Imo they’re actually right. Landlords who charge above costs are leeches. But if the rent is costs (mortgage and HOA in this case), then it’s as fair a deal as possible. Owner gets the property and its risks (damage, depreciation, default) in exchange for their initial capital outlay. Renter gets a place to stay in exchange for (what I’d assume to be) a relatively stable reasonable rent.
I’ll be polite because I know most hexbears here won’t be (please comrades don’t dunk much on this person, I mean it).
As fair deal as possible would be rent at production + maintenance costs, anything above this goes in the form of assets to the homeowner, which implies a wealth extraction from literal war refugees to a local with a house. There are no risks of depreciation in social housing for example because there’s no “market value”, only production + maintenance, which are fairly constant, and default + damage should be socialized costs as much as falling to the ground and breaking your arm on the street, even if you’re drunk, should be paid for by society.
Appreciate the restraint and fully agree with you on what should be. My struggle is just to thread the needle between what should be and what’s possible with the systems we have in place.
instead of rent you sell non-voting shares in a company that owns the property and anyone who was ever a “renter” is entitled to a dividend if you ever sell proportional to their contribution to the mortgage and maintenance, or a discount if you sell to them.
uhhhh contact your state’s bar association i guess? i don’t remember what specialty of lawyer you need for it. I haven’t seen a template around, just general ideas for ways to entitle renters to a fair-ish share of the equity that’s built.
an S-corp would be sufficient but there might be more purposeful arrangements. maybe steal some bylaw phrasing from co-ops.
Well, yes, the question is also about what’s possible with the systems in place. When examining the housing and rent market all over the western capitalist world, a plurality of political ideologices, parties and ethnicities has led to essentially the same problems taking place everywhere. If all politicians of all signs can’t formulate meaningful response, and no liberal democracy can solve the issue of housing, maybe the problem is more systemic than it is about policy.
In contrast, China has 95+% of home ownership rate, Cuban university students get free housing, and the Soviet Union had universal housing at an average rent of 3% of the monthly income.
My point is that it’s not that we need to innovate in policy and formulate new ideas, what we need is systemic change and immense pressure on the owning class, both of which can only be achieved through worker organizing in unions and in socialist/communist parties.
Ah yes, the ‘risks’ of property ownership, which is why housing is a hoarded asset in capitalist countries. You’d think if it was so ‘risky’ you wouldn’t see capitalists buy up entire swaths of housing stock, but what do I know?
When you pay rent, your net worth goes down. When you pay mortgage, your net worth goes up.
Those risks are negligible.
The only way for a landlord not to be a leech is for it to be socialized housing owned by the government. With council housing in the UK, the rent was very reasonable, and that money went into building more houses. Or if you’re an individual landlord, rent to own, so their net worth goes up with payments as well.
It’s also presumably possible to set up some sort of profit-sharing scheme whereby the tenant is entitled to some share of the increase in equity, though I’ve never heard of such a thing being done.
Okay, so I’m the owner. I buy the house at price X in 2026. My 30 year mortgage payment A = (X + interest - down payment)/n, where n is the number of paying periods in 30 years.
Let’s say A is equal to the rent that I set on the tenant(s). Over 30 years, the tenant(s) have paid X + interest, correct? Since they’re been paying an amount equal to the mortgage payment. That amount encapsulates the risks because it includes the interest. In total, by 2056, I will have paid off the mortgage
So if in 2056 I sell the house for exactly X (imagine the property hasn’t gained value at all) I’ll have profited X - down payment dollars. If I was savvier, I would’ve held on for a bit longer to pay off the down payment, too, or set the rent higher. At no point did I do any work, the tenant(s) paid off my investment and the risk was always on them. This argument holds even if I don’t wait until 2056 and sell the house before then with the equity that I have built off of my tenants’ payments.
Ergo, landlords are leeches that provide absolutely 0 value and do nothing but hoard and drive up the cost of housing. The only way for this to be fair is if the tenants get equity instead of the landlord while they’re renting, but that’d mean landlords wouldn’t stand to gain anything (which makes sense because they provide nothing anyway)
Imo they’re actually right. Landlords who charge above costs are leeches. But if the rent is costs (mortgage and HOA in this case), then it’s as fair a deal as possible. Owner gets the property and its risks (damage, depreciation, default) in exchange for their initial capital outlay. Renter gets a place to stay in exchange for (what I’d assume to be) a relatively stable reasonable rent.
I’ll be polite because I know most hexbears here won’t be (please comrades don’t dunk much on this person, I mean it).
