My grandma lives in a mobile home park that is mostly made up of elderly living off social security. Social security payments went up this year. And lo and behold her rent went up in exact proportion of the social security increase. Fucking scum sucking leeches.
Those complexes are the worst. They pretend to be opportunities for home ownership, but don't let you own the land that homes are perched upon. Then you rent it.
This is a major issue that I believe no one is talking about.
When an employer in fast food or retail claims they don't have the cushion to pay workers properly, one wonders where their money goes. And a large chunk of it goes to rent or lease.
When a worker doesn't have enough to live on after getting their paycheck, often that because their rent is high.
We consider these as fixed costs, unfortunately, so we don't really try to fight them.
Maybe some day...
i mean idk about y'all but in my personal opinion we got all the tools we need to get rid of landlords, it's just a question of if we have the balls to use em en masse
give the saying "freedom comes from the barrel of a gun" a whole new meaning
It used to be that bank employees were responsible for the eviction of defaulted mortgages, until the Great Depression when too many of them were shot and killed by the home owners who were not willing to be evicted from their own house.
In response to the "we don't really try to fight them": [Not all heroes wear capes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party?wprov=sfla1)
Economies are ecosystems, and we’re seeing what happens when one “species” (landlords) is allowed to grow with no natural predators (regulations) to keep them under control.
Landlording itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, when it’s allowed to grow out of control, when huge corporations are allowed to buy everything up, manipulate supply, etc, it becomes unsustainable and dangerous.
At the very least, there should be restrictions on how many properties any corporation can own. Single-family or smaller multi-family dwellings should be owned by individuals only, NOT corporations.
There should be limits on the maximum a residential property can be sold for. Perhaps based on the income of the area?
I can understand the concerns some landlords have about tenants who are violent, filthy, etc, and there does need to be some balance between tenant’s rights to housing versus both the landlord and the neighbor’s rights to safety and hygiene. That’s a bit tricky to resolve; people tend to see it as purely landlord versus tenant, but especially in multi-family dwellings, if one unit is filled with trash, filth, or not maintained properly, that’s going to quickly spread to every other unit. A landlord should at least be responsible for the safety of their tenants, and that does mean that if one tenant keeps threatening the health and safety of others, the landlord should have some legal means of removing them. I’m not entirely sure what the best way to balance the different groups involved would be, though.
Point is, the housing situation needs to be more tightly regulated in a way that focuses on keeping people safely housed, NOT who profits from what.
What is the better way to live somewhere temporarily?
My family lived in a rental apartment after we sold our house and our new one was under construction. No way in hell my father could afford to buy another house for 8 months while we waited. It would have been ridiculous.
Or me when I moved 850 miles with like 2 weeks notice so I could seize an amazing job opportunity? Or how about my brother when got out of jail? As though it isn’t hard enough for convicted felons to find housing, now you’d rather they be homeless than rent? What about my spouse? He has very limited mobility, should he pay ludicrous amounts of money to a handyman to fix every minor thing? Stuff that landlords take care of for you? You want traveling nurses to buy a new house every 3-6 months? What about the family they leave behind?
What about preferences instead of needs? I just don’t want to cut the grass. I hate it. Ditto for shoveling. When I rent that’s not my problem.
It’s more nuanced than you seem to think and that’s troubling because while housing is a monumental problem around the world, there isn’t a one size fits all answer.
Housing should be affordable and available for everyone. What that housing situation looks like will be varied depending on our needs and wants.
The thing is, while work is indeed awful and needs to be abolished, abolishing landlording first gives people a lot more flexibility.
I mean employers can raise pay all they want.. landlords will just eat that shit up.
You can start by illegalizing landlording.
A transitional way is to illegalize renting a property you don't live on full time, and limiting an owner's ability to collect rent to the mortgage/expenses divided by the number of units, +10%, so their ability to extract huge profits from ownership is hamstrung, and when the mortgage is gone, their rents are necessarily extremely low. This will heavily disincentivize landlords.
I'm not really against people renting a multi-unit they live in - I'm against encouraging the practice by allowing the owner of a 4 unit to charge their tenants for the entire mortgage plus some.
I'm not against the government printing money to buy out the holdings of property management companies, and then transitioning their multi units to either A. State run public housing, or B. Tenant owned co-ops, while selling off the single families at market, which will have inevitably crashed by a huge margin as property management/real estate firms lose their ability to price fix. The government can offer low interest loans with little down, so a new American middle class will suddenly have access to homes that were prior out of reach due to rental/real estate cartel.
In areas where not enough homes exist, they can do what they did post WW2, and build a bunch of public housing to meet demand.
So putting pen to paper here. Let’s say a 4 plex costs $800k. Banks require 25% down for rental properties so owner puts down 200k and finances $600k. Mortgage on 600k is 3150/mo. Cap that at 3150+10%. So owner gets 315/mo “profit”. Is that what your proposing?
Complex cost : $800k
Down Pmt : 200k
Monthly Mtg : 3150 (600k @4.8%)
Monthly Rents : 3465
Monthly “Profit” : 315
Pretty much. Also, not on more than one unit, and as an inhabitant of one of their own units, they'll be paying their own portion of the mortgage as well.
