Same people will be looking for a govt bailout when the real estate market collapses.
Fucking leeches
Submitted 1 year ago by Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/3ec36227-4372-4d2d-8466-73091720d54a.webp
Comments
TheDeadlySquid@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Dasus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Here’s a tip poor people; just have money!
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
All i had to do was just buy 4 houses? Damn. I’m rich!
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Mooching off of others to fund your life style and giving nothing back in return
opens envelope
What’s something considered classy if you’re rich, but trashy if you’re poor?
JesterAUDHD@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I remember looking up just the air b&b’s in the Portland metro and there were over 4,000……
A large majority of the rest were being rented.
The wealthy are buying it all with no regulation.
There should be one home per family in the suburbs. One vacation place and your house. No one needs 10 properties, get rich another way you greedy terrible fucks.
stopdropandprole@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Rich people outbid regular folks for real resources, taking away any chance at intergenerational wealth building. thep only (legal) answer at the moment is taxation of the rich.
Gary Stevenson has some worthwhile insights on what we can do and how to convince working class people that the rich must be stopped or else your kids and grandkids will all be homeless renters.
Dasus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Housing prices are pretty high in cities. But you can buy your own piece of land in a more rural setting and build a small cottage yourself, maybe a 2 bdrm, 1 bath home. I believe this is possible for less than $100k at the right location. Start with a used cheap RV or if you have to.
Cheems@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’re fucking high if you think you can build even a small house for less than 100k
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Trump deported all of the construction workers
mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t support those deportations. But do why not do it yourself?
taanegl@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Because the only way to escape an exploitative system is to become an exploiter…
Karjalan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I realise they don’t care, and are disingenuous about their suggestions… But these people think the solution for people not being able to afford shit is “get a, better job” or in this case specifically, “become landlord”…
How do you expect society to function if every, single, person, is a landlord? Who’s building the houses, cleaning after tenants stay, growing, harvesting, preparing food… Electricity?
Like, it just blows my mind that people espouse dumb shit like this and get a pass from most people
Tattorack@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Someone that used to hang out on the Discord server I’m part of justified it because “the world is divided between winners and losers. For there to be winners there have to be losers.”
He was a real privileged asshole who worked in accounting for the US military. Loved how his paycheck was bigger than most soldiers, even some officers. Bitched for nearly a whole month about how the Obama administration was giving “free handouts” when the US pulled out of Afghanistan and gave all the veterans a care package.
I argued with him a lot. Nobody liked him. This is the kind of person the people from OP’s meme are.
ShitposterSupreme@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Well this is gross. Its extremely had to buy ONE property, to exist in, if you dont have Bank of Mom and Dad to rely on.
alxmg@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables track #4
DistressedDad@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I know people like this. They truly believe like they are doing society a favor by buying up houses and renting them out. The disconnect from reality is wild.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 year ago
It’s a little better than corporate real estate vultures though. If you think about it, these small landlords and renters are more alike than the people at Blackrock buying up all this shit.
voldage@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Just because they aren’t faceless doesn’t mean they aren’t as bad. In case of corporations, at the very least, anyone up to CEO could claim they were doing what their boss/investors told them/expected them to do, they have the mirage of fabricated innocence. The guilt is also spread more thinly, with many, often low paid employees contributing a small portion towards the greater legal crime.
Small landlords have none of those delusions available, though from my personal, anecdotal experience, higher management in large corporations also often personally own real estate and rent it. I’m working in IT, but I have no reason to think it would be in any different elsewhere. I was led to understand it was “normal” and “smart”. So I’d say it’s the same kind of people that make decisions on top of the real estate corporations, and the petite landlords. And yeah, I’m excluding from that, obviously, renting a flat you’ve gotten as inheritance from your grandma or something, though I have more fundamental issues with the inheritance thing itself.
spoopy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nah, corporate landlords at least tend to have minimum standards and contractors on call.
These type of small time landlords are the ones that tell you that a working refrigerator is a luxury, and water damage due to a cracked pipe in the wall is the tenant’s responsibility.
