• mycodesucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes, this is a satire account, but I’ve heard the exact same crap from so-called “small landlords” who think clearly the problem is someone else.

    Every small contributor that makes up the bulk of the problem thinks the REAL problem is the one that’s bigger than them and they’re the small potatoes, or the good one.

    This applies to EVERYTHING. Not just property.

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      There should be nothing wrong with owning multiple houses. But your property tax should be adjusted on every house you own depending on the number of houses that own. It should be completely cost prohibitive at a certain point to own more than 2 or 3 homes. It should kick in after a year or two, so that it gives people more than enough time to purchase a new home, fix it up or renovate, and then time to sell the previous house. Owning houses shouldn’t be a profit-making venture.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s like… I try to think of what an “ethical landlord” might look like, and I just can’t picture it. Realistically the only “”“service”“” they provide is not having to save for a down payment and fixing things that break*(I know they don’t, but I’m trying to imagine what it would take for one to be ethical, so they actually would be in this hypothetical)*. The things a land lord will take care the ability of their tenants to build equity. That’s the benefit of owning. Pro-landlord people will say landlords take the risk of property values decreasing, but that’s pretty rare. Especially considering landlords inherently are taking up stock. So to be generous I’ll assume property value is static.

      Even in this crazy optimistic, crazy generous hypothetical, land lords still rob tenants of equity because they aren’t able to get a down payment together. The only thing I can see making it fair is the landlord gives that equity back, either by charging exactly what the property’s mortgage is or transferring a portion of the ownership over every payment and… Now wait a second… This sounds like… BANKS. A MORTGAGE. Seriously. Every time I try to imagine what it would take to really really be an ethical landlord it just comes back to being a bank or mortgage.

      Maybe there’s some place for folks to act as very very small banks and give a mortgage to someone like this, but like… It’s so convoluted.

      TLDR: I view them as leeches even when I’m giving them every benefit of the doubt in a favorable hypothetical.