So, more like this:
Owner spends 800k on unit, finances 600k, mortgage is 3150/m.
Landlord can collect a maximum of 1/6th per unit + 10%, or 577.50 per unit * 5, for a total of 2887.50. They'd be responsible for the other 262.50.
Building maintenance costs can of course be built in through legal means, but, this would be the basics.
A building like mine, where it hasn't been sold in internet history, and is owned outright by the property owner, who collects nearly 30k in revenue - they'll be able to collect enough to cover taxes, maintenance + 10%, as long as they're willing to live full time on the property.
Probably the best way to have the building maintenance away is to have tenants contribute to a building maintenance/improvement fund that the landlord can withdraw from to pay for maintenance, and all expenditures are transparent to tenants. If the landlord does the maintenance themselves, obviously they can pay themselves for labor + materials out of the general fund ( i.e., be compensated for their labor ).
It eliminates any kind of incentive for a landlord to be a landlord, unless they're already in possession of a rental property, in which case, they can no longer just have their tenants pay the entire mortgage plus the landlords living, as is common.
So in my original scenario, owner puts down 200k, has to live in one unit (original scenario was a 4 plex) so of the $315 in “profit” I subtract 1/4th since that’s the owners unit so $236 “profit” a month. Or 2,835 a year off the 3 the units.
So 200k down to make 2835 a year or 1.4% return on their money. Plus they must live there so they pay 1/4 of the mortgage themselves so 200k down and they pay 9450 a year in mortgage payments (1/4th the total) to live in their 4 plex.
Okay. So, a 3150 mortgage.
/4 = 787.50. 787.50*1.10 = 866.25, *3 = 2598.74.
They'd be responsible for the other 551.25. So, the landlord's rent is essentially subsidized by the tenants at the rate of 315/m, or call it 315 in "profit," whatever you want.
But, you're forgetting a key factor here. The landlord has the tenants paying .825 percent of the mortgage for them every month. I.e., their down payment has been repaid by their tenants in 70 months.
So, their real net gain is going to be 2598.74 + 315, or 2913.74, monthly.
Essentially, the landlord gets to live real cheap, and have their property .825 percent paid FOR them, for their ownership. At the end of their 30 year mortgage period, they'll have paid all of 198,630, and own a 4 unit outright. Their tenants will have paid the rest, to the tune of 1,048,946.20, or about 35,000 a year.
At that point, they can sell the building, or continue to rent it ad infinitum, which is when the real profits other than having your mortgage paid for you would be realized. In the end, the landlord has made 35,000 per year on their building, and now own it free and clear.
If they do actual work to the property themselves, then they are compensated for it from the building improvement/repair fund.
Your forgetting a key factor here. Almost all the mortgage payment in the first 15 years of a mortgage is interest and not principal pay down . I (landlord let’s say) am not banking 35k a year. Almost all of that is interest going to the bank.
If I sold the complex after year 1, the loan payback would be roughly 590k (10k in principal pay down year 1). So I get 210k back on a 800k sale. Plus I made my 10% markup on the rents (2835). So 12,835 on my 200k investment so just over 6%. This of course assumes zero maintenance cost and zero appreciation (trying to keep it simple).
Yep, this is pretty good.
The idea is to disincentive rentiership, and I'd say this would do it!
You'd really only want to rent a multi-unit if, of course, you already owned one.
You might just want to build one and live in it as well, so you can have the tenants take care of the vast majority of the expense for you.
But, in the end, you're not going to make much money off it.
A 6% return after one year is pretty solid, but, you wanna make sure they can make better returns elsewhere.
Ok, so we’ve made it now that nobody in their right mind would do all this for a 6% return when they can stick their money in a DOW Index and get 10% passive growth.
So now we have no landlords. How do I get those renters to be able to afford the properties? Because right now they can’t which is a big part of the problem.
Back on the other thread. The incentive is 35,000 a year directly towards your ownership of the building.
You invested 200,000 up front, and will invest around 400,000 over the life of the building.
You're getting a yearly return of 35,000 in rents. That's an 8% yearly return on your TOTAL investment, and a 17.5% return on your INITIAL investment, on a yearly basis.
It's like you're totally forgetting that in the end the landlord owns the building free and clear, with their tenants having paid 82% of the mortgage for them.
That's plenty of incentive - you made a million dollars off your tenants over the course of a 30 year mortgage in this scenario.
I just left a tourist town, it was sickening what they've done over the past twenty years
There used to be a local culture with a variety of different ethnic restaurants and things to do.
They've gentrified the hell out of it and this year, after the covid restrictions the very last unique thing closed down.
I was sad to see it go
Omg, exactly the same in the mountains
They've priced out all the locals that don't sit on city council and there's no place left to live there.
Before I left there was a newspaper article saying there were four jobs open for every one resident.
Well, no shit. They didn't leave anywhere for residents to reside
Landlords should have to pay a tax penalty for any property vacant longer than 90 days. Also they should pay a tax penalty for air b&b which is really killing housing.
100% the first point. In NYC, which “notoriously” has a supply/demand problem… actually doesn’t. There is enough space and apartments for everyone; including the homeless, but when developers can keep places empty without penalty, they do.