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 year ago
How does the second tenant pay their mortgage? One apartment’s rent should not be enough to cover the mortgage of four (or five - including the one they live in). My guess is that they only payed all the mortgages for these four properties and this is about the mortgage of the apartment they live in.
The cheat code to a stress-free life is to own lots of real estate to being with.
yemmly@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Because they’re liars trying to show off?
OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
I mean… Maybe they don’t have a large mortgage? Maybe they put a large sum down and got a good interest rate?
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Having lots of wealth to being with is always a good idea.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Of course they mean their own personal mortgage. The mortgage of the property they rent out is already covered by the tenant.
Soup@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Oh, some rents are getting crazy and the buildings were purchased 10-20 years ago so the mortgage isn’t that high. It’s all a scam.
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 year ago
How is this legal.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The laws are written by rich exploitative fucks
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 year ago
How is it legal that people buy property and rent to those who want to rent instead of buy? My question to you is why wouldn’t it be legal?
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Pretty much been covered by others already.
Bagels@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
In principle it’s fine and it fulfills a market need… not everyone wants to buy. But in practice, under regulation in a market where many people want to buy but can’t, it exacerbates wealth inequality by reducing the available housing and driving up home costs. This in turn drives up rental costs. It’s a nasty cycle.
rocket_dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
those who want to rent instead of buy?
Who actually wants to spend 1/3 of their paycheck on something every month and not own it?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
In a word, corruption.
In two words, legal corruption.
In three words, blatant legal corruption.
In four words, United States political system.
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s the same here in the UK, unfortunately. Is that neoliberalism? Or just a rehashed kind of feudalism? I don’t know, I’m mostly a gardener.
whoisearth@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Meh.
-
This isn’t an America problem. People do this in every country
-
This is capitalism not corruption
For everyone here’s a fun thought experience. You have a room with 100 people. In that room is 100$. 1 person (Elon Musk let’s say) holds 95$. 4 people (let’s say various CEO class people) hold $1 each. The remaining 95 people share the remaining 1$.
And yet here we are all fighting because some of our deluded asses think we are going to be one of those 5 people one day.
-
GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ITT: People that have no understanding of nuance, or parasitism versus symbiosis. Some people actually find ownership to be bothersome, some people prefer leasing cars instead of buying, some people have good landlords, some other have shitty landlords. But let the hyperbolic nonsense fly and let’s nuke everyone and everything!
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
“some homeless people like living on the streets!”
GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah I put that part about nuance for a reason.
commander@lemmings.world 1 year ago
Most people renting are doing so because they believe the houses they can afford “aren’t good enough for them.”
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
The houses most people can afford would just get destroyed by police during encampment sweeps.
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
In the case of the screenshot, absolutely.
I have a question though, and I am curious about the perception here so please be honest as to what you think about my situation.
In my case, I own a condo. I worked my ass off and my parents were fortunate enough in their lives to give me a gift of $20,000 dollars in my local currency to try to buy a home. I am floored. I never thought I would afford the opportunity to potentially own a home of any kind.
I loose my job because the business I worked for fucked up and lost some clients. Because of the lack of cash flow, I and many others are laid off.
I hold on for as long as I can but eventually the cost of mortgage, insurance, groceries add up. I go on unemployment insurance. The economy is fucked because of covid, no one hires me for a year and 6 months.
My unemployment insurance runs out after having submitted 4 resumes daily this entire time, maintaining a log of them for the government EI program.
When I only have a couple thousand dollars left in my bank account, if I want to keep the ownership of my home, I have to move in with my parents again and rent my condo out to keep it at all. My dream of being able to just exist in a home I own is at stake.
For rent I charge the exact amount that I have to charge to cover mortgage and insurance, legally required, to maintain my the ownership of my home and nothing more, no profits. I have lived under abusive land lords before and the way they operate disgusts me. I will never be that, I would die before I let myself become that.
