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 ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Landlords don’t do that. Until they do, they’re parasites.

  Also, I can’t tell if you’ve realized by now, but everything I’ve been describing as ways to make landlording “fair” is just a roundabout description of ownership.

  source

  • howrar@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    We’re not talking about what they currently do though. The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic. Where the threshold lies between parasitic and non-parasitic.

    So far, I understand that you’re convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don’t understand is why*. We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

    • Mainly to understand how a system with such a rule can make sense.

    source

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic.

      Sell their properties to their tenants, or grant tenants equity in the property based on how much they pay in rent (ie, co-ownership).

      So far, I understand that you’re convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don’t understand is why*.

      For an exchange to not be parasitic, both parties must gain something equal to what they lose. This, by definition, means that a renter must be able to pay zero dollars for rent in months where the landlord doesn’t have to make a mortgage payment and doesn’t need to do any maintenance on the property.

      We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

      As I’ve already said, landlords don’t provide a service equivalent to the payment provided, and the indefinite nature of a lease makes it impossible for a landlord to ever provide value equal to what a renter pays. As long as a tenant lives in a rented space, they have to pay a fee for the privilege, even if they’ve paid enough to pay for the mortgage many times over. You can’t convince me that a landlord can provide potentially multiple properties worth of value over the span of a lease.

      source

      • howrar@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Can we keep the context of what we’ve previously discussed instead of rewinding the conversation and repeating ourselves? I thought we agreed earlier that it’s fair for tenants to pay for expenses related to usage of the home and it makes sense to distribute that over time across all tenants.

        […] Imagine being the tenant that moves in just as the roof needs replacing and getting hit with a bill in the tens of thousands for a roof that you’re only going to be using for a year or two.

        Then landlords should send me an itemized invoice that details each of the expenses incurred while I’ve been a tenant, a breakdown detailing how any rent payments cover the cost of those expenses, and a payment plan that we can negotiate to ensure both parties are getting fair deals. […]

        It sounds like you understand now how that number comes about and why it isn’t zero, right?

        […] I’ve already told you I don’t agree. Paying a non-zero amount of rent is always parasitic.

        […] What’s this business about itemized bills to make them fair if the bills are zero?

        Landlords don’t do that. Until they do, they’re parasites. […]

        Did I misunderstand what you’re saying here? I understood it as meaning that an itemized bill for your rent with the ability to negotiate in order to come to a fair deal for both parties is sufficient condition to qualify as non-parasitic.

        You can’t convince me that a landlord can provide potentially multiple properties worth of value over the span of a lease

        Nor would I ever try to because I don’t believe they do either.

        source

        • -> View More Comments