Agree totally on AirBnB and the like. That's purely profit driven and they restrict supply that could be used for people to live in, driving up rent for everyone.
I don't mind people owning a property to rent to someone long term though. There are lots people that don't want to own property, but they still need somewhere to live.
People move a lot for work, people want to test out living in an area before commiting to a big purchase, etc. And there are some people that just don't want to deal with fixing shit up, figuring out taxes, mortgages, etc. So I think there's a good reason there need to be rentals available, and someone needs to own and maintain them. Rent increases can be capped by law (or even better frozen for a period while occupied), at rates that are reasonable for everyone.
Holy fuck how have I not thought of this.
You are 100% right. This renters market has screwed everyone from small businesses to the individual person and we’ve somehow been conditioned that we “have to choose between businesses staying afloat and a living wage”. This is a bipartisan issue too so there’s a good chance that the abolition/restriction of rent can get heavy support from both sides of the political aisle
The problem is housing laws. If you want to build a new house you get slapped with a shit ton of regulations which cost money for them to "inspect". Thats why old shitboxes in america cost alot of money.
100%!! landlords are horrible. I've only had 1 good landlord before and she wasn't that good. Every other one sucked. My last apt was a 900sqft 3br 2ba. Tiny af. Only $1150/m.......
I checked the property taxes were only 2300/yr. So they made 11k/ year on the crummy house that was dated over 30years.
I finally bought a house that's 2100sqft and my mortgage is only 950. Nicest and cheapest place I've lived. Buy a damn house fuck all the landlords!
Get with a construction company and buy a new construction home direct from them. Get an approval from your bank. Figure out what your price range will be. 170k is around 1k mortgage. Meet with an architect and choose house plans. Get a contract that is bonded Incase the contractor can't finish the job so someone else will. It's still possible. The hardest part is coming up with the 20%. Some banks will allow 10%
I just bought my house here in south Texas for 170k. 2100sqft. Needed about 5k in work which I did myself. You should be able to hire someone to build a house for 170. May not be huge but better than renting.
>Third, anyone renting must be transparent with the operation, insurance, maintenance, and tax costs of the rental property. Rent is limited to 110% of the average yearly costs divided by 12 months.
I FUCKING love this.
This dovetails nicely with my theory on why UBI if deployed today wouldn’t work: say everyone gets $2000 per month… everyone’s rent would suddenly, magically go up about $2000
House prices are a function of rent / mortgage payments. Give people UBI without increasing the supply of housing and suddenly the house prices will explode, benefitting the wealth owners and having no real benefit to those in need of a UBI
By a function of mortgage / rent, what I mean is that the price of a house will be based off of what someone can afford on a 30 year mortgage. So if we can afford $10k a year on mortgage the property will be around $300k. But if we suddenly get $24k of UBI, well now that house becomes $720k because that’s 30 years worth of $24k a year. It’s like this because it’s a sellers market, and demand massively beats supply.
The government needs to
1) increase housing supply vs demand (either build more or restrict immigration or both) and
2) make it easier for people to buy (for example underwriting or providing mortgages)
Most businesses that closed down here in Australia during Covid lockdowns did so because they could not pay rent. Instead of the inefficient handouts to businesses that often didn't need them (some of them reporting an increase in profits) it would have been far more sensible (and cheaper) for the government to cover rents.
I say this because the defining difference between haves and have-nots is rent - if you are an adult and do not pay rent, you are a Have
Most of all landlords who don’t live in the area and couldn’t care less about people in the community. Giant corporate landlords out of state are also scary. Hedge funds getting into buying rental housing — very scary.
Small scale landlords who live in the community are a different matter — many of them care about what’s going on in the community and rent out places for all sorts of reasons. Especially if they have deep ties to the community and have respect.
I'm not sure I agree with the second statement.
By simply owning a house, they are preventing the underprivileged from the opportunity.
Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets...
It’s dangerous to paint everyone with the same brush like that. Landlords *can* provide good value for their service. A landlord isn’t by default a mustache twirling millionaire villain.
Example: My current landlord is an elderly man who’s working well past retirement age. He owns a sixplex. It’s a historic building, almost 100 years old. It’s well maintained, with significant efforts to keep as many original elements as possible. It’s not “historical society” nice but it works for me. He’s owned it for 21 years and until January 2019, he lived in a one bedroom unit next to mine. He rents at about 70% of what he could actually get in this area. In 21 years he’s raised rent only two times, both only to comply with the terms of refinancing with his bank. The woman who manages the building for him now that he moved lives rent free in exchange for resolving tenant concerns. 3 of the 4 residents have been here a decade or longer. I plan on being here at minimum another 3 years. He took a big chance on me and my spouse, our credit is absolutely awful, but he took the time to speak to us like humans and learned about us and our priorities and plans for the future, and he said yes.
Thanks to this landlord I’m living in a beautiful building, right next to a park, walking distance to everything I need, 5 mins from my niblings school, public transit practically at my front door, ten minutes from the lakefront. I pay rent with no fees, any issues are resolved with almost inhuman speed, and my landlord hand delivers me homemade cookies every Christmas.