As fair deal as possible would be rent at production + maintenance costs, anything above this goes in the form of assets to the homeowner, which implies a wealth extraction from literal war refugees to a local with a house. There are no risks of depreciation in social housing for example because there’s no “market value”, only production + maintenance, which are fairly constant, and default + damage should be socialized costs as much as falling to the ground and breaking your arm on the street, even if you’re drunk, should be paid for by society.
Appreciate the restraint and fully agree with you on what should be. My struggle is just to thread the needle between what should be and what’s possible with the systems we have in place.
instead of rent you sell non-voting shares in a company that owns the property and anyone who was ever a “renter” is entitled to a dividend if you ever sell proportional to their contribution to the mortgage and maintenance, or a discount if you sell to them.
Almost a rental-coop hybrid model
Is there a resource where I can learn about how to do something like this with my inheritance?
uhhhh contact your state’s bar association i guess? i don’t remember what specialty of lawyer you need for it. I haven’t seen a template around, just general ideas for ways to entitle renters to a fair-ish share of the equity that’s built.
an S-corp would be sufficient but there might be more purposeful arrangements. maybe steal some bylaw phrasing from co-ops.
That’s genius. Works in our capitalist hellscape and gives people ownership to a degree even while renting.
Well, yes, the question is also about what’s possible with the systems in place. When examining the housing and rent market all over the western capitalist world, a plurality of political ideologices, parties and ethnicities has led to essentially the same problems taking place everywhere. If all politicians of all signs can’t formulate meaningful response, and no liberal democracy can solve the issue of housing, maybe the problem is more systemic than it is about policy.
In contrast, China has 95+% of home ownership rate, Cuban university students get free housing, and the Soviet Union had universal housing at an average rent of 3% of the monthly income.
My point is that it’s not that we need to innovate in policy and formulate new ideas, what we need is systemic change and immense pressure on the owning class, both of which can only be achieved through worker organizing in unions and in socialist/communist parties.
DON’T YOU FUCKING PEASANTS UNDERSTAND THE RISK I’M TAKING???
I COULD END UP LIKE YOU!!!
For the love of God, please learn what equity is. Money paid into a mortgage doesn’t just vanish.
i swear too many people think a mortgage is just “rent that ends”
Ah yes, the ‘risks’ of property ownership, which is why housing is a hoarded asset in capitalist countries. You’d think if it was so ‘risky’ you wouldn’t see capitalists buy up entire swaths of housing stock, but what do I know?
When you pay rent, your net worth goes down. When you pay mortgage, your net worth goes up.
Those risks are negligible.
The only way for a landlord not to be a leech is for it to be socialized housing owned by the government. With council housing in the UK, the rent was very reasonable, and that money went into building more houses. Or if you’re an individual landlord, rent to own, so their net worth goes up with payments as well.
It’s also presumably possible to set up some sort of profit-sharing scheme whereby the tenant is entitled to some share of the increase in equity, though I’ve never heard of such a thing being done.
When landlord pays mortgage from the rent they receive their liability goes down (Mortgage Account), net worth goes up.
When tenant pays rent, it’s simply expensed, their net worth goes down from before payment assuming other things are same.
Okay, so I’m the owner. I buy the house at price X in 2026. My 30 year mortgage payment A = (X + interest - down payment)/n, where n is the number of paying periods in 30 years.
Let’s say A is equal to the rent that I set on the tenant(s). Over 30 years, the tenant(s) have paid X + interest, correct? Since they’re been paying an amount equal to the mortgage payment. That amount encapsulates the risks because it includes the interest. In total, by 2056, I will have paid off the mortgage
So if in 2056 I sell the house for exactly X (imagine the property hasn’t gained value at all) I’ll have profited X - down payment dollars. If I was savvier, I would’ve held on for a bit longer to pay off the down payment, too, or set the rent higher. At no point did I do any work, the tenant(s) paid off my investment and the risk was always on them. This argument holds even if I don’t wait until 2056 and sell the house before then with the equity that I have built off of my tenants’ payments.
Ergo, landlords are leeches that provide absolutely 0 value and do nothing but hoard and drive up the cost of housing. The only way for this to be fair is if the tenants get equity instead of the landlord while they’re renting, but that’d mean landlords wouldn’t stand to gain anything (which makes sense because they provide nothing anyway)
What do you think about China’s handling of housing?
and the owner gets to pay off the bank and keep the house while doing no work WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU
vovchik asked us to be nice and this is as nice as I can be
Still a leech tbh