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?

<- View Parent

zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Here’s my point: if landlords change basically everything about how “renting” works so that it’s basically indistinguishable from property ownership from the tenant’s point of view, they’d qualify to be non-parasitic.

source

Sort:hotnew top

howrar@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Yes, you’ve already said this but it doesn’t answer the question. Repeating yourself won’t change that. What I asked when I originally responded to you was why the simpler alternative of renting at cost isn’t acceptable. So far, you’ve told me

A tenant never gains anything once the terms of the lease expire […] as long as the price of rent is a positive number.

[…] Paying a non-zero amount of rent is always parasitic.

Which can mean any of the following:

There are no costs associated with renting so at-cost is 0

You are not aware of what there is to gain from renting over owning

You do not need those benefits yourself and therefore no one else does either

You disagree with the concept of money being an abstraction for physical goods and human labour (There’s something special about owning home equity that is different from having the money to buy that same equity and that can’t be translated to a monetary value?)

I’ll rule out #1 because you also said

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.

Which means you do acknowledge the existence of a cost to rental units.

So what is it that you don’t agree with? Is it one of the things I’ve listed, or did I miss something?
source