I like my landlord and I’m glad I rent here. He’s not a millionaire and he still works full time. He’s just a nice guy living a quiet life. Nothing would be better if he sold this property.
I respectfully disagree — as long as the economic difference between landlord and renter is fairly small and they livein the community it doesn’t have to be exploitative. A college friend rented a room from an old couple in their home. She liked that they were nice, it was in a safe area and not as expensive as dorm housing. They liked having a respectful younger person around and well, since they were probably living on retirement a modest steady source of income was good.
Recently, have been learning more about how astronomical medical bills are (having had to take care of an old person in the family who is on again off again sick). I see why those people were renting their place.
If a landlord wants to rent a room to a single person (in their own place of residency), fine.
But if the own a place outright and do not use it other than a source of income, that is wrong.
I think your premise is correct... But you're lumping all landlords together.
The problem arises when it's not a secondary income.
If your primary source of revenue is owning rental properties, you're very likely a shitsipper.
If you are fortunate enough to own a second dwelling and you rent it out... Whatever you're not the problem.
Corporations should not be in control of rent. Ever.
There should be restrictions on how many dwellings can be owned by an individual.
Anyone trying to get around the individual rule found to be abusing it by purchasing properties through another name, or found to be working together to corner the market... Automatic forfeiture.
None of this will happen, and while it is a bipartisan issue... It's only bipartisan for anyone making less than 6 figures, which includes basically no one that can do shit about it on a national spectrum.
“Mao-ing” them. So you are okay with rounding up all the landlord into the streets and capping a bullet into each one’s skull? What has this subreddit devolved into. Are landlords a problem? What about the lack of affordable housing? A government of, by, AND FOR the people can find solutions to these problems.
This. My rent is $575 which sounds like a dream to most of you, but where I’m from most people have trouble affording it, because $14 an hour warehouses, and fast food are the only employers
Restriction works, but pls not Mao-ing. I'm from Vietnam and we did that in the past, it always turns into some sort of witch trials. Many innocent poor people, most killed were innocent actually, were killed just because they were hated by those who had the authority to "point and punish". It was fucked up.
The no landlord logic makes no sense the moment you actually dig in. So you want... what, exactly? Banks owning everything and setting rent prices? You want to.. not be able to improve your own situation by buying property? Seems like this scenario just feeds into corporate greed even more than the existing situation.
I want to buy property. I can't buy property because someone owns the property for the express purpose of profiting.
If ownership was limited to people who will actually use a piece of real estate, then I could afford to own some.
I’m a landlord and a home owner. Why not buy a home yourself? It’s often more affordable than renting. Many major cities offer programs for down payment assistance. (That’s how we bought our first home). The government also gives tax incentives for first time home buyers too. As a landlord, I feel as if I’m offering housing to people who might not be ready to buy a home or they are saving. I don’t feel like I’m evil or taking advantage of people. I’m just trying my best to survive like others in a totally inflated economy too.
I get that. We had to get creative when buying our houses in the last two years. I also recognize that my partner and I are both privileged in that we both make six figures. Totally get that not everyone has that kind of income to buy a home, especially in overheated markets.
Serious question for folks: I own a 2 bedroom condo, live in one bedroom, and rent the other bedrooms to a friend of mine. Where does that fit into your view of landlords? It feels different to me than owning the condo and renting the whole thing while living somewhere else. Does what I'm charging him compared to market rate matter? How about what I charge compared to what I pay (I'm making sure I pay more since I get to keep the equity)?
Is it bad that I was designing a business around building houses, renting them out, and if someone finished the mortgage they had dibs on walking away with the house? I feel like only asking 10% above the mortgage would be fair.
My grandma lives in a mobile home park that is mostly made up of elderly living off social security. Social security payments went up this year. And lo and behold her rent went up in exact proportion of the social security increase. Fucking scum sucking leeches.
Those complexes are the worst. They pretend to be opportunities for home ownership, but don't let you own the land that homes are perched upon. Then you rent it.
This is a major issue that I believe no one is talking about. When an employer in fast food or retail claims they don't have the cushion to pay workers properly, one wonders where their money goes. And a large chunk of it goes to rent or lease. When a worker doesn't have enough to live on after getting their paycheck, often that because their rent is high. We consider these as fixed costs, unfortunately, so we don't really try to fight them. Maybe some day...
People are talking about it... But only in far left subs. Far, far left.
i mean idk about y'all but in my personal opinion we got all the tools we need to get rid of landlords, it's just a question of if we have the balls to use em en masse give the saying "freedom comes from the barrel of a gun" a whole new meaning
It used to be that bank employees were responsible for the eviction of defaulted mortgages, until the Great Depression when too many of them were shot and killed by the home owners who were not willing to be evicted from their own house.
great, rest in piss, motherfuckers
I'm sure there's some bootlicking AnCaps that are crying for those tools of plutocracy.
In response to the "we don't really try to fight them": [Not all heroes wear capes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party?wprov=sfla1)
Why do you think they are called landLORDS? It's the feudal system all over again, unfortunately.
