Comment

Comment on When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?

zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Unless your aunt is transferring equity in those homes to the tenants based on the amount they pay in rent, then yes, she’s a leech. “Providing shelter” isn’t the service your aunt is providing; she’s just preventing someone else from owning a home.

And before anyone says “but renting is all some people can afford, they can’t save up enough to make a down payment” - yes, sure, that’s true. But that’s a symptom of the shitty housing market, and landlords aren’t making it any better by hoarding property, even if it’s “just” 3 to 5 townhomes.

source

Sort:hotnew top

mke_geek@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You are incorrect. The service is providing someone a home if they don’t want to own their own or if they don’t have the financial means to do so

No landlords hoard property. The property is used by people.

source
- zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  No landlords hoard property.
  
  Fine, landlords hoard property ownership.
  
  The property is used by people.
  
  As long as the landlord permits it, and as long as the landlord gets their premium.
  
  Landlords profit off of permitting people access to shelter, a basic right that any human should be entitled to. It’s literally modern day feudalism.
  
  source
  - puck2@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Renters hoard property rentership.
    
    source
    nomy@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You have to actually consider what the other person is saying if you want to have a productive conversation. Being snarky or just responding with memes and cliches only distracts from the point being made.
    
    source
  - mke_geek@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    No, landlords earn money by providing a service. Properties don’t maintain themselves.
    
    source
    zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Taking away the opportunity of home ownership is not a service.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
What is a person who made good (or lucky) decisions and made enough money to be comfortable in the present but not so much to retire supposed to do with their money?

Give it to you instead?

Sure, billionaires and X00 millionaires don’t need to exist, but so far as I can tell “leftists” are a .ml / tankie crab bucket. Fuck me for having more money than you but not enough to take the homeless off the street as is my obligation. Please tell me how to keep leftist virtue so I can have ~30 upvotes to retire on.

source
- zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I don’t understand. You think the only two things one can do with excess money is buy real estate, or give that excess to me? I’m flattered to be sure, but there’s a whole lot of other options out there
  
  source
  - puck2@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    She should kick out her tenants and then rotate living between all 3 properties, thereby no longer being a leech.
    
    source
    HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    i don’t know how anyone could survive without at least three properties. it’s a life necessity
    
    source
  - dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I agree, there are lots of options. I’m asking you for the leftist allowable top list.
    
    If I put it in the stock market and make money for nothing, I’m a parasite. If I buy a vacation house and rent it the other 2/3 of a year I’m not using it, I’m a parasite. If I save it and suddenly accrue more than some magic limit, then someone is on the street and I don’t liquidate to them I’m a Taylor Swift parasite.
    
    So I’m asking you: What am I allowed to do with extra money above and beyond what I need to survive the winter, pay for my healthcare, and house myself and my family? 🤔
    
    source
    zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I’ll let you know after the next leftist meeting lmao.
    
    Real talk though, save it, donate it, or spend it. Burn it for all I care. Just don’t buy real estate you don’t plan on living in.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
howrar@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them. Until someone comes along to create government housing or whatever, this is the best we can offer as an individual.

On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?

source
- zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them.
  
  I don’t understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.
  
  On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?
  
  If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.
  
  source
  - howrar@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    I don’t understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.
    
    But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.
    
    If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.
    
    That’s a rather arbitrary rule. You would still need a bunch of stipulations on top of that to make sure it’s fair to the renter.
    
    Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?
    
    Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right? My definition of parasitic requires being a net negative to the “host”. The threshold between parasitic and non-parasitic is at net neutral for both parties, and we’re discussing where that line is.
    
    source
    zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.
    
    Right, because the system is broken.
    
    That’s a rather arbitrary rule.
    
    It’s basically co-ownership, which is already an established way to buy and own a property.
    
    Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?
    
    At the end of your lease, if you choose not to renew, you still have equity in a property which is worth something, rather than ending up with nothing in the current system.
    
    Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right?
    
    The relationship between a landlord (parasite) and a renter (host) is absolutely a net negative, because at the termination of the relationship, the landlord ends up with more than they started with (equity in a property + profit from rent) and the renter ends up with less than they started with (lost money in rent payments).
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
puck2@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s not nice to call people leeches, esp. if you really don’t know anything about them.

source