you stuck for months with it, and if you needed to immediately move, you have to own two properties and the associated taxes, insurance, and likely loan payment. If you had to borrow and moved within a year. The interest owed probably outpaced your theoretical equity gains.
So if you are only staying in one place for say 4 years or less, renting may actually make sense. If you are planning longer than that, purchasing almost always makes more sense.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The time cost, too. Huge hassle to buy, move, sell. Inspections, agents, viewings… big pressure end to end.
I remember the San Francisco Bay Area threw this old truism off when purchasing became so expensive, it was just about a wash whether you wanted to rent or buy.
These tiny little homes starting at a million bucks or something…
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
buying doesn’t make sense unless you live in a place for 5-10 years.
SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
You make a really good point, thank you.
Honest question because I just don’t know - would those same financial and temporal costs (mentioned in another comment) still be as high in a functional, fair system?
pipi1234@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Preach!
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
do you want all the negative externalizes of 1970s too? like leaded gasoline? a much more racist and sexist and hateful society?
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What does that have to do with affordable housing?
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Why would you prefer a landlord to just you save that money yourself? Like at best its probably a third of your income if youre working class? At worst its probably 60% or more. If you’re on any kind of social assistance rent is probably almost all of your income. Hurray! No food for you mister, the poor landlord needs that pittance you receive.
You would have effectively 133%-180% of the income you do now. For me that’s an increase of over a thousand dollars a month. I could afford all the appliances and roof repairs in the world with that kind of money. I would still walk away with so much extra money its a joke. You have been entirely misled about how much rent takes out of your income. They will steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from you over your life time, maybe even more depending on what you pay.
Renting exists because renters cannot advocate for themselves. It exists because people who become land owners escape the renting class and pretty much immediately turn their backs on it. No longer their problem. Because propaganda has taught them to not have solidarity with their fellow workers. Homelessness is an entirely preventable issue and is inseparable from the problem of landlords.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
This comment illustrates very clearly that you are not a renter 😊 we do not have a choice! I cant just decide whether or not to own my own shelter. I am literally not given the choice. That is not how the system is designed. If youre disabled, youre screwed. If you cant afford a higher education, youre screwed. If you have debts, mental health issues, if youre a minority, youre absolutely screwed. You will rent for the rest of your life and it will almost entirely be spent paycheck to paycheck, certainly nowhere even close to daydreaming about owning any kind of home.
All the benefits youre ascribing to renting count for just owning the apartment or condo you live in. Bam. Done. Couldn’t give less of a fuck about grass. I can barely afford food! Think about how insane it is for you to complain about having to cut the grass when renters have to pick between fucking eating and having a place to sleep. Youre not a leftist, youre a bog standard liberal.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
You know what’s worse than “becoming a slave to [your] house”? Having to work as to not become homeless.
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You can pay people for maintenance and upkeep. Like everything what you have to be careful of scammy companies, but you also have to be wary of scammy landlords.
I think if you are staying for a long time in one residence, you really are better off owning it, and buying services for it. Hell you can hire the exact same maintenance service that a landlord uses, that they pay for out of your rent.
If you have temporary need though, renting is certainly the best option.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
You are describing either a “land contract” or a “condominium”. With either, you gain equity in the property.
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Paying half if not more of your monthly salary for a shitty place to live is horse shit
return2ozma@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Vienna social housing model is what we need. Nearly 60% lives in public housing there.
youtu.be/MxuACFQBwxs
Taldan@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The renter system is fine in my opinion
It’s the result of the power imbalance that creates the problems. Specifically that property owners hold all the power and have structured society in such a way that housing is artificially scarce and more difficult to build than it should be, which has led to inflated prices
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
that’s what everyone wants.
that’s also why housing is so expensive. people are willing to pay a lot of money to live in high quality housing.