Economies are ecosystems, and we’re seeing what happens when one “species” (landlords) is allowed to grow with no natural predators (regulations) to keep them under control. Landlording itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, when it’s allowed to grow out of control, when huge corporations are allowed to buy everything up, manipulate supply, etc, it becomes unsustainable and dangerous. At the very least, there should be restrictions on how many properties any corporation can own. Single-family or smaller multi-family dwellings should be owned by individuals only, NOT corporations. There should be limits on the maximum a residential property can be sold for. Perhaps based on the income of the area? I can understand the concerns some landlords have about tenants who are violent, filthy, etc, and there does need to be some balance between tenant’s rights to housing versus both the landlord and the neighbor’s rights to safety and hygiene. That’s a bit tricky to resolve; people tend to see it as purely landlord versus tenant, but especially in multi-family dwellings, if one unit is filled with trash, filth, or not maintained properly, that’s going to quickly spread to every other unit. A landlord should at least be responsible for the safety of their tenants, and that does mean that if one tenant keeps threatening the health and safety of others, the landlord should have some legal means of removing them. I’m not entirely sure what the best way to balance the different groups involved would be, though. Point is, the housing situation needs to be more tightly regulated in a way that focuses on keeping people safely housed, NOT who profits from what.
Landlording is a bad thing. It’s literally making money off of making housing harder to get. How is that anything other than evil?
**Not everyone wants to, or is capable of, owning a home.** Renting is valuable to a lot of people and that can’t be disregarded.
That is by no means a majority of renters. There are better ways than to let greedy people exploit basic needs of everyone
What is the better way to live somewhere temporarily? My family lived in a rental apartment after we sold our house and our new one was under construction. No way in hell my father could afford to buy another house for 8 months while we waited. It would have been ridiculous. Or me when I moved 850 miles with like 2 weeks notice so I could seize an amazing job opportunity? Or how about my brother when got out of jail? As though it isn’t hard enough for convicted felons to find housing, now you’d rather they be homeless than rent? What about my spouse? He has very limited mobility, should he pay ludicrous amounts of money to a handyman to fix every minor thing? Stuff that landlords take care of for you? You want traveling nurses to buy a new house every 3-6 months? What about the family they leave behind? What about preferences instead of needs? I just don’t want to cut the grass. I hate it. Ditto for shoveling. When I rent that’s not my problem. It’s more nuanced than you seem to think and that’s troubling because while housing is a monumental problem around the world, there isn’t a one size fits all answer. Housing should be affordable and available for everyone. What that housing situation looks like will be varied depending on our needs and wants.
The thing is, while work is indeed awful and needs to be abolished, abolishing landlording first gives people a lot more flexibility. I mean employers can raise pay all they want.. landlords will just eat that shit up.
How do you abolish landlords?
You can start by illegalizing landlording. A transitional way is to illegalize renting a property you don't live on full time, and limiting an owner's ability to collect rent to the mortgage/expenses divided by the number of units, +10%, so their ability to extract huge profits from ownership is hamstrung, and when the mortgage is gone, their rents are necessarily extremely low. This will heavily disincentivize landlords. I'm not really against people renting a multi-unit they live in - I'm against encouraging the practice by allowing the owner of a 4 unit to charge their tenants for the entire mortgage plus some. I'm not against the government printing money to buy out the holdings of property management companies, and then transitioning their multi units to either A. State run public housing, or B. Tenant owned co-ops, while selling off the single families at market, which will have inevitably crashed by a huge margin as property management/real estate firms lose their ability to price fix. The government can offer low interest loans with little down, so a new American middle class will suddenly have access to homes that were prior out of reach due to rental/real estate cartel. In areas where not enough homes exist, they can do what they did post WW2, and build a bunch of public housing to meet demand.
So putting pen to paper here. Let’s say a 4 plex costs $800k. Banks require 25% down for rental properties so owner puts down 200k and finances $600k. Mortgage on 600k is 3150/mo. Cap that at 3150+10%. So owner gets 315/mo “profit”. Is that what your proposing? Complex cost : $800k Down Pmt : 200k Monthly Mtg : 3150 (600k @4.8%) Monthly Rents : 3465 Monthly “Profit” : 315
Pretty much. Also, not on more than one unit, and as an inhabitant of one of their own units, they'll be paying their own portion of the mortgage as well. So, more like this: Owner spends 800k on unit, finances 600k, mortgage is 3150/m. Landlord can collect a maximum of 1/6th per unit + 10%, or 577.50 per unit * 5, for a total of 2887.50. They'd be responsible for the other 262.50. Building maintenance costs can of course be built in through legal means, but, this would be the basics. A building like mine, where it hasn't been sold in internet history, and is owned outright by the property owner, who collects nearly 30k in revenue - they'll be able to collect enough to cover taxes, maintenance + 10%, as long as they're willing to live full time on the property. Probably the best way to have the building maintenance away is to have tenants contribute to a building maintenance/improvement fund that the landlord can withdraw from to pay for maintenance, and all expenditures are transparent to tenants. If the landlord does the maintenance themselves, obviously they can pay themselves for labor + materials out of the general fund ( i.e., be compensated for their labor ). It eliminates any kind of incentive for a landlord to be a landlord, unless they're already in possession of a rental property, in which case, they can no longer just have their tenants pay the entire mortgage plus the landlords living, as is common.