A Ukrainian family, Husband and Wife with their 3 year old Daughter were the first to apply. I discuss the property and their lives with them and they are some of the strongest, most responsible, wonderful people I have met in my life who came to my country to escape their the situation in theirs. I accept them as my tenants immediately because I recognize how absurdly lucky I am to have these people living in my home, given how smart, how responsible, how kind they are. I promise to myself that at the first opportunity, I will show them the same kindness.
I finally find a job, even though it doesn’t pay much, and begin reducing the cost of their rent because I can finally afford it. I begin paying rent to my parents because they are owed that. My bank account begins saving about $100 a month in case I have an emergency I need to cover.
The interest rates lower and condos begin to become cheaper. I intend to lower the cost of the rent based on this when my tenants renew the lease.
This is the last 5 years of my life.
Am I a leech?
wisely@feddit.org 1 year ago
As someone without parents I immediately thought what kind of job pays enough to pay all your bills and rent. Then realized you probably aren’t paying the starting rate of thousands of dollars each month to parents?
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
Correct, it is the only reason I am not homeless.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is what people mean when they say there is no ethical consumption in capitalism. Yes, you are a leech, but only because the system has forced you into it. In a different system, neither you nor the Ukrainian family would have housing insecurity.
I don’t say this to judge you, btw, I think we should applaud every landlord who keeps rent low. Just pointing out that it’s impossible to both “keep your hands clean” and “get ahead” in capitalism.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t agree. It’s not always optimal to own the place you live. There have been periods in my life where I was happy to pay a fair price to live in an apartment without having responsibility for repairing stuff or upgrading the kitchen. But most importantly, I didn’t want to be tied down, and having a place I could leave, no strings attached, on three months notice, was perfect.
No matter how you twist it, the capital investment needed to build/buy a home will be orders of magnitude larger than what is needed for monthly maintenance. Also, the fact that a lot of value is tied to the building is not something everyone wants.
Of course, there are landlords who are essentially scalpers. But saying that any landlord is per definition a “leech” is just going way too far.
OP here was able to provide a home for someone on short notice, and with zero investment costs on their part. For someone who doesn’t know how long they will be living in the area, and with an uncertain immediate future, having the option of “zero investment cost + zero responsibility” can be valuable. As such, OP is providing a valuable service.
AJ1@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
my parents were fortunate enough in their lives to give me a gift of $20,000 dollars
just FYI, when you use a dollar sign you don’t also have to type out the word “dollars”
hierophant_nihilant@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Absolutely not. Do what you got to do to move back to your condo.
Acters@lemmy.world 1 year ago
there is one separating detail that is not shared between most of us. It really depends on how long that tenant lives there. if they are living there for a long period of time and like the place, then yes you are a leech, but a good one since they enjoy living there enough to stay. On the other hand, if you switch tenants often because of high rent costs or bad housing(maintenance included), then you are just simply a leech and not a good one. If they leave for other reasons outside of your control, then you are not a leech and provided good housing for someone.
That is only for leeching aspects. I bet there are more complex thinking involved but this is what I think who a financial/real state leech is.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Obviously that depends on how you define “leach” and this community is going to give you a fairly skewed perspective.
thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You are a person in a bad position, nothing more nothing less. If you are providing a competitive rate for rent you are benefiting these people, especially since you were up front with them. Your plans were not to be a landlord but this is where you have been forced. Hopefully you are able to return to your home soon
deathbird@mander.xyz 1 year ago
On the one hand you’re getting someone else to make full payments on your mortgage. On the other hand, it’s your sole property and the only way you could maintain ownership of it. You weren’t profiting over cost, or collecting money from the renters that would go to maintenance (the only actual service/labor that landlords perform). Your choices were practical, not profitable. At least less profitable than you might think. Profitable to the minimum that the system required for you to keep your one home. Short of a revolution where all mortgages are zeroed out, it sounds like you did the best you could.
Krzd@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Am I a leech?
Technically, I guess so, you’re profiting just by owning the property. And having tenants exactly balancing out the costs of owning property.
Morally? Fuck no. What you’re doing you are doing to survive, not to live excessively.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think a lot of people here have it too black/white.
