It shouldn’t be up to one person to support another.
We all pay taxes the government should provide.
You treay land lords like investors but you’re lumping everyone in the same basket.
Have you thought about those who moved from their house because of work so they rent the house and rent where they went?
To answer your second question, no you wouldn’t lower it, the value is still the value. You want to live in that $500 a week house so you still pay that.
Thats simple economics.
livus@kbin.social 5 months ago
That doesn't make any sense. 5 hours ago you were saying the rent had to reflect the cost of repaying borrowing on the asset.
That cost is dependent on equity and mortgage rate.
But now you're suddenly saying living in the house is inherently "worth" a sum of money that isn't tied to borrowing costs at all. Seems arbitrary.
In reality, rentals cost what the market will bear, in some markets that's well below the cost of a new mortgage so those investors have to top up for a few years. In other markets it's not.
Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 5 months ago
No im replying to old mate saying that now there’s nothing owed so it should go down.
Im saying the house is worth what the house is worth, mortgage rates go up rentals go up, mortgage rates go down the buy in cost goes downso rentals go down.
But sure pick the definition of value to argue on the internet.
The value is what its worth like i said. Misconstrue me however you want. No one will pay more then what its worth regardless
livus@kbin.social 5 months ago
I'm not trying to misconstrue you, I was just pointing out that you seemed to be arguing two opposite points of view. This is the crux of it:
@DarkDarkHouse was pointing out that in practice doesn't really ever happen, and I would agree with them.