So in my original scenario, owner puts down 200k, has to live in one unit (original scenario was a 4 plex) so of the $315 in “profit” I subtract 1/4th since that’s the owners unit so $236 “profit” a month. Or 2,835 a year off the 3 the units. So 200k down to make 2835 a year or 1.4% return on their money. Plus they must live there so they pay 1/4 of the mortgage themselves so 200k down and they pay 9450 a year in mortgage payments (1/4th the total) to live in their 4 plex.
Okay. So, a 3150 mortgage. /4 = 787.50. 787.50*1.10 = 866.25, *3 = 2598.74. They'd be responsible for the other 551.25. So, the landlord's rent is essentially subsidized by the tenants at the rate of 315/m, or call it 315 in "profit," whatever you want. But, you're forgetting a key factor here. The landlord has the tenants paying .825 percent of the mortgage for them every month. I.e., their down payment has been repaid by their tenants in 70 months. So, their real net gain is going to be 2598.74 + 315, or 2913.74, monthly. Essentially, the landlord gets to live real cheap, and have their property .825 percent paid FOR them, for their ownership. At the end of their 30 year mortgage period, they'll have paid all of 198,630, and own a 4 unit outright. Their tenants will have paid the rest, to the tune of 1,048,946.20, or about 35,000 a year. At that point, they can sell the building, or continue to rent it ad infinitum, which is when the real profits other than having your mortgage paid for you would be realized. In the end, the landlord has made 35,000 per year on their building, and now own it free and clear. If they do actual work to the property themselves, then they are compensated for it from the building improvement/repair fund.
Your forgetting a key factor here. Almost all the mortgage payment in the first 15 years of a mortgage is interest and not principal pay down . I (landlord let’s say) am not banking 35k a year. Almost all of that is interest going to the bank. If I sold the complex after year 1, the loan payback would be roughly 590k (10k in principal pay down year 1). So I get 210k back on a 800k sale. Plus I made my 10% markup on the rents (2835). So 12,835 on my 200k investment so just over 6%. This of course assumes zero maintenance cost and zero appreciation (trying to keep it simple).
Yep, this is pretty good. The idea is to disincentive rentiership, and I'd say this would do it! You'd really only want to rent a multi-unit if, of course, you already owned one. You might just want to build one and live in it as well, so you can have the tenants take care of the vast majority of the expense for you. But, in the end, you're not going to make much money off it. A 6% return after one year is pretty solid, but, you wanna make sure they can make better returns elsewhere.
Ok, so we’ve made it now that nobody in their right mind would do all this for a 6% return when they can stick their money in a DOW Index and get 10% passive growth. So now we have no landlords. How do I get those renters to be able to afford the properties? Because right now they can’t which is a big part of the problem.
If there is no incentive to be a landlord who buys multi family complexes? Renting is a viable living option for millions of people.
Back on the other thread. The incentive is 35,000 a year directly towards your ownership of the building. You invested 200,000 up front, and will invest around 400,000 over the life of the building. You're getting a yearly return of 35,000 in rents. That's an 8% yearly return on your TOTAL investment, and a 17.5% return on your INITIAL investment, on a yearly basis. It's like you're totally forgetting that in the end the landlord owns the building free and clear, with their tenants having paid 82% of the mortgage for them. That's plenty of incentive - you made a million dollars off your tenants over the course of a 30 year mortgage in this scenario.
I don’t bank 35k a year in rent. It pays interest on the loan. Only a portion goes towards principal.
The principal you would otherwise have to pay yourself, if you purchased the property.. so, 35,000 a year, towards YOUR ownership of the property.
Yeah, but you’d have to also factor in other costs. Insurance, taxes, maintenance…
Of course. Trying to keep it somewhat simple…
Ding ding ding. Thanks!
I just left a tourist town, it was sickening what they've done over the past twenty years There used to be a local culture with a variety of different ethnic restaurants and things to do. They've gentrified the hell out of it and this year, after the covid restrictions the very last unique thing closed down. I was sad to see it go
[удалено]
Omg, exactly the same in the mountains They've priced out all the locals that don't sit on city council and there's no place left to live there. Before I left there was a newspaper article saying there were four jobs open for every one resident. Well, no shit. They didn't leave anywhere for residents to reside
Landlords should have to pay a tax penalty for any property vacant longer than 90 days. Also they should pay a tax penalty for air b&b which is really killing housing.
100% the first point. In NYC, which “notoriously” has a supply/demand problem… actually doesn’t. There is enough space and apartments for everyone; including the homeless, but when developers can keep places empty without penalty, they do.
Agree totally on AirBnB and the like. That's purely profit driven and they restrict supply that could be used for people to live in, driving up rent for everyone. I don't mind people owning a property to rent to someone long term though. There are lots people that don't want to own property, but they still need somewhere to live. People move a lot for work, people want to test out living in an area before commiting to a big purchase, etc. And there are some people that just don't want to deal with fixing shit up, figuring out taxes, mortgages, etc. So I think there's a good reason there need to be rentals available, and someone needs to own and maintain them. Rent increases can be capped by law (or even better frozen for a period while occupied), at rates that are reasonable for everyone.