Earning money by owning property doesn’t automatically make someone a leech. Sometimes, people want the option to live somewhere without needing to take on the responsibility/risk of tying down assets in a house. Often, it’s because you’re new in town and haven’t decided where to settle, or because you’re in a situation where you’re moving a lot, and don’t want to have to deal with buying/selling something worth a lot of money every time you move.
In these kinds of situations, you can see renting as a situation where you’re paying someone for taking on the risk, responsibility, and maintenance costs of owning the infrastructure. At a proper price, this can be an absolutely fair deal, that doesn’t involve anyone being exploited.
Note that I’m not defending the scalping assholes that exploit people who can’t afford to get into the housing market here. I’m simply pointing out that, even for someone who can afford to buy, there are legitimate reasons to rent, and renting out property at a fair price can absolutely be a decent practice that leaves everyone happy.
Echofox@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I don’t believe binary logic is very useful. So I’m not going to answer “am I a leech” because I don’t think it has a yes or no answer.
You have an asset that you can’t afford, and to afford it you rent it out. That is absolutely valid in a capitalist society, and many people do it. This allows you to hold the asset instead of selling it. That means there’s one fewer property on the market, which means and if somebody wants that home they have to rent it from you, where your equity increases and they get a place to live. Again, in a capitalist society this is absolutely valid. And it’s not like you aren’t taking risk, you could get a bad tenant and they could damage the unit, in turn decreasing your equity. One common “protest” I’ve seen among renters is to poor grease down the sink, damaging the plumbing over the long time, creating a huge long term cost for the owner. Or flushing cat litter down the toilet, causing a blockage, and similar results. You are accepting risk, and capitalist society says if you accept risk you deserve reward. But from a human-focused perspective you get a very different conclusion.
An issue many people have with this is that the renter is gaining no equity and you are while you aren’t contributing production to society. In the world we live this is valid. Another example of this would be dividend stocks, if you hold KO (Coke) you get quarterly dividends, and really you’re not actually contributing anything. These are capital gains.
My biggest issue with capital gains is that they’re usually taxed lower than labor gains. I think that should be reversed. If capital gains were heavily taxed and that tax was used to better the community then I think it would have more justification. But I digress,
If you sold that property it would probably just go to an investor, but in a world where people couldn’t own investment properties it would go to a person or family who would live it in, allowing them to build equity themselves. The number of properties being held and rented out has an impact on the homes available to people buying, or rather being forced to rent.
But ultimately I believe that renting and charging rent is bad for society as a whole. But I also don’t think you selling your property would have any meaningful impact. I think it needs to be a systematic change to be meaningful.
So I’d say you do you, but you are taking advantage of the system and renters. But that’s the reality of the world we live in. Doesn’t mean it’s OK, but does mean you can do it. Also means I won’t have sympathy for you if somebody damages your property. But maybe that’s because I’m a bad person, I don’t know.
I firmly believe homes are for living in, not generating income - even if that income is only to maintain your ownership on your asset. But if you follow that perspective your life will be a bit worse.
Like I said, I don’t take the binary perspective.
jecxjo@midwest.social 1 year ago
My biggest issue with capital gains is that they’re usually taxed lower than labour gains. I think that should be reversed. If capital gains were heavily taxed and that tax was used to better the community then I think it would have more justification.
This is exactly the issue. It is what divides the upper from the lower classes. When you are the asset any issues in your life are compounded and there is no liquidation option like you have when its all assets. The safety nets are so drastically different between with what level of “becoming whole again” that its ridiculous we have gotten this far with capital gains not being seen as a real privilege. But that is why we are seeing a major generational gap between the realization of how bad things have gotten.
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
An issue many people have with this is that the renter is gaining no equity and you are while you aren’t contributing production to society.
This is true and I understand.
There is however a government program in my country where people newly immigrated to the country who are renting can rapidly increase credit based on input from their landlord.
While my tenant cannot gain equity as a result of this situation, I notified them of this program and they signed up, allowing me to increase their credit in this way.