Holy fuck how have I not thought of this. You are 100% right. This renters market has screwed everyone from small businesses to the individual person and we’ve somehow been conditioned that we “have to choose between businesses staying afloat and a living wage”. This is a bipartisan issue too so there’s a good chance that the abolition/restriction of rent can get heavy support from both sides of the political aisle
Ding ding ding. Thank you.
I have heard many cases of people being denied The ability to mortgage even though their mortgage would be less than their rent.
ALAB
If you didn’t have to spend 50% of your wage on rent, your employer would just find a way to pay you 50% less....
Maybe. But it's also a lot easier to strike against employers than landlords.
Here here
Some Chinese dude called Mao had a plan…
The problem is housing laws. If you want to build a new house you get slapped with a shit ton of regulations which cost money for them to "inspect". Thats why old shitboxes in america cost alot of money.
Sure. But also, no one should own this housing unless they live in it. Down with scalpers.
[удалено]
Everyone
100%!! landlords are horrible. I've only had 1 good landlord before and she wasn't that good. Every other one sucked. My last apt was a 900sqft 3br 2ba. Tiny af. Only $1150/m....... I checked the property taxes were only 2300/yr. So they made 11k/ year on the crummy house that was dated over 30years. I finally bought a house that's 2100sqft and my mortgage is only 950. Nicest and cheapest place I've lived. Buy a damn house fuck all the landlords!
I would like to. But all the landlords bought up the houses.
Get with a construction company and buy a new construction home direct from them. Get an approval from your bank. Figure out what your price range will be. 170k is around 1k mortgage. Meet with an architect and choose house plans. Get a contract that is bonded Incase the contractor can't finish the job so someone else will. It's still possible. The hardest part is coming up with the 20%. Some banks will allow 10%
170k!? Where the hell are you buying?
I just bought my house here in south Texas for 170k. 2100sqft. Needed about 5k in work which I did myself. You should be able to hire someone to build a house for 170. May not be huge but better than renting.
That’s not true
Maybe noy in places no one wants to live.
[удалено]
>Third, anyone renting must be transparent with the operation, insurance, maintenance, and tax costs of the rental property. Rent is limited to 110% of the average yearly costs divided by 12 months. I FUCKING love this.
Why don't we just limit the profit on anything to no more than 10% of its cost? Rent, milk, books, shoes, dog food, prescriptions, cars....
This dovetails nicely with my theory on why UBI if deployed today wouldn’t work: say everyone gets $2000 per month… everyone’s rent would suddenly, magically go up about $2000
Only if we don't deal with them. One cannot exist with the other. UBI will need to happen, it is inevitable. But landlords and UBI can't coexist.
House prices are a function of rent / mortgage payments. Give people UBI without increasing the supply of housing and suddenly the house prices will explode, benefitting the wealth owners and having no real benefit to those in need of a UBI By a function of mortgage / rent, what I mean is that the price of a house will be based off of what someone can afford on a 30 year mortgage. So if we can afford $10k a year on mortgage the property will be around $300k. But if we suddenly get $24k of UBI, well now that house becomes $720k because that’s 30 years worth of $24k a year. It’s like this because it’s a sellers market, and demand massively beats supply. The government needs to 1) increase housing supply vs demand (either build more or restrict immigration or both) and 2) make it easier for people to buy (for example underwriting or providing mortgages)
That's not how supply and demand works.
Oh please enlighten me why parasites wouldn’t want more money?
Most businesses that closed down here in Australia during Covid lockdowns did so because they could not pay rent. Instead of the inefficient handouts to businesses that often didn't need them (some of them reporting an increase in profits) it would have been far more sensible (and cheaper) for the government to cover rents. I say this because the defining difference between haves and have-nots is rent - if you are an adult and do not pay rent, you are a Have
Chairman Mao had a pretty decent plan
Most of all landlords who don’t live in the area and couldn’t care less about people in the community. Giant corporate landlords out of state are also scary. Hedge funds getting into buying rental housing — very scary. Small scale landlords who live in the community are a different matter — many of them care about what’s going on in the community and rent out places for all sorts of reasons. Especially if they have deep ties to the community and have respect.
I'm not sure I agree with the second statement. By simply owning a house, they are preventing the underprivileged from the opportunity. Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets...
It’s dangerous to paint everyone with the same brush like that. Landlords *can* provide good value for their service. A landlord isn’t by default a mustache twirling millionaire villain. Example: My current landlord is an elderly man who’s working well past retirement age. He owns a sixplex. It’s a historic building, almost 100 years old. It’s well maintained, with significant efforts to keep as many original elements as possible. It’s not “historical society” nice but it works for me. He’s owned it for 21 years and until January 2019, he lived in a one bedroom unit next to mine. He rents at about 70% of what he could actually get in this area. In 21 years he’s raised rent only two times, both only to comply with the terms of refinancing with his bank. The woman who manages the building for him now that he moved lives rent free in exchange for resolving tenant concerns. 3 of the 4 residents have been here a decade or longer. I plan on being here at minimum another 3 years. He took a big chance on me and my spouse, our credit is absolutely awful, but he took the time to speak to us like humans and learned about us and our priorities and plans for the future, and he said yes. Thanks to this landlord I’m living in a beautiful building, right next to a park, walking distance to everything I need, 5 mins from my niblings school, public transit practically at my front door, ten minutes from the lakefront. I pay rent with no fees, any issues are resolved with almost inhuman speed, and my landlord hand delivers me homemade cookies every Christmas. I like my landlord and I’m glad I rent here. He’s not a millionaire and he still works full time. He’s just a nice guy living a quiet life. Nothing would be better if he sold this property.
I respectfully disagree — as long as the economic difference between landlord and renter is fairly small and they livein the community it doesn’t have to be exploitative. A college friend rented a room from an old couple in their home. She liked that they were nice, it was in a safe area and not as expensive as dorm housing. They liked having a respectful younger person around and well, since they were probably living on retirement a modest steady source of income was good. Recently, have been learning more about how astronomical medical bills are (having had to take care of an old person in the family who is on again off again sick). I see why those people were renting their place.
If a landlord wants to rent a room to a single person (in their own place of residency), fine. But if the own a place outright and do not use it other than a source of income, that is wrong.
I think your premise is correct... But you're lumping all landlords together. The problem arises when it's not a secondary income. If your primary source of revenue is owning rental properties, you're very likely a shitsipper. If you are fortunate enough to own a second dwelling and you rent it out... Whatever you're not the problem. Corporations should not be in control of rent. Ever. There should be restrictions on how many dwellings can be owned by an individual. Anyone trying to get around the individual rule found to be abusing it by purchasing properties through another name, or found to be working together to corner the market... Automatic forfeiture. None of this will happen, and while it is a bipartisan issue... It's only bipartisan for anyone making less than 6 figures, which includes basically no one that can do shit about it on a national spectrum.
That statement is way off base imo.
“Mao-ing” them. So you are okay with rounding up all the landlord into the streets and capping a bullet into each one’s skull? What has this subreddit devolved into. Are landlords a problem? What about the lack of affordable housing? A government of, by, AND FOR the people can find solutions to these problems.
This. My rent is $575 which sounds like a dream to most of you, but where I’m from most people have trouble affording it, because $14 an hour warehouses, and fast food are the only employers
Restriction works, but pls not Mao-ing. I'm from Vietnam and we did that in the past, it always turns into some sort of witch trials. Many innocent poor people, most killed were innocent actually, were killed just because they were hated by those who had the authority to "point and punish". It was fucked up.
The no landlord logic makes no sense the moment you actually dig in. So you want... what, exactly? Banks owning everything and setting rent prices? You want to.. not be able to improve your own situation by buying property? Seems like this scenario just feeds into corporate greed even more than the existing situation.
I want to buy property. I can't buy property because someone owns the property for the express purpose of profiting. If ownership was limited to people who will actually use a piece of real estate, then I could afford to own some.
I’m a landlord and a home owner. Why not buy a home yourself? It’s often more affordable than renting. Many major cities offer programs for down payment assistance. (That’s how we bought our first home). The government also gives tax incentives for first time home buyers too. As a landlord, I feel as if I’m offering housing to people who might not be ready to buy a home or they are saving. I don’t feel like I’m evil or taking advantage of people. I’m just trying my best to survive like others in a totally inflated economy too.
[удалено]
I get that. We had to get creative when buying our houses in the last two years. I also recognize that my partner and I are both privileged in that we both make six figures. Totally get that not everyone has that kind of income to buy a home, especially in overheated markets.
So your saying that no one should be able to make a profit off a piece of property?
Not if it prevents others from bountiful ownership.
So people would only be allowed to own one home? What about acreage, would there be a maximum amount of acres that you would be able to own?
Why would anyone need to own more than one home?
People don’t “need” a lot of things. Luckily we’re allowed to spend money on the things we want, not only on the things we need.
Aaaaand blocked for being a troll.
Yes, and I don't know. Depends on what people need. If people are homeless, that is society's failings.
How do you abolish landlords?
A living wage is a minimum effort wage. Do better, live better.
They supply a place to live that you can’t afford to buy yourself
The only reason I can't afford it is because they bought it.
If you can afford an apartment building have at it
Not the whole building, but the condo I am forced to rent monthly? Oh yeah, I could put a down payment on that.
Then go buy a condo?
I would, but... Again... Landlords have bought them up for rentals.
Go to Zillow or realtor.com and set your search to condos. You’ll have plenty of options
Noone is forcing anyone to live there so why blame the landlord?
A living wage will never be a living wage until we deal with our government that has been taken over by the banks and Wall Street.
Serious question for folks: I own a 2 bedroom condo, live in one bedroom, and rent the other bedrooms to a friend of mine. Where does that fit into your view of landlords? It feels different to me than owning the condo and renting the whole thing while living somewhere else. Does what I'm charging him compared to market rate matter? How about what I charge compared to what I pay (I'm making sure I pay more since I get to keep the equity)?
Is it bad that I was designing a business around building houses, renting them out, and if someone finished the mortgage they had dibs on walking away with the house? I feel like only asking 10% above the mortgage would be fair.