I am fully aware this is not a great trade-off regardless, but I wanted to do what I can because I recognize that any rental deal sucks. When I rented from a shit landlord, every day of my life felt like hell because my money went into a black hole from which there was little benefit.
I agree with you as well that selling to an investment firm/for-profit landlord would be worse, and that there has to be some systematic change. A world where one cannot profit from property is one I would want to live in, because if were the case, I wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
This is tough, because even though you are charging your tenants the exact amount of your minimum mortgage payment, you are still earning equity in an appreciating asset-- eventually you will be able to turn their rent payments into profits. Now, in my opinion, your level of exploitation is very low, and barely worth considering at all.
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
I would like to move back into my home when it is affordable, but these people are so wonderful that at whatever juncture I owned the property outright and was not paying mortgage, I would lower the cost of their rent to just the insurance cost if that happened, and allow them as much time as they required to find something that works for them before doing so. I know they would understand. I have been up-front about my situation with them from the very beginning because I am not a liar. I am incredibly fortunate to be afforded the potential ability to do such a thing, because my parents are not too concerned with the living situation. It would also bring me immense joy to only charge them $700 or $800 as rent if the mortgage were paid off, just to cover the insurance costs.
Like I said, I never want to exploit anyone. I just want to try to survive like anyone else, to keep what I have. If there are opportunities along the way to help other people, I would much rather that, and if is costs me an absolute zero, or occasionally a little into the negative at this point, that is fine by me. I would love to have these people live in my condo forever for the actual lowest possible cost, or to have their own fully owned home, but if I go bankrupt, the fucking bank or insurer will just take the condo away from both of us.
Thank you for your opinion.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t understand. What exactly is the complaint here? That they’re over charging or charging at all?
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
And don’t give me this shit about how they’re evil for over charging. The middle class holds all the power all we’re lacking is organization and education.
commander@lemmings.world 1 year ago
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
Wrong. Nobody should have extra houses to “rent out” while hardworking citizens can’t afford a single house of their own.
The reason why we don’t have enough is because they have too much.
Stop being a useful idiot. It’s falling out of fashion.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 year ago
All of you are missing the point. The middle class holds all the power.
It’s out fault the world is the way it is. We let corporations dictate how much things should cost instead of not paying them what they want.
Cars are expensive because people go to the dealer and say “I’ll take what you got for whatever you want me to pay” instead of “I’ll give you 10k for that f150 take it or leave it.”
Instead people are going out of there way to secure a fucking 100k Tesla with whatever funding they got.
Same with rent. We made the market like this because those snazzy new mixed use developments are so chic. Let me give my left testical to bid on one of those condos as long as I get to tell people I live at the Avalon/halcyon/bridgeford or whatever.
We need to dictate how much we’re going to pay for shit not the other way around. Blaming people that take advantage of the system we allow to exist is the same as barking at the moon.
comfy@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
The complaint is that they’re a leech on society, and proud of it.
It doesn’t matter if a practice is ancient and common. So is organized crime. Being old and normalized doesn’t imply it has value.
There is absolutely huge moral and ethical, and pragmatic, issues with hoarding essential resources, such as housing. Homelessness is a growing problem, and these people are gladly treating it as a money-making scheme. Society would be better if they had productive jobs instead. As a collective, landlords are responsible for systematic preventable homelessness and death. Most moral frameworks consider that very bad!
The middle class? As far as I’m concerned, the two important classes are the worker class and the owner class, and the leeches can’t survive without the host. If there are people tricked into thinking they’re a middle class above us, they’d better figure out that they’re a thousand times closer to us than to them, hopefully before our collective desperation turns to violence.
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
You’re charging someone for you doing nothing so they can have a basic need to survive. It’s very immoral
If you’re gonna try to defend an immoral act with
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Then Ill assume you’re pro-slavery and move on
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’re charging someone for you doing nothing
I see you have never managed a rental before. Go talk to someone who manages a rental, ask them specifically what they do. What happens when the tenant leaves? What happens when the tenant doesn’t pay? What happens when things break? What happens when there is a squatter? What happens when there is a bogus complaint to the local government?
The answer to those questions is most certainly not ‘nothing’.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Charging for housing isn’t immoral just because it’s a necessity. By that logic, grocery stores are immoral for charging for food, and doctors are immoral for charging for healthcare. Property ownership and rental markets exist because providing and maintaining housing costs money. If your argument is that the system should be reformed, fine, let’s talk solutions. But calling all landlords inherently immoral is just lazy thinking.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What’s weird to me is that the first one pays for their vacations and the second one pays their mortgage. If I had rental properties I would do it the other way around.
Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Landlords don’t contribute to society
phindex@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Of course they do. Imagine that all of the landlords decide to start removing rental properties from the market if their tenants move out. What do you think that does to housing availability over the next 10 years?
piyuv@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Once the homeless population exceed police force, who’ll protect the landlords? Read some history before thinking about hyperboles.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Buy a home, don’t contribute to landlord’s profits.
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah, and buy it all cash so you don’t contribute to the banks profits. About as feasible for most, honestly.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 year ago
Quite the opposite in fact.
Chivera@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah they contribute a lot of pain and suffering
Nastybutler@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ITT: people who want free housing without understanding the costs of owning a house
hedhoncho@lemm.ee 1 year ago
As a former property manager my motto was rent until you can own. I hate the 4 percent rent increase in la. Even if there’s more income it’s impossible for young people to save and I hate it.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
I had to rant in a couple of comments because I drives me crazy when people defend leeching.
On a more constructive note: Housing cooperatives. I think they should be more widespread. Some people come together to build a house and then live in it for the cost it takes to actually support it. No crazy big apartments with a reasonable amount of people (roughly one bedroom per person), shared luxury such as gardens, in house shops, hell even a pool if you want. There is no leeching, just collective ownership.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Rent-seeking is an evergreen relevant Wikipedia article
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
They act like everyone could do this.
If everyone did this, the system would fail, because the profit here is scooped off the top with no actual production or service.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
In this specific example the 4 rental homes likely don’t even pay for themselves. Add up the mortgage, insurance, maintenance averages, and property taxes then divide by units and subtract the average rent (include vacancies in the average): that’s how much you make per tenant.
At most I could see a profitable location with 4 units covering groceries and vehicles, but not vacations. You would need more like 8 or 9 units for that.
This meme seems to specifically target mom & pop level operations. If the Tenants are really such victims they should just get together buy the property out.
Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Question - is it unethical to be a landlord IF your only rental properties are garages in an area with plentiful and free street parking, and the land couldn’t be used for housing if the garages were torn down?
twinnie@feddit.uk 1 year ago
I don’t think just because people are landlords that makes them bastards though. We’re letting a house out and I think we treat our tenants well. We don’t rip them off, we fix stuff when it’s broken, and since we have a fixed rate mortgage our costs haven’t gone up in several years and so neither has the rent.
DrFistington@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I used to have my own place before my wife and I got married, and she had her own house too. When I moved in with her I decided to rent out my place to a friend, otherwise I’d have to still pay like $650 a month for my mortgage. I set my friends rent at $900 a month for him and a friend, with cats. I paid my mortgage and had some extra to save up in case a repair was needed. Average rent for an apartment (not a house) was 1200-1500 in the same area. My renters ended up taking better care of the house than I ever did. It was beautiful when they lived there. I ended up making about 5k to 10k extra bucks over the course of a few years and my mortgage was paid for me. Eventually they had to move out due to some issues between the two at which point I sold the house and made over six figures, off a house that cost less than $80,000 when I bought it.
See what I did there? I charged a reasonable rent and still made a totally stupid amount of money off of just one property. I wasn’t a goddamn parasite who tried to bleed my tenants for everything they were worth.
People like these total shitbags. They’re the reason why America’s youth have no future
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Every job involves having other people pay for your living costs.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s simple to be successful:
-
have rich parents that can give you money
-
have easy access to loan programs because you’re white and have rich parents
-
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Born on third base. Thinks they hit a triple.
keiznklei@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Henry George’s ideas will catch on again someday